PDA

View Full Version : NPC class redos.



Avianmosquito
2017-03-01, 05:14 PM
Okay, so the basic premise is this:
NPC classes are horifically underpowered and completely unbalanced against eachother. I am here to fix the latter issue, not so much the former. I'm leaving warrior completely alone, in hopes of balancing the other NPC classes against them.


Hit dice: d12

Class Skills: bluff, Climb, craft, forgery, gather information, handle animal, hide, jump, listen, move silently, profession, ride, search, sense motive, spot, survival, swim, use rope.

Skill points per level:
4 + Int modifier

Weapon and armor proficiency:
Commoners are proficient with all simple weapons, clothing and light armour.

BAB: 3/4 level.

Saves: Weak fortitude, reflex and will saves.

Ah, the commoner. This class was flat-out worthless. A commoner was so weak that at first level they would notoriously be killed in one round by a house cat. Well, the clothing and armour system in Aelsif already makes that unlikely, but a commoner shouldn't be losing fights with dogs or wolves, either. Putting aside that NPCs in Aelsif are very, VERY rarely first level, the commoner clearly needed some help. As they are now they are a decent fighter but not as good as a warrior, and they have decent skills but not as good as an expert. They also won't be losing a fight with a house cat.


Hit dice: d4

Skill points per level: 6 + Int modifier

BAB: 1/level

Weapon and armour proficiency:
Aristocrats are proficient with all simple and martial as well as clothing, light and medium armour as well as shields (except tower shields).

I haven't changed anything else, why list it again?

Aristocrats are now extremely fragile and have inferior proficiencies, but have more skill points. This both weakens them to the same relative capability as a warrior with equal level and wealth, and gives them a role. They're fragile and can't handle injury, but they can have good attack, damage and AC and they have high skills, naturally suiting them for leadership roles. An aristocrat coming along with a group of NPCs is likely their leader, quite likely their diplomat and maybe even their translator, since they have the skill points to do all these things.



Hit dice: d8

Other than a little bump to its hit dice, this class didn't need any help.



Hit dice: d8

Weapon and armour proficiency:
Adepts are proficient with all simple weapons and clothing, but not armour or shields.

Familiar:
Works exactly as it used to, except at 1st level instead of 2nd.

Adepts now start off with only orisons. They gain 1st-level spells at 4th level, 2nd-level spells at 7th, 3rd-level spells at 10th, 4th-level spells at 13th, 5th-level spells at 16th and 6th-level spells at 19th.

Their 6th level spells are:
Heroes' Feast.
Banishment.
Wind walk.
Acid fog.
Chain Lightning.

More hit dice and familiar right away, less low-level magic and more high-level magic. Pretty straightforward.


Now, when you run into an NPC party, they actually work. Even if they're just a source of information, at least now they make sense. If they're allies on a side quest they're less of a burden and if they're a hostile encounter they may actually be at least somewhat of a threat (if not much of one) to a similarly-levelled player party.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-03-04, 12:02 PM
I really don't like the idea of 1d12 HD commoners. That means that a random peasant who trains for years to master the arts of combat and weaponry (becoming a Fighter) winds up... less tough than the guy who stayed home and farmed all day. Heck, pretty much everyone who does anything but farm gets wimpier in the process. Commoners are supposed to be worthless; if they had worth, they'd be Experts. I'm not particularly a fan of NPC-mages being at all tough, either.

Full-BAB-but-low-HD is an interesting take on Aristocrats, which I kind of like. Dunno about giving them 6+Int skill points, though. Nobles don't particularly seem like they'd be such well-rounded souls.

Kaskus
2017-03-04, 01:35 PM
I agree with Grod on hit dice. NPC Classes should be inferior to their PC counterparts.

I think the skill points are fitting though. In a feudal medieval society, nobles would be the only ones with formal education and so i would think they would be the most well rounded. I think experts would be better at their particular trade but aristocrats would have opportunity to learn more things overall, especially more "academic" skills like knowledge. They have the most skills as class skills of any NPC class to reflect this. I think more points to put in them makes sense.

I think only warriors though should have a full BAB. Full BAB is iconic of martially focused classes and I think warrior is the only one that makes sense as being martially focused.

