PDA

View Full Version : NPC Classes



KoDT69
2007-09-18, 12:07 PM
I'm just curious - Is there a separate XP table for NPC class levels? I'm just saying that when I build an NPC if they need 3,000xp to be a 3rd level commoner, why be a commoner at all if you have enough XP to be a 3rd level rogue or something. :smallconfused:

As a side note, I'd also like to know if any of you DMs out there have actually used NPC class levels effectively for anything that makes them worthwhile? :smallsmile:

I had an idea for a campaign where the players have to gain like 2 NPC class levels before they can gain a real PC class level. Any of you tried that?

Jack Mann
2007-09-18, 12:11 PM
NPCs don't have XP. Only players have XP.

Matthew
2007-09-18, 12:11 PM
I think Viscount tried it a few times and was happy with the result, but don't quote me. The idea of 'apprenticeships' is outlined in the DMG.

I don't like NPC Classes or Class Levels on the whole. I have used them to create Monsters and NPCs, but I was never particularly satisfied with the result, as I usually wanted to grant them Bonus Feats to achieve what I desired. I realised that if I was going to do that, I might as well just assign everything as I preferred and ignore Skill Rank limits.


NPCs don't have XP. Only players have XP.

Actually (and annoyingly) this is untrue by the RAW. The DMG explicitly states that Non Player Characters gain experience just like Player Characters.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-09-18, 12:12 PM
The idea is that ordinary people can't become player classes because they lack something. The time, the money, the effort, whatever it is, they don't have it. Player classes are supposed to represent people beyond the means of ordinary men and women. Even your starting gold reflects this, as the typical first level character will have far more money after buying basic equipment for himself then your average commoner. I believe this is done so that the players begin as special, explaining how their actions can have such incredibly far reaching consequences.

I did, in fact, force my players to take their first level as NPC's and levels 2 and 3 in generic classes before I allowed them to take class levels, and then only if they found someone to train them in it. I was making a very internally consistent story, and since the characters began the campaign as low level nobodies, it made the most sense that way. Combat was incredibly lethal in the beginning and the difficulty was insanely unbalanced. I also nerfed their starting gold accordingly and only had enemies with items they'd actually use themselves, making obtaining decent items to fight the enemies all the harder.

We had fun, though. There were 8 players total, so this was how I managed the CR imbalance.

Jasdoif
2007-09-18, 12:13 PM
NPC classes use the same XP tables as...well, everything. PC class levels, racial hit dice, level adjustment....

NPC classes supposedly represent people who can't get the necessary training for PC classes. That's how the DMG compares Warriors and Fighters, anyway.

Mewtarthio
2007-09-18, 12:19 PM
I'm just curious - Is there a separate XP table for NPC class levels? I'm just saying that when I build an NPC if they need 3,000xp to be a 3rd level commoner, why be a commoner at all if you have enough XP to be a 3rd level rogue or something. :smallconfused:

Because they're weak and malnourished and expendable. :smalltongue:

Seriously, though, in order to gain experience as an adventurer, you have to take lots of risks and do lots of seriously dangerous things. If you work at mundane tasks all your life, not only do you gain XP slowly (because you're not risking enough), you also gain levels in NPC classes. A first-level Commoner is a guy who's just entering maturity and has lived an utterly boring life before this (okay, his life was actually quite eventful, but it was just like all the other Commoners lived their lives). A first-level Aristocrat is like a first level Commoner, but he was born into wealth.

A first-level PC, on the other hand, has good reason to be in the PC class: Either he was the apprentice of another PC-classed individual (such as most first-level Wizards) or he's had such an eventful life that he's been going out there and taking that PC class by himself (eg The first-level Ranger who's lived in the wilderness because orcs killed his family, or the first-level Rogue who ran away from home and lived on the streets in the middle of a gang war). Well, there's a third option for some classes--Sorcerors, Wilders, and the like can theoretically just manifest PC classes without any effort--but that's called cheating. :smallamused:

Douglas
2007-09-18, 12:20 PM
NPC classes use the same XP table as everything else. There is no reason to be a commoner 3 instead of rogue (or anything else) 3 outside of background and fluff. NPC classes are just that: NPC classes. They are meant for DMs to use for miscellaneous typical NPCs.

