How to make NPC classes look appealing?

[Jon_Dahl]

My players like variety. As a nice surprise for players, I'd like to create an easy, smart and consistent houserule that would give my players an appealing option to select NPC-classes. As a reference, the NPC classes are adept, commoner, expert and warrior.

The best idea I've had so far has been trading.
When you create a character, you can trade 1 PC class level for 2 levels of adept, expert or warrior, or 3 levels of commoner. Your WBL and such will be counted according to your original PC levels. Normal rules for multiclassing apply.
I think this could work. What do you think? 1st-level barbarian vs. 2nd-level expert or 4th-level wizard vs. 12th-level commoner...

[Kuulvheysoon]

How about the Adept (or the Magewright, found in the Eberron Campaign Setting)?

[Jon_Dahl]

How about the Adept (or the Magewright, found in the Eberron Campaign Setting)?

I was being a ret... mentally challenged and forgotting that such existing. OP corrected.

[Story]

Put them next to a Monk.

But it really depends on the groups style and OP level. From an optimizers perspective, most people would take the deal for a level or two (assuming it doesn't affect ECL) to get early entry into Prcs and then never look back.

A level 20 Adept is way better than a level 10 Fighter, but if they knew that and cared, they wouldn't be playing a fighter in the first place.

[Greenish]

It'd be easier to answer if you explained why you wanted non-player classes to be appealing player characters.

Anyway, Adept is far more powerful than expert or warrior, and stuff that lets your HD exceed your ECL is rather iffy.

[Corlindale]

JaronK suggested that lower-tier PC classes might be a little better balanced if players were allowed to gestalt them with an NPC class of their choice. Probably not exactly what you are looking for, but one of the few real attempts I've seen to make NPC classes an attractive choice in some way.

In a campaign I played in, one of the players played an Expert (fluff-wise he was an exceptionally intelligent "scientist" of sorts). It became mechanically viable because we made some houserules concerning crafting of various engineering gizmos - which essentially meant that he got access to certain items to help offset his weaknesses.

[darksolitaire]

Early entry to PrC is only way I could be bargained into taking non-spellcaster NPC class. This would have to be in the form of BAB, increased skillcap or high saves, which I wouldn't get otherwise.

Spellcasting NPC classes aren't half bad. I'd much rather be level 4 adept then level 2 cleric, or level 8 adept then level 4 cleric. But eventually I would PrC out of the base class and be stuck with it's spell progression.

[Gavinfoxx]

How familiar are you with the tier system, and the various expansions to it, and where different classes exist in the tier system?

[Jon_Dahl]

How familiar are you with the tier system, and the various expansions to it, and where different classes exist in the tier system?

Not familiar at all.

The notion about early qualification to PrCs is a good argument against my trading ratio idea. Hmm...

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Considering that the Expert, Warrior, Adept, and Magewright are, respectively, powered-down versions of the Rogue, Fighter, Cleric, and Wizard that aren't meant to see actual play in the hands of the PCs, I'm not sure why you're trying to encourage players to play these classes over the number of non-NPC classes that do the same thing. Off the top of my head:

Expert -- Bard, Factotum, Rogue
Warrior -- Barbarian, Fighter, Warblade, Knight
Adept -- Cleric, Favored Soul
Magewright -- Wizard, Artificer

You say variety, but I'd counter with the fact that the NPC classes have NO variety, as they're weak, almost featureless classes not intended to actually have players.

[Jon_Dahl]

You say variety, but I'd counter with the fact that the NPC classes have NO variety, as they're weak, almost featureless classes not intended to actually have players.

I agree with you. However, if someone wants to play an adventuring commoner, he or she should be able to do that and it would be nice if I could houserule it to be effective and meaningful.

In the end, I have decided this to be the final trade ratio:
1 PC level = 1.5 of adept, expert or warrior.
1 PC level = 2.5 of commoner.
Half levels are not counted, unless you gain a half more, which will result in a full level.
Your XP and WLB is according to your PC levels and NPC levels transformed into PC levels.

Let's see how it goes. I already mentioned to my players that I acknowledge the fact that qualifying to PrCs is much easier now with NPC classes.

[Togath]

Not familiar at all...