Maybe give expert a free skill focus feat to reflect that they are... experts.

Dogs and wolves should definitely be scary and life threatening for a commoner. Dog attacks are potentially deadly for regular people.

JNAProductions
2017-03-04, 01:51 PM
Make housecats weaker, though. They're probably too powerful.

Avianmosquito
2017-03-04, 08:34 PM
I really don't like the idea of 1d12 HD commoners. That means that a random peasant who trains for years to master the arts of combat and weaponry (becoming a Fighter) winds up... less tough than the guy who stayed home and farmed all day. Heck, pretty much everyone who does anything but farm gets wimpier in the process. Commoners are supposed to be worthless; if they had worth, they'd be Experts.

Have you ever done farm work, son? Have you ever tilled a field, carried feed or herded animals? How about landscaping? Fencing? Moving to a different profession that falls under "commoner", have you ever cut down a tree? Have you sawed it into rounds? Have you hauled rounds, sawed them, and split them for firewood? A lumberjack is also a commoner. So is somebody working in a steel mill, a refinery, or most other industrial jobs. These jobs are physically demanding and those who do them take a beating. Being physically toughened by years of hard manual labour makes perfect sense.


I'm not particularly a fan of NPC-mages being at all tough, either.

They only went from a D6 to a D8, and I only did that because I made these for the setting in my signature, and adepts were simply too weak relative to warriors.


Full-BAB-but-low-HD is an interesting take on Aristocrats, which I kind of like. Dunno about giving them 6+Int skill points, though. Nobles don't particularly seem like they'd be such well-rounded souls.

Well rounded, no. Well educated, certainly.


I agree with Grod on hit dice. NPC Classes should be inferior to their PC counterparts.

They are inferior to their PC counterparts. Having slightly more health is not going to make up for their lack of special abilities, weak saves and poor BAB.


I think the skill points are fitting though. In a feudal medieval society, nobles would be the only ones with formal education and so i would think they would be the most well rounded. I think experts would be better at their particular trade but aristocrats would have opportunity to learn more things overall, especially more "academic" skills like knowledge. They have the most skills as class skills of any NPC class to reflect this. I think more points to put in them makes sense.

Actually, the setting these were made for isn't medieval, and neither are the established D&D settings. And I'm not giving the "they're fantasy" cop-out, they're very definitely not medieval just from the technology present within them being too advanced. Full plate alone didn't arise until the 15th century.


I think only warriors though should have a full BAB. Full BAB is iconic of martially focused classes and I think warrior is the only one that makes sense as being martially focused.

Except that nobles tend to be trained as duelists.


Maybe give expert a free skill focus feat to reflect that they are... experts.

They really don't need it.


Dogs and wolves should definitely be scary and life threatening for a commoner. Dog attacks are potentially deadly for regular people.

Where do people get this idea? No, a two hundred pound great ape is not going to lose a fight with a handless quadruped half their size with a fifth of their strength, reach, agility and skill. Worse is when you start looking at it in detail. Dogs only have one attack, that attack has almost no reach and only goes forward, they're slow turners, they can't move sideways or backwards at any significant speed, they're helpless against enemies that aren't directly in front of them, they're easily knocked down (especially from the side) and they're very vulnerable to blunt force. Just because we trained dogs to be stupid enough to charge opponents they can't take doesn't mean they stand a chance.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-03-04, 11:02 PM
Have you ever done farm work, son? Have you ever tilled a field, carried feed or herded animals? How about landscaping? Fencing? Moving to a different profession that falls under "commoner", have you ever cut down a tree? Have you sawed it into rounds? Have you hauled rounds, sawed them, and split them for firewood? A lumberjack is also a commoner. So is somebody working in a steel mill, a refinery, or most other industrial jobs. These jobs are physically demanding and those who do them take a beating. Being physically toughened by years of hard manual labour makes perfect sense.
Oh, I'm not saying a d4 is any better, but it seems wrong that the most random of random mooks are hardier than anyone but Barbarians. d8 seems like much more a reasonably point.


They only went from a D6 to a D8, and I only did that because I made these for the setting in my signature, and adepts were simply too weak relative to warriors.

