You, Me, and NPC: Thoughts on NPC Classes and How Homebrewing Can Improve Them

[Pyromancer999]

So, as we all know, NPC classes suck. Almost all lack versatility, and with except of one or two, none have power either. After all, they're meant to be classes for characters who are not the players, allowing them to feel superior. But should it really be that way? Should we have to choose between an extremely less powerful class or an extremely more powerful class? It doesn't seem right.

Take a look at minor characters in novels. Most of them are extremely good at one thing, especially if it's something very specialized, the sort of thing a prestige class might warrant(Undead Hunter, Master Wandmaker, etc.). Take a look again, and one realizes that they aren't necessarily less powerful, it's just that they're hyper-focused on one thing.

Other minor characters might be good at multiple things, or be so broad and versatile that they're not particularly good at one single thing, so as to not overshadow the main characters. But NPC classes do not take this into account either.

As such, here's what I think would be the elements of a truly good NPC class:


Does not overshadow the PCs: An NPC class should be decent, but not in a position where it can overshadow the Players with ease, at least in more than one or maybe two areas or circumstances it's designed for.
Power or Versatility(Not Both): A good NPC class either focuses on power in certain specialized circumstances, or is versatile, but does not necessarily have the power to perform as well as a specialized character would
Fills in the Gaps: An NPC class should be able to serve as a nice makeshift substitute for a PC character if the party lacks a role(ex. NPC magic user class is able to provide decent spells for hire), or fills in a niche that is so specialized, it would not be practical for a PC to pursue that niche, but would still be needed for an adventure
Cool: Hyperspecialization, as most NPCs would have, is not necessarily the best route, but all the effort focused into hyperspecialization should yield something for that character. Perhaps the Undead Hunter is able to use Turn Undead on all undead within a certain range, and if he exceeds the check by a certain amount, can make them explode. Or perhaps a versatile character can do enough small things that they all can be combined in certain situations. In any case, a member of an NPC class should be able to stand out in the situations it's made for.


Any NPC class made with these guidelines would most likely be technically Tier 4(Capable of doing one thing well but almost nothing else, or capable of doing everything, but not necessarily competently), with perhaps the occasional tier 3 that might not be the best for a PC to play.

In any case, I think if people were to homebrew NPC classes using these rules as a guidline, we could have NPC classes that are actually good for something, and not necessarily have to use PC class levels if we want to make NPCs powerful.

So, please comment on whether you think these guidelines are good or not, whether NPC classes could be improved upon or not, and such things like that concerning NPC classes and how homebrewing new NPC classes or making changes to existing ones could improve their usefulness to a game.

[bobthe6th]

Why have NPC classes in the first place? I never really understood the need for them. A farmer can totally be a rogue 3 without breaking anything. NPCs could just get a lower point buy, or just be less optimized then PCs. The farmer has 2 craft skills maxed, 1 profession, use rope ect. The PCs are stronger, because they spend all their resources on being badass... when the bartender has to work to maintain his livelihood.

I mean, making the noble take aristocrat when they have been educated from berth in a fantasy setting... is so stupid. They will probably be at worst a swashbuckler.

I mean, a full stat block for every NPC is silly... but you could just make a few generic ones.

[Saidoro]

NPC classes really don't need to be used for every random character, NPCs can be made easily enough with just a lower levels and/or worse ability scores and levels in normal classes, but there are a few applications for them. F&K's warrior (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Warrior_(3.5e_NPC_Class)) is an example of an NPC class done right, giving a way of quickly building large numbers of humanoid opponents for the players without being a big hassle to run. You could also use NPC classes as a way around the fact that almost all D&D characters are going to be at least basically competent at combat once you get a couple of levels in, or to give access to specific abilities earlier than players get them by giving up pretty much everything else.

[Yitzi]

So, as we all know, NPC classes suck. Almost all lack versatility, and with except of one or two, none have power either. After all, they're meant to be classes for characters who are not the players, allowing them to feel superior. But should it really be that way? Should we have to choose between an extremely less powerful class or an extremely more powerful class? It doesn't seem right.

Take a look at minor characters in novels. Most of them are extremely good at one thing, especially if it's something very specialized, the sort of thing a prestige class might warrant(Undead Hunter, Master Wandmaker, etc.). Take a look again, and one realizes that they aren't necessarily less powerful, it's just that they're hyper-focused on one thing.