The tier system shows are strong classes in 3.5 are compared to each other, with tier 1 being the strongest and tier 6 being the weakest.
I'll see if I can find a link to it, but for quick reference, all npc classes other then adept(same as barbarian, rogue, or ranger and a tier stronger then fighters, paladins, or hexblades) are tier 6, down there with the complete warrior samurai and monk classes

[nedz]

I think that there's a newer thread, but this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149107) is the original.

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=266559) we are, from JaronK's sig.

[Karnith]

Additionally, explanations of why specific classes are in their tiers can be found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269440), if you want a better feel for what makes a class deserve its tier classification.

[ZamielVanWeber]

On your original question, gestalt a warrior and an adept. Take Improved Familiar and have fun the d10 hit die and full BaB that your familiar is now enjoying. Winter Wolf is always a favorite for non-good spellcasters.

[Story]

I'll see if I can find a link to it, but for quick reference, all npc classes other then adept(same as barbarian, rogue, or ranger and a tier stronger then fighters, paladins, or hexblades) are tier 6, down there with the complete warrior samurai and monk classes

Experts are a low tier 5, much like the Monk. Being able to choose class skills can be pretty useful, especially with UMD and IF.

[Gavinfoxx]

Not familiar at all.

The notion about early qualification to PrCs is a good argument against my trading ratio idea. Hmm...

Okay... you should read a few links thin:

http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658.0

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5256

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4874.0

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4869.0

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5052.0

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=11714.0

Basically... if you want a 'low powered' game, encourage people to stay within class tiers of 4, 5, and 6, which are the 'low powered' or at least 'low versatility' classes.

And some PC classes are as or less powerful/versatile/have as much agency/ useful to use their class features to overcome D&D-type challenges as several NPC classes. For example, 'Monk' should probably be an NPC class.

If you want to rank classes by absolute power level, the PC and NPC class split isn't the best way to do it. In fact, one NPC class, 'Adept', and the Eberron Campaign Setting 'Religious Adept' and 'Urban Adept' variants of it, are extremely powerful in the right hands who treats them as a primary spellcaster and chooses the right spells.

I assume you want to run a gritty, low-power, 'you might die to any random sword swing' and 'your class abilities won't really help you solve problems or encounters in one fell swoop' sort of game, yes?

[Jon_Dahl]

On your original question, gestalt a warrior and an adept. Take Improved Familiar and have fun the d10 hit die and full BaB that your familiar is now enjoying. Winter Wolf is always a favorite for non-good spellcasters.

Thank you Zamiel because you are actually addressing my original question. All this talk about tiers is beyond me. Gestalts are not allowed in my game but if they were, I'd be conscious about this. It still doesn't strike me as a gamebreaker but it's certainly a very powerful option. Near-broken, I'd say.

[Gavinfoxx]

It's basically saying:

"These classes should be the complete list of NPC classes, even the ones that were presented as PC classes, as all of these classes are at the 'gritty, low powered' power level:"

Aristocrat, Commoner, Divine Mind (CP 9), Warrior, Samurai (CW 6), Truenamer (TM 198), Battledancer (DC 26), Eidolon (Gh 16), Expert, Fighter (without useful ACF's), Healer (MH 8), Knight, Lurk (CP 13), Magewright (ECS 256), Mariner (LotT 13), Mlar (Polyhedron #159), Monk, Ninja (CAd 5), Noble (DCS 50), Paladin, Soulborn (MoI 25), Soulknife, Swashbuckler (CW 11)

And "This class should not be an NPC class, as it is too powerful:"

Adept


Make sense? If you want characters to use low powered classes (presumably the whole reason to encourage NPC classes)... use that list of low powered classes!

And just tell people, 'Since I want to encourage a low powered game, I would like people to choose from this list of low powered classes, to fit the theme of the game.'

