I have an idea for a Social RPG, set with the Pathfinder rules. It would be in a giant Steampunk-era city (Waterdeep), and Players will be a variety of locals who are going to conduct some detective work, in addition to their day jobs.
The biggest problem I see is a lot of the NPC classes are inferior to each other. I'm alright with Commoner being very base and simple, behind all the others. However, the Aristocrat seems like such a great concept, but they are effectively an Expert with less skill points per level (4+INT instead of 6+INT).
I looked into the third party Courtesan, which is alright, but still lags behind the Expert.
I plan on the game being practically no combat. Everything will be solved via RP and skill challenges, along with puzzles and riddles. Each Player will also have to run some manner of career, to see how well they are prospering within the city, which will have consequences based on success v failure or what business ventures they go into.
So, My questions are thus: What would you recommend to even out these classes a bit? I'm alright with the Adept, the Expert, and the Warrior, but would definitely like to re-work the Aristocrat and maybe the Commoner. Also, do you have any other class ideas that would work well in the mix?
Don’t forget the aristocrat’s better base in feats. They have fewer skill points but they are proficient in martial weapons, all types of armor, and all shields.
Eberron (D&D 3) had another NPC class, the magewright. I think there was a 'noble' class in the Dragonlance campaign setting. There are a few 'NPC' archetypes that Paizo's made, notably the Phantom Thief for the rogue and several follower types.
Like OmniMage said tho' - why? You could use any class for the NPCs, not just the deliberately nerfed NPC classes. If you want some structure to it take the vigilante and use the social identity only - they really are what they seem to be.
First of all the NPC classes are not supposed to be equal. While the idea that everyone is equal is a nice idea and the basis for our culture that is often not the case even in modern society, but historically that is not reality. Someone of a higher social standing often has numerous advantages over someone from a lower standing.
Second of all the aristocrat is actually stronger than the expert. Sure the expert gets more skills, but they have a very limited number of class skills. An expert only gets 10 skills as class skills and each craft, knowledge, perform, or profession counts as a separate skill. An aristocrat on the other hand gets a list of 16 skills including all craft, knowledge, perform and professions as class skills. As Bill Dunn pointed out they also get proficiency in all martial weapons and armor. If you actually build both classes to around 6th level the aristocrat is actually a lot more powerful.
Even when it comes to skills the aristocrat will have a bit of an advantage. Let’s say I want to build up a NPC teacher. If I use the expert he will have to choose the majority of his 10 skills as knowledge skills and maybe professional skills. Because I want to be able to teach on any subject I will want as many knowledge skills as class skills as I can get. I will also want professional skill teacher. This means I have one knowledge skill that is not a class skill and no other class skills.
If I build the same character with the aristocrat I can put a single point into a couple of useful skills to get a more useful character. The aristocrat will be able to do more even though his knowledge skills may have slightly less. He probably has put points into things like diplomacy, perception, ride, sense motive, and maybe a second professional skill.
Eberron (D&D 3) had another NPC class, the magewright. I think there was a 'noble' class in the Dragonlance campaign setting. There are a few 'NPC' archetypes that Paizo's made, notably the Phantom Thief for the rogue and several follower types.
Exactly what I was after, thanks a bunch.
First of all the NPC classes are not supposed to be equal. While the idea that everyone is equal is a nice idea and the basis for our culture that is often not the case even in modern society, but historically that is not reality.
I'm not one to argue that not all people are built equally, that's not the intent of the posting. I just want all options available for my Players, and if their concept for a fun character is the Farmer (Commoner), I don't want them punished for it.
Good to know the Aristocrat evens out with the Expert, I didn't factor in armor and weapons since it's mostly a social game.
What I did decide on, and please tell me if this gets too OP or not, is to give both the Aristocrat and the Commoner one special ability: Each class gets to reroll any gather informations checks (advantage) when speaking amongst their own kind. In 5E, I believe I heard rerolling described as amounting to an effective +5.
Do you think, if I go with this concept, I should limit it to just the two classes, or should all NPC classes gain the bonus?
I also intend, maybe past fifth or tenth level, to allow Players to begin taking Adventurer Class levels, and retraining their previous levels; at that point, they can stop being "common" and start becoming "heroes."
As for the Vigilante, I'm thinking my initial antagonist is going to be one, so I'm limiting the Players in that they cannot take that as a class. It is very likely that I will allow Players to retrain into a Vigilante earlier than those who will become Adventurer Classes, if they even decide they want to go the whole adventurer-route.