That's because if they're not high enough level to be really good at what they do, they're usually not even minor characters, but rather "background characters". Something like "master smith" could be expressed as a high-level commoner...his assistant who isn't even mentioned is a low-level commoner, and that's what most NPCs are.


Why have NPC classes in the first place? I never really understood the need for them. A farmer can totally be a rogue 3 without breaking anything.

It would break realism, as most farmers don't have 8+INT skills.

[Just to Browse]

Monks make great NPC classes.

[Yitzi]

Monks make great NPC classes.

And then what about when you want someone who's a master smith (i.e. 10 or more ranks), but doesn't move really fast and has next to no combat ability and no supernatural abilities?

[Pyromancer999]

Why have NPC classes in the first place? I never really understood the need for them. A farmer can totally be a rogue 3 without breaking anything. NPCs could just get a lower point buy, or just be less optimized then PCs. The farmer has 2 craft skills maxed, 1 profession, use rope ect. The PCs are stronger, because they spend all their resources on being badass... when the bartender has to work to maintain his livelihood.

I mean, making the noble take aristocrat when they have been educated from berth in a fantasy setting... is so stupid. They will probably be at worst a swashbuckler.

A noble could be swashbuckler, but the class doesn't necessarily fit all nobles. NPC classes are just a way of making it easy for a quick archetype to be fixed.

Say you wanted a magical blacksmith. You don't necessarily just go and make it an Artificier. Not all of the class features fit.



I mean, a full stat block for every NPC is silly... but you could just make a few generic ones.

Not necessarily....It would sort of depend on the campaign. Although every single NPC would be silly, I'm more talking about minor character NPCs here, which actually might matter enough to stat out.



And then what about when you want someone who's a master smith (i.e. 10 or more ranks), but doesn't move really fast and has next to no combat ability and no supernatural abilities?

My point exactly.

[Sylthia]

I actually made a couple NPC classes to use for my current Pathfinder game, the thief and mage, NPC versions of the rogue and wizard respectively. Warrior and adept fit nicely for fighter and cleric.

I like running NPCs as enemies, because they are much easier to stat out and don't require as much bookkeeping as an enemy with full-fledged PC class levels. I usually reserve those for boss characters, or at least the ring-leader of the encounter.

[bobthe6th]

It would break realism, as most farmers don't have 8+INT skills.

Random farmer using elite array.

str 15 (strong from all that work in the fields)
con 13 (the weak die young of disease)
dex 14 (the fiddle has let him work up a bit of hand eye coordination)
int 8 (He never got any of that book learning)
wis 12 (he has lived awhile)
cha 10 (a fairly average guy)

Assuming human, that's 8 skill points per level...
maxing
Appraise, Climb, Gather Information, Knowledge (local), Perform (Fiddle), Profession (Farmer), Swim, and Use Rope.

He knows how to swim, plays the fiddle at festivals, knows local lore(on accounts of living in the area for his entire life) and is up on gossip, knows knots, can climb a bit, knows the value of his crops, and can farm... how ain't this a farmer from a fantasy story? A better argument would be how he is good at dodging(evasion), and can sense a trap coming.



A noble could be swashbuckler, but the class doesn't necessarily fit all nobles. NPC classes are just a way of making it easy for a quick archetype to be fixed.

at worst, a swashbuckler. Bard is fun for the knowledgeable sage. a rogue is a nice grand vezier. A knight can be the honerable lord. If the NPC is big enough to warrant a stat block, why not make them worth the work.



Say you wanted a magical blacksmith. You don't necessarily just go and make it an Artificier. Not all of the class features fit.

Just let them craft freely? I mean, a magical blacksmith is pretty much a way to sell the PCs some stuff.



Not necessarily....It would sort of depend on the campaign. Although every single NPC would be silly, I'm more talking about minor character NPCs here, which actually might matter enough to stat out.

Make 10-15 NPCs to serve for all you random NPC needs for as long as you are DMing?



It would break realism, as most farmers don't have 8+INT skills.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I would say that there are two kinds of NPC class that we'd want.

The first is the generic guy. Your commoners, your craftsmen, your nobles, all the guys who know a skill or two, but are otherwise just dudes. Because you really can't model your average farmer as a rogue-- there are too many class features that just don't make sense. The Commoner, essentially, although perhaps with a slightly bigger hit die and a few more skill points.