If you want to bump the power level up a little bit more, open up this list:

Adept (and variants), Barbarian (and variants), Dragonfire Adept (when using Breath Effects), Dragon Shaman (PHB2 11), Fighter (with useful ACFs and variants), Jester (DC 36), Hexblade (CW 5), Marshal, Master (WotL 21), Montebank (DC 42), Nightstalker (Races of Ansalon 156), Ranger (except for the most powerful variants), Rogue, Savant (DC 45), Scout (CAd 10), Spellthief, Sohei (OA 27), Totemist, Warlock (CArc 5), Warmage (CArc 10)

[Greenish]

I agree with you. However, if someone wants to play an adventuring commoner, he or she should be able to do that and it would be nice if I could houserule it to be effective and meaningful.If you houserule it such that the commoner is effective, what was the point of playing a commoner in the first place?

I mean, even if someone started as a commoner, I'd expect adventuring would soon give him PC class levels, or at least the "NPC prestige class" levels from Savage Species such as Survivalist.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Thank you Zamiel because you are actually addressing my original question. All this talk about tiers is beyond me. Gestalts are not allowed in my game but if they were, I'd be conscious about this. It still doesn't strike me as a gamebreaker but it's certainly a very powerful option. Near-broken, I'd say.

Not even close to being broken. Clerics get almost as good BAB, almost as good HD, the right to turn their turn undead into amazing stuff, and an IMMENSE spell selection and higher level spells. It ends up being solid in mid powered games and having your own personal riding wolf is awesome. (This still works okay without the gestalt, just not as good).

[Story]

Truenamer isn't tier 6, it's unrated. Mainly because it's power is so variable.

[Gavinfoxx]

Truenamer isn't tier 6, it's unrated. Mainly because it's power is so variable.

Eh, it can work as well as a commoner or some expert builds, and is a decent aristocrat type... why it is in the expanded list, yaknow?

[Story]

But the thing is that since it's entirely based around a skill check, enough optimization turns it into the full caster it was meant to be.

Oh and at level 20 it can cast Gate for free.

[Greenish]

But the thing is that since it's entirely based around a skill check, enough optimization turns it into the full caster it was meant to be.Which isn't very impressive.


Anyway, tables time!
Fighter:
{TABLE]ECL|BAB|Fort|Ref|Will|HD|Feats
1|1|2|0|0|1d10|2
2|2|3|0|0|2d10|3
3|3|3|1|1|3d10|4
4|4|4|1|1|4d10|5
5|5|4|1|1|5d10|5
6|6|5|2|2|6d10|7
7|7|5|2|2|7d10|7
8|8|6|2|2|8d10|8
9|9|6|3|3|9d10|9
10|10|7|3|3|10d10|10[/TABLE]

Warrior:
{TABLE]ECL|BAB|Fort|Ref|Will|HD|Feats
1|1|2|0|0|1d8|1
2|3|3|1|1|3d8|2
3|4|4|1|1|4d8|2
4|6|5|2|2|6d8|3
5|7|5|2|2|7d8|3
6|9|6|3|3|9d8|4
7|10|7|3|3|10d8|4
8|12|8|4|4|12d8|5
9|13|8|4|4|13d8|5
10|15|9|5|5|15d8|6[/TABLE]

[Gavinfoxx]

Yea, even assuming you make every truenaming roll you ever do, arbitrarily... the Truenamer still sucks. ;)

[Story]

Well until level 20 at any rate. Then they become God, since they can cast Gate (and don't even have to pay XP for it).

[Jon_Dahl]

Which isn't very impressive.


Anyway, tables time!
Fighter:
{TABLE]ECL|BAB|Fort|Ref|Will|HD|Feats
1|1|2|0|0|1d10|2
2|2|3|0|0|2d10|3
3|3|3|1|1|3d10|4
4|4|4|1|1|4d10|5
5|5|4|1|1|5d10|5
6|6|5|2|2|6d10|7
7|7|5|2|2|7d10|7
8|8|6|2|2|8d10|8
9|9|6|3|3|9d10|9
10|10|7|3|3|10d10|10[/TABLE]

Warrior:
{TABLE]ECL|BAB|Fort|Ref|Will|HD|Feats
1|1|2|0|0|1d8|1
2|3|3|1|1|3d8|2
3|4|4|1|1|4d8|2
4|6|5|2|2|6d8|3
5|7|5|2|2|7d8|3
6|9|6|3|3|9d8|4
7|10|7|3|3|10d8|4
8|12|8|4|4|12d8|5
9|13|8|4|4|13d8|5
10|15|9|5|5|15d8|6[/TABLE]

Thank you for the tables. I could live that. I don't know... It's a bit strange, I must admit, but that could work. It's not bad, at least not in my eyes.