But aren't they supposed to? Adepts seem like they're supposed to be the village witch, not an adventurer.


They really don't need it.
They... kind of want something, I think? Lots of skill points works well for a well-rounded or broadly-educated noble, but isn't the idea of the Expert to be, like, the guy who's really good at their one thing?


Where do people get this idea? No, a two hundred pound great ape is not going to lose a fight with a handless quadruped half their size with a fifth of their strength, reach, agility and skill. Worse is when you start looking at it in detail. Dogs only have one attack, that attack has almost no reach and only goes forward, they're slow turners, they can't move sideways or backwards at any significant speed, they're helpless against enemies that aren't directly in front of them, they're easily knocked down (especially from the side) and they're very vulnerable to blunt force. Just because we trained dogs to be stupid enough to charge opponents they can't take doesn't mean they stand a chance.
Um. We bred dogs to hunt bears. We've used dogs in war for centuries. We still use dogs in war and police to capture fleeing suspects/prisoners and the like. Wolves might not weigh as much as you but they'll take down elk that are much, much bigger than you.

Avianmosquito
2017-03-04, 11:21 PM
Oh, I'm not saying a d4 is any better, but it seems wrong that the most random of random mooks are hardier than anyone but Barbarians. d8 seems like much more a reasonably point.

Most "random mooks" are warriors, which have d8 hit dice. I'm bringing the NPC classes to about the same level of overall capability.


But aren't they supposed to? Adepts seem like they're supposed to be the village witch, not an adventurer.

No, no, no. Warrior the NPC class.


Um. We bred dogs to hunt bears.

No, we've bred some breeds of dogs to chase away bears. If the bear stood and fought, it would shred the dog in under a minute. The bear doesn't stand and fight because, like most animals, they are predisposed to avoiding unnecessary risks.


We've used dogs in war for centuries. We still use dogs in war and police to capture fleeing suspects/prisoners and the like.

No, we've tried using dogs in war a couple times and it has always failed spectacularly. The spanish tried that with massive mastiffs, and they were utterly ineffectual, being immediately cut down the moment somebody with a sword decided to acknowledge their existence. Animals can't stand up to weapons, and they can't defeat armour.


Wolves might not weigh as much as you but they'll take down elk that are much, much bigger than you.

You don't know how wolves hunt, do you? They're both pack and persistent predators, they don't just "take down" an elk. They chase the elk for miles until the elk is too exhausted to effectively run or fight then they all gang-pile on it at once. There's no fighting there. Also, the elk can't dodge and doesn't have hands, not even getting into the differences between ape muscles and the muscles of ungulates, so "BIGGER BETTER" is kinda missing the point.

And just so you understand, what it took an entire pack of wolves half an hour to do right there could be accomplished by a lone neanderthal in two minutes. It's amazing what a difference even the simplest tools make, and even without tools hands are an advantage most animals just can't adjust for. Being twice as strong as a creature of your size has any business being is another advantage humans, and indeed all apes, happen to have that most animals don't expect and can't counter.

JNAProductions
2017-03-04, 11:45 PM
Seems odd that a commoner has more HP than a warrior.

Avianmosquito
2017-03-04, 11:57 PM
Seems odd that a commoner has more HP than a warrior.

Already went into this.

JNAProductions
2017-03-04, 11:59 PM
Already went into this.

Right. Except warriors probably do all that, and train to fight. They're still common people.

More than that, HP is more than just meat. However you want to represent it, it's a bit ridiculous that a commoner (someone who just does farming, or labor, or something similar) who rarely encounters serious danger and doesn't practice danger, has more survival acumen than someone who experiences and trains for vicious danger.

Avianmosquito
2017-03-05, 06:49 PM
Right. Except warriors probably do all that, and train to fight. They're still common people.

1. A militia man or conscript does not do nearly as much manual labour as a commoner and a guard or law enforcement officer does almost none. Those are what you see with NPC warriors.

2. You may be overestimating how well trained these people actually are.


More than that, HP is more than just meat. However you want to represent it, it's a bit ridiculous that a commoner (someone who just does farming, or labor, or something similar) who rarely encounters serious danger and doesn't practice danger, has more survival acumen than someone who experiences and trains for vicious danger.