NPC classes are designed for just that NPC’s not players. They are purposely designed to be worse than the PC classes. Anything you can build with an NPC class can be built better with a PC class. Rogues and a few other classes work very well for this. Don’t get hung up of the class. Instead look at the abilities and the skills the class has. You don’t have to have aristocrat written in the class of your character to be one.
Agreed, and I want the Players to be worse than regular PC classes. Likely they'll have to fight PC classes of equal level (at some point), which will be a huge challenge for them. My only goal here is to make the NPC classes close to being "on par" with each other and equally fun to play in this campaign.
AVR, looking at the Noble and the Magewright, both seem great. I may have characters start as the base NPC classes, until fourth level, at which point they become "prestige base classes." So Aristocrat could become a Noble, Adept could become a Magewright, etc. Any thoughts on what an Expert or Commoner could become at this pseudo-prestige level?
Actually, other than Spell Mastery, there is no difference between Adept and Magewright, lol.
I still don't get why any DM would want to voluntarily hamstring his players by requiring them to play NPC classes, which are not intended for PCs. That's just cruel. Even if you later allow retraining of those levels. And why the players would accept such constraints, even with the pitch that it would be a roleplaying-heavy campaign.
You do know that any PC class *can* actually get involved in roleplaying, right? They don't *have* to be murderhobos just because they have class abilities which make them suited to combat.
I have an alternative suggestion: limit them to a short list of core PC classes (and maybe a few others, if you really like them), give them an ungenerous 15 or maybe 20 point build, and start them at 1st level, with very slow progression planned in the campaign. If they get into a roleplay-centric campaign, it could be a lot of fun for them, without having to limp and stagger through the constraints of NPC classes.
I still don't get why any DM would want to voluntarily hamstring his players by requiring them to play NPC classes, which are not intended for PCs. That's just cruel. Even if you later allow retraining of those levels. And why the players would accept such constraints, even with the pitch that it would be a roleplaying-heavy campaign.
{. . .}
Actually, Paizo has already done something like this. Later, including retraining to PC classes.
Separately from the original poster's idea for having PCs have NPC classes, D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana had a Generic Class (Warrior/Expert/Spellcaster) alternate class system, although I haven't heard of anybody actually using this, and it seemed rather short on "bonus feats" for making this actually work right.
Separately from both of the abobve, I have had a wish to upgrade the NPC classes in a setting in which characters have normal PC classes, to make them not be pushovers for the PCs. Alternatively, NPC classes would be transformed into the PC race equivalent of racial hit dice (so that nobody would be "0 hit dice"), and would gain some foundation abilities that you would build your PC class levels on top of -- and PC base classes would become like prestige classes with very low level entry requirements.
I still don't get why any DM would want to voluntarily hamstring his players by requiring them to play NPC classes, which are not intended for PCs. That's just cruel.
Clearly not the campaign for you, but we all think it sounds like a lot of fun. It's not about heroes or fighting prowess, and to a strong degree my goal is to eliminate that as an option. Think of this as the view from the "other side" of adventuring. This is the townsfolk doing the work rather than the adventurer.
I have had a wish to upgrade the NPC classes in a setting in which characters have normal PC classes, to make them not be pushovers for the PCs. Alternatively, NPC classes would be transformed into the PC race equivalent of racial hit dice (so that nobody would be "0 hit dice"), and would gain some foundation abilities that you would build your PC class levels on top of -- and PC base classes would become like prestige classes with very low level entry requirements.
You definitely see things my way, and I entirely agree. I'll look into the Generic Class, which I do slightly remember. Like you said, I can't recall anyone ever playing it, maybe this will be a reason to. Thanks for your input, gives me a few more directions to look at.
To expand on the first variant my third idea above, the idea I had for a quick and dirty upgrade (possibly to be performed on the fly) of the NPC classes:
- All NPC Warriors get upgraded to full BAB martials, usually Fighter with no archetype(*);
- All Aristocrats have as many levels as possible converted to Noble Scion prestige class (this might convert all of their Aristocrat levels if they have enough levels in some other class), and the remainder converted to Phantom Thief Rogue(*);
- For Expert, need to find a more working-class variant of Phantom Thief Rogue;
- All Adepts get upgraded to some type of 9/9 caster that has a low optimization floor, by default Shaman with no archetype(*), at least for divine -- maybe want to use Sorcerer with no archetype(*) for arcane.
(*)Alternatively, make an NPC archetype for each of these that replaces some variable class features with regional- or faith- themed substitutes -- this would take more work at the outset but potentially save quite a bit of work later when running a campaign (just plug in the thematically appropriate substitutes).
I'd like to expand upon the second variant of my third idea above at some point, but that's going to take a lot more work and is less well-developed, so probably would have to be redone several times to get it right.