[Jon_Dahl]

If you houserule it such that the commoner is effective, what was the point of playing a commoner in the first place?

I mean, even if someone started as a commoner, I'd expect adventuring would soon give him PC class levels, or at least the "NPC prestige class" levels from Savage Species such as Survivalist.

I let players decide that for themselves. In my opinion, multiclassing would be in order as soon as they start adventuring... They started out as very tough commoners but became fighters or whatnot while adventuring. I would just let my players decide this when they level up and not ask about it. It's something that my players usually appreciate, I guess.

[Greenish]

Thank you for the tables. I could live that. I don't know... It's a bit strange, I must admit, but that could work. It's not bad, at least not in my eyes.Well, HD>ECL is sort of weird. The NPC classes would have far more HP thanks to Con mod being multiplied more often, Expert would have full BAB with skills to put rogue in shame, Adept would be basically full caster with inflated caster level… Well, I still don't see what you're trying to achieve with this, but do tell us how it works out.

[Jon_Dahl]

Well, HD>ECL is sort of weird. The NPC classes would have far more HP thanks to Con mod being multiplied more often, Expert would have full BAB with skills to put rogue in shame, Adept would be basically full caster with inflated caster level… Well, I still don't see what you're trying to achieve with this, but do tell us how it works out.

I do understand where you're coming from. What you're saying makes sense, but I still think it's worth the try. I will make sure that my players understand that this is only an experiment just for fun and I will cancel it if things turn out ridiculous. A possibly working new houserule is worth the risk of having a couple crazy characters running around.

[Gavinfoxx]

I think you are coming at this from the wrong direction.

If you want characters to be more powerful, just let them replace their existing class with the more powerful version!

Not multiclass... just replace their existing class level as they adventure.


Like the skillful character has this progression:

Expert 3, switches to Savant 3, switches to Factotum 3

and the melee combatant has this progression:

Warrior 3, switches to Fighter 3, switches to Warblade 3

and the divine caster has this progression:

Healer 3, switches to Religious Adept 3, switches to Cloistered Cleric 3

and the ninja type has this progression:

Ninja 3, switches to Rogue 3, switches to Swordsage 3

and the holy warrior has this progression:

Samurai 3, switches to Paladin 3, switches to Crusader 3

and the arcanist has this progression:

Magewright 3, switches to Dragon Shaman 3, switches to Wizard 3

And the psionicist has this progression:

Lurk 3, switches to Wilder 3, switches to Erudite 3

In each time, the hit dice stays the same, and you switch from weak classes that have roughly the same concept, to more powerful classes with roughly the same concept. This isn't mutliclassing, this is character rebuilding to more (potentially) powerful classes.

Also, you seem kinda new... here's an essay that I show new folk... it will likely help put you in the right state of mind.



D&D 3.5e is a very...interesting game system. At it's heart, it is a game which started with several assumptions: that fantastically wealthy, violent hobo land pirates go underground to the homes of things that look different than them, kick down the doors to these homes, kill the inhabitants, and take their stuff. Then they go back to town, sell most of the stuff, keep the useful bits, buy things that help them go to newer and different places where things that look MORE different then they, kill them, take their stuff, et cetera. It is a game where the stalwart fighter stands in the front and swings his sword, the rogue looks for and disables traps, or perhaps sneaks around to stab bad things with a dagger, the Wizard stands in the back and blasts things, and the Cleric keeps all of them healed while doing this. This is the 'heart' of the game because that was how the game was played in the past, in the editions before 3.5e, often because it was a competitive, team event played at tournaments where people wargame for points, and there is a single team which is the winner. Further, you might not know the people on your team, having just met them five minutes ago at a convention, and so everyone played a simple role that was easy to understand and pick up and go, and in the old rules, was actually generally a fairly solid way to get through modules in a short amount of time. This is also where the idea of an adversarial GM that is trying to kill the player characters comes from. Every assumption that is 'weird' or arbitrary in the game stems from things inherited from this idea (or similar ideas from 'back then') regarding how the old games used to work.