The second are the classes that are meant for named NPCs-- your warriers, adepts, and the like. Roughly balanced against PC classes, but constructed for speed and simplicity, both to build and to play. So you might have, oh, a Warrior, Expert, Priest, and Mage, which might look like:

Warrior-- d10 hit die, good BAB and Fort, a pre-set progression of fighter bonus feats (maybe several options for the progression, and maybe not), and maybe a few level-based number boosts.
Expert-- d6 hit die, medium BAB, good Ref, your pick of a half-dozen skills, free Skill Focus feats every few levels, and maybe options for rogue-light (trapsense and sneak attack) or artificer-light (item creation, free craft feats, maybe craft reserve, maybe not).
Priest-- d8 hit die, medium BAB, good Will, and a pre-set list of cleric spells known.
Mage-- d4 hit die, poor BAB, good Will, and a pre-set list of sorcerer/wizard spells known.

I would also consider capping NPC classes at, oh, 5th level or so. Maybe higher, depending on the world, but pretty low. Anything significantly above the average, and you're Special. You're more than just Random Blacksmith #2654. Heck, you probably have a name. In which case, I would give them PC class levels.

[Sylthia]

I would say that there are two kinds of NPC class that we'd want.

The first is the generic guy. Your commoners, your craftsmen, your nobles, all the guys who know a skill or two, but are otherwise just dudes. Because you really can't model your average farmer as a rogue-- there are too many class features that just don't make sense. The Commoner, essentially, although perhaps with a slightly bigger hit die and a few more skill points.

The second are the classes that are meant for named NPCs-- your warriers, adepts, and the like. Roughly balanced against PC classes, but constructed for speed and simplicity, both to build and to play. So you might have, oh, a Warrior, Expert, Priest, and Mage, which might look like:

Warrior-- d10 hit die, good BAB and Fort, a pre-set progression of fighter bonus feats (maybe several options for the progression, and maybe not), and maybe a few level-based number boosts.
Expert-- d6 hit die, medium BAB, good Ref, your pick of a half-dozen skills, free Skill Focus feats every few levels, and maybe options for rogue-light (trapsense and sneak attack) or artificer-light (item creation, free craft feats, maybe craft reserve, maybe not).
Priest-- d8 hit die, medium BAB, good Will, and a pre-set list of cleric spells known.
Mage-- d4 hit die, poor BAB, good Will, and a pre-set list of sorcerer/wizard spells known.

I would also consider capping NPC classes at, oh, 5th level or so. Maybe higher, depending on the world, but pretty low. Anything significantly above the average, and you're Special. You're more than just Random Blacksmith #2654. Heck, you probably have a name. In which case, I would give them PC class levels.

It may go against realism a bit, but I keep the NPCs appropriate level against the party for the aforementioned simplicity. My party's currently Lv7 and it's nice to be able to quickly put humanoid enemy encounters together.

[Yitzi]

My point exactly.


Here's an idea I've been playing with:
1. Give Backgrounds (similar to the PF idea), which give highly limited, usually noncombat, abilities based on character level. (This will also help somewhat with the "tier 4- can't do anything outside its specialty" issue.)
2. The Commoner and Aristocrat classes are replaced by the Civilian class, which has no chassis (that includes no HD), but still gives the bonus for background.

Thus, you can give as many levels in Civilian as you want (to represent whatever skills you want) without him having any combat skills to speak of. It's not cool (unless you add some sort of skill trick-like mechanism), but should do the job or providing high-level services without being able to overshadow (or even replace) the PCs.

For added versatility, consider creating no-chassis (except maybe Will saves) versions of the spellcasting classes, so you can have spells-for-hire that don't come with the ability to fight.

[Ashtagon]

I think part of the problem is that they were called NPC classes in the first place. These are not NPC classes. At least, not in the sense that NPCs generally are expected to take them.

In story-telling terms, there are two kinds of NPCs: those the PCs interact with on a meaningful basis (villains and their henchmen, quest-givers), and everyone else (background characters).

Foreground NPCs should have regular PC class levels. Background NPCs should have levels in the "NPC classes".

[Yitzi]

Foreground NPCs should have regular PC class levels. Background NPCs should have levels in the "NPC classes".

Well, quest-givers and specialists are probably foreground NPCs and usually should have levels in NPC classes (often more levels than the PCs), but yes, NPCs such as villians and major henchmen should have PC classes; "NPC classes" is more because only NPCs take them, not because all NPCs take them.