New DM, NPC only

[quiet1mi]

My friend is going to Dm for the First time... Currently everyone playing has experience Dming and are all knowledgeable players when it comes to the rules.

I decided to tell the other players that we best restrict ourselves to NPC classes to reduce any complication that she (New Dm) may face.

I was looking through the SRD, and saw lycanthropes and the savage species came to mind.

Would Lycanthropes and monster classes be too complicated for a New Dm?

[Ceaon]

Depends on the DM.
However, it is way more difficult than handling NPC-classes only.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Go with NPC classes as given in SRD, or just use some of the simpler core base classes.

[Lysander]

Why not just play a fighter, cleric, and evoker wizard?

[dsmiles]

If the new DM understands the rules well enough, Savage Species and lycanthropes shouldn't be a problem.
If they're new to the game as well, I wouldn't push the issue.

[Totally Guy]

I don't get it. Is that how you learn to be a DM? Use all NPC classes?

[Another_Poet]

I would not ask the other players to restrict the game to NPC classes only.

You say you and the other players have experience GMing, if that's true then it should be no problem to play your favourite core classes and kno the rules well enough to not be a burden on the new GM. Plus it will help her learn the rules - your rogue can say, OK, I get sneak damage here because I'm flanking. Your wizard can explain where his save DCs come from. That kind of stuff. The GM will never learn anything ith a party of Warrior, Warrior, Adept, Expert (because really those are the only ones anyone would use).

Maybe stay to core-only just to keep the number of things to learn to a minimum. But otherwise, yeah, if they need to learn to GM the best way is hands-on experience. If the players all agree to be nice to her and no one is going to try to sneak something past her because she doesn't know the rules, then you have no problem.

Adding lycanthropy actually sounds like more of a headache to me than adding PC classes, so I would consider holding off on that till after she's used to GMing normal characters first.

ap

[bosssmiley]

My friend is going to DM for the first time... Currently everyone playing has experience DMing and are all knowledgeable players when it comes to the rules.

I decided to tell the other players that we best restrict ourselves to NPC classes to reduce any complication that she (New DM) may face.

NPC classes are supposed to represent the non-adventurers of D&D-land, using them as PCs will just muddy the waters for your DM.

Why not just do what the Basic Game sets did and start simple: basic classes (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard/Sorc, Core races) and basic rules (no environmental effects, limited bonus types, etc.) only? Add complexity later as your DM becomes more comfortable with things.

If your DM can't cope with the basic classes and races, then they ain't ready to DM WOTC D&D. I'd suggest using the simpler, more rigid structure of Labyrinth Lord as a D&D training game instead.


I was looking through the SRD, and saw lycanthropes and the savage species came to mind.

Would Lycanthropes and monster classes be too complicated for a New Dm?

Look at the lycanthrope monster entry in the MM. Pages long. Way too complex and fiddly for a new DM to bother with. Stuff like shapeshifters, polymorph inheritance and monster classes are intended for the advanced player.

[Tengu_temp]

This is a bad suggestion:
1. NPC classes aren't less complicated than PC ones, just weaker. And still, Adept is a much more powerful class than Fighter once you get to a certain level.
2. As people said before, the DM won't learn the rules that way.
3. This attitude is condescending towards your DM. How would you feel when your players, in fear that you won't grasp the rules and feel lost, decide to dumb down the game?

Have faith in your DM and don't play any complicated combos or super-optimized characters.

[RandomNPC]

dude, base npc classes, but then monster PCs?

may as well make it base races and any class instead. Hey wait, wouldn't that just be playing core D&D?

if you want to teach a DM make it core only, players do book keeping for themselves (as it should be) and DM tosses out monsters with special abilities as they feel more familiar with them. Thats why most first level monsters don't have DR, fast heal, Spell like abilites, or unusual sources of flight, to name a few.

try that, core only, level as DM says so not as xp says so, so they don't get forced into picking harder monsters to fight before they feel ready. Once they toss a half ooze vampiric minotaur with the feindish template? then start a real game.

[Tyndmyr]

What everyone else said.

Just play a core only game. If you're playing a "NPC only" game with lycanthropy and junk, it'll end up being more complicated, not less.

[Ormur]

Being a DM is the best way to learn D&D. If he has at least some experience playing D&D it should be fine. My players know the system much better than me but I can always ask them, just be honest with him and help him out if things get complicated.

[Sallera]

Aye, D&D is something you learn by doing. When I started DMing, neither I nor most of the group had played before, but we just started with Core and figured things out as they came up. It works fine, since as others have said, the game itself tends to introduce more complicated effects at higher levels (although you'll still run into most of the conditions - and grappling - at first level :smalltongue:.) And your group has a great advantage in that regard, since you can just explain any obscure rules that come up; the greatest time-killer in a new game is searching through rulebooks to figure out how to do something.

But lycanthropy? Yeh, that's a bit much.

[lsfreak]

Being all NPC classes won't help. That means the DM will have to do on-the-fly adjustments for CR even moreso than normal because you'll all be too weak to take stuff on. Essentially the DM will have more work cut out for them by attempting not to steamroll you with encounters that seems like they should be fine, like when monsters are made assuming you have access to Break Enchantment or See Invisibility.

[quiet1mi]

The main point of restricting our choices to NPCs is that she will not need to worry about classes until we bring it up...

The main thing we want her to get over is the Dm jitters... learning everything else is not the problem... we as the players would rather have combat be a spice to our games and have more non-combat interactions be done. By limiting ourselves to just NPC classes, we focus more on not being in combat and talking...

If she decides to run a dungeon crawl... well hmm... I guess we will just run Tier 4 max characters...

[erikun]

I would recommend Generic Classes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm) over NPC classes. The reason is that a new DM won't know what is deadly or not, or what the players need as they level up. A fight with a vampire (high DR, high resistances) will be hard enough for a barbarian/rogue/wizard/cleric with masterwork weapons. It can become nigh impossible if you're just usings an expert and two soldiers.

As you said, all the players are experienced DMs. You can stay away from the abusive abilities (Shapechange, Wild Shape Dire Bears, problematic Summon Monsters) on your own.

For creatures, I would recommend avoiding Damage Reduction and Spell Resistance. Especially in combination. Those are the two hardest to overcome if you aren't properly equipped, and a newer DM won't necessarily hand out the correct weaponry/foreshadowing to make sure the party is prepared. Incorporality and Etheralness would probably be good to avoid, too. At least in the beginning.

Possibly a No Dragons rule, although the PCs should be able to handle one anyways if they're that good. :smallwink:

[quiet1mi]

sending her a link... good idea by the way.