However, that's not often how the game is *played* these days, and for the most part, we aren't interested in playing that particular legacy game with it. It has been quite some time since 3.5e books started coming out, and people have had lots of time to look at them and think about them and tinker with them and figure things out. They've come up with several interesting conclusions. Namely, that if you look at the toolset represented by all these books, you essentially have a fantastic array of lego pieces to make characters to tell any sort of fantasy story you want, because Wizards of the Coast tried to be inclusive of a huge variety of fantasy gaming styles in their rules. People have also figured out that there is a dramatic and huge variation in the power level of the 'lego pieces' -- that is the classes and options tied to them -- when you start doing things with them other than the old edition legacy assumptions. So given that, the question is this: what sort of story do you want to tell with your characters, and what power level and complexity level do you want in the rules? Do you want to be people altering the fabric of reality to fit their very whims, or the gritty soldier for whom permanent death is a real possibility in any fight -- in other words, something lower power level like Lord of the Rings, or the wuxia swordsman who is somewhere in between the two examples? Any sort of Fantasy story is a possibility, but you have to know what you want, first!

Of course, just because anything is possible, doesn't mean that there isn't something close to a consensus amongst experts as to what the system is best at. What they say is something along these lines: the system is best for fantastic characters, fantasy superheroes of some sort (but not silver age uber-superheroes though), doing crazy, incredible things to the world around them, things which are overtly superhuman and heroic. While 3.5e is capable of much lower power and grittier things, it really starts to shine when you accept the power level of 'everyone has superpowers of some sort', provided you make choices of the correct legos appropriate to that power level. This is the case especially because of, if you are attempting to actually simulate reality with the game rather than simulate certain types of stories, things get 'wonky'. Of course, if you want to use rules based on D&D 3.5e to simulate actual reality, there are third party products such as Codex Martialis which do this admirably.

Also, there is a reason we aren't playing 4th edition. The reason is this: Wizards of the Coast realized that D&D 3.5e was laughably, ridiculously unbalanced. However, in their quest to make something manageable, they have reduced the game to only a miniatures tactical combat system where the scope of the sorts of things the characters can do which the actual rules can cover is very, very limited. This is intentional on their part, and is maybe what they had to do to balance the game. Unfortunately, it does greatly limit the sorts of stories that can be easily told with the rules in the system, even if you know your way around it backwards and forwards. This has been mitigated somewhat as 4e went on, but is still somewhat true. This is not the case with 3.5e -- if you know your way around it, you can make anything for any sort of Fantasy story.

Finally, I thought I should make a note about some of the continuations of 3.5e which you might have heard of, such as Pathfinder and it's lesser known cousin Trailblazer. Some folk may have claimed that these fix all of the balance problems in the game. This is not true; what they do is merely continue support for the game, though they do attempt to fix some balance problems that become issues for several groups, but they for the most part ignore the inherent power and versatility differences of the 'legos' themselves, though they have been gradually adding options that allow improvements in the capability of the lower performing classes, much like D&D 3.5e did in it's actual run. They do attempt to make changes so that everyone, especially those very low-optimization level players, has some interesting and fun things to do, and for the most part, they succeed in providing obvious options for lower power gamers. However, you should note that there is at least ONE D20 system which provides the breadth of possible abilities and feel of classes and customizability that 3.5e offers, and large parts of the 'feel' of 3.5e, while keeping balance intact between the classes. This system is Ruleofcool's Legend, and I encourage you to check it out.

[Lans]

Well until level 20 at any rate. Then they become God, since they can cast Gate (and don't even have to pay XP for it).

Or level 8 when they get solid fog which is really good, but at that point they become the magical equivalent to a trip monkey fighter.

Otherwise your NPCs are pretty appealing, commoner is like a barbarian, doesn't get rage, but can drop one of its 18 feats on Animal Devotion and be rocking +8 to strength by level 8, as well as having +7 to his stats over the pc classes, putting 4 points into con will give him a hundred extra hp.

It could also grab high level manuevers, the ability to summon a devil with a CR of 1.25X its 'level', gate and a host of other HD based abilities