Then by that logic barbarians and paladins should have smaller hit dice than fighters and rogues should have better hit dice than clerics or bards.

Look, I chose this for balance reasons. A commoner has poor proficiencies and saves with medium BAB, but I needed them to be as useful as an NPC warrior. An average 2HP and 2 skill points per level seemed about right and they'll still get wrecked by a warrior in a direct fight despite the added health. Do you have a better idea?

Grod_The_Giant
2017-03-05, 09:27 PM
Look, I chose this for balance reasons. A commoner has poor proficiencies and saves with medium BAB, but I needed them to be as useful as an NPC warrior. An average 2HP and 2 skill points per level seemed about right and they'll still get wrecked by a warrior in a direct fight despite the added health. Do you have a better idea?
Why? No, seriously, why? Why is there a need to have NPC classes balanced against each other? They're not PCs, they're not supposed to be all pulling their weight in an adventuring party. Why should a "commoner" be able to keep up with a trained soldier or a professional... whatever the Expert is supposed to be? They're commoners, the lowest common denominator, the weakest of the weak. If you really want to "balance" NPC classes, I suggest cutting the Commoner and Aristocrat altogether. Have Warriors for rough-and-ready types, Experts for nonviolent-skillful-types, and Adepts* for magic types. "Commoner" and "Aristocrat" are more social roles than mechanical ones anyway.

*Who, by the by, are still head and shoulders above every other NPC class, because Magic. I suggest basing things off the Magewright instead; their list is much more focused on useful-but-noncombat stuff

Avianmosquito
2017-03-06, 03:01 AM
Why? No, seriously, why? Why is there a need to have NPC classes balanced against each other?

You mean, besides that being the premise of the thread, and my personal fondness for balance?

Why do cannons do so much damage? Why do celestials drive you mad? Why can't great old ones be killed? Why am I scrapping so many templates? Why replace wisdom? Why aren't most NPCs level 1? Why are old people barely functional? Why did I do rule alterations at all?

The answer is that it fits my goals better that way. Some of those are gameplay goals, some are thematic goals, but I have goals for this setting and I am seeing to them in the things I do.


They're not PCs, they're not supposed to be all pulling their weight in an adventuring party.

Unless they're a ship crew, which would mostly consist of commoners. That's just one example, but it's a pretty good one.


Why should a "commoner" be able to keep up with a trained soldier or a professional... whatever the Expert is supposed to be?

Because no expedition functions without workers, and workers that will get killed by a stiff breeze are unlikely to be any use.

Also, I still think you guys are overestimating the training of your typical NPC warrior, many of which barely HAVE any. Most of these guys are conscripts, militia, law enforcement or even private guards. Those that are trained tend not to be trained well, it's a wonder the typical greenhorn 0311 can load their weapon. ("Uh... The powder goes in first, right? Cap, then powder? And does the lead thing go round bit forward or backward? Am I ready to fire? Wait, what's that about ramming my rod? If you won't take this seriously I quit.")


They're commoners, the lowest common denominator, the weakest of the weak.

I'm sensing that you have issues with the poor. I'm just going to immediately dismiss the idea that the people who do all the work for any society have no merit, okay?


If you really want to "balance" NPC classes, I suggest cutting the Commoner and Aristocrat altogether. Have Warriors for rough-and-ready types, Experts for nonviolent-skillful-types, and Adepts* for magic types. "Commoner" and "Aristocrat" are more social roles than mechanical ones anyway.

Oh? Well then, what classification would the regular crewmen of a ship fall under? How about a group of miners the players hire to dig out a temple entrance? What if the players need a bridge built, or a forest path cleared? What if the player hires a carriage, what is the driver? What if they need to drag a statue out of a ruin, what class is doing the hauling? What if the players decide to build a temporary fortification, what are the workers there? Are you lumping all of these under "expert"?


*Who, by the by, are still head and shoulders above every other NPC class, because Magic. I suggest basing things off the Magewright instead; their list is much more focused on useful-but-noncombat stuff

You may need a little more setting information before jumping to that conclusion, seeing as I put a fair amount of work into strengthening non-caster classes, especially later on in the game.