The idea is that PC classes all require extraordinary training and/or talent to take at all. PCs are uniformly assumed to have that, and most important NPCs usually do as well. A typical rank-and-file guard will be a Warrior despite its strict inferiority to the Fighter class, but the guard commander and maybe some of his higher ranking subordinates would be Fighters or maybe multiclassed Warrior/Fighters, or any other class that fits the character.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-18, 12:25 PM
I'm just curious - Is there a separate XP table for NPC class levels? I'm just saying that when I build an NPC if they need 3,000xp to be a 3rd level commoner, why be a commoner at all if you have enough XP to be a 3rd level rogue or something. :smallconfused:

As far as I know there is no separate table for NPC classes. There wouldn't really need to be one since there is no cause to keep track of NPC's exp at all as they are Non-Player Characters. DM wants them to be a level 3 adept? Poof. They are a level 3 adept.

As for 'why' a commoner would be a commoner the answer is simple. They don't have any choice. Remember that the mechanics like 'classes' and 'feats' are just that, mechanics. In the world of the game a fighter doesn't think 'well, I'll take another level in fighter' he thinks 'all this killing of goblins has certianly improved my skills some'. The same is going to be true with a commoner who over time (a much longer time) gains more skill in planting his harvest or scrubbing the floors of the castle.

There are other reasons too. Remember that most NPC's, the vast, vast majority, are 1st level. Why? Because they don't go out and adventure. What's more, they don't WANT to. Adventurers are a rare, and potentially insane, breed. Most folks don't want to mess around in darkened dungeons or toy with the arcane mysteries of the universe. They want to have food on the table, a good family, and the occasional night out at the inn. Leave all that dragon slaying nonsense to those other maniacs, most of whom end up dead as a result.



As a side note, I'd also like to know if any of you DMs out there have actually used NPC class levels effectively for anything that makes them worthwhile? :smallsmile:

Sure, most of my NPC's are commoners or have other NPC levels (like expert). Those levels are very effective for precisley what I want the NPC to be, a blacksmith, an innkeeper, a local priest or joe the rutabega farmer. Not all NPC's are potentally useful allies or enemies of the party in a combat sense. Just think about how many people you see on the street every day that don't fall into either category, same is true of the PC's.



I had an idea for a campaign where the players have to gain like 2 NPC class levels before they can gain a real PC class level. Any of you tried that?

I have never tried it, but if your players are OK with it then feel free to go for it. Just remember to adjust CR of encounters appropriatley. NPC classes are far far less powerful than even the weakest PC classes and as such an encounter that would be cake for a party of 2nd level PC's might be really really tough for NPC's.

Draz74
2007-09-18, 07:27 PM
NPC classes are far far less powerful than even the weakest PC classes and as such an encounter that would be cake for a party of 2nd level PC's might be really really tough for NPC's.

I dunno. I'd rather play an Adept than a CW Samurai. Even an Expert might make a competitive skill monkey compared to a CW Samurai's fighting ability.

tainsouvra
2007-09-18, 09:02 PM
if they need 3,000xp to be a 3rd level commoner, why be a commoner at all if you have enough XP to be a 3rd level rogue or something. :smallconfused: Because they're commoners, not rogues.

That's all there is to it. Commoners are commoners.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-19, 04:51 AM
I've always found NPC classes and level progression to be rather strange and mostly useless, and have never used any of them. I'll grant that many NPCs are what used to be called "level zero" (as in, no useful skills or abilities beyond their trade) but rather than making someone a "5th level warrior" I'd simply make him a 2nd level fighter. It's effectively the same and saves a lot of fuss. I don't see a problem with giving some NPCs a bunch of levels in a "real" class; the PCs are, at least at low level, not that special, and a local merchant could easily be a low level rogue.

Chronos
2007-09-19, 10:53 AM
I don't really understand the NPC classes, either... For instance, what exactly is a warrior? He's not the peasant just pulled off the farm and conscripted into the army... That's a commoner. And he's not a guy who's specifically trained in weapons and tactics... That's a fighter. Maybe he's someone who's only trained a little... But then, what's a fifth-level warrior? A guy who trained a little, a whole lot? Even more absurd, what's a high-level commoner supposed to be? A tenth-level commoner will mop the floor with a first-level fighter. In what sense is the fighter a "trained combatant" that the commoner is not?

SilverClawShift
2007-09-19, 11:34 AM
Actually, my group plays NPC-Class-Only games from time to time. It can actually be a lot of fun. Being the struggling underdog makes your victory sweeter (when you win that is), and it also makes you appreciate going back to PC classes later on, as a mark of how tough you are compared to a normal person.

Matthew
2007-09-19, 11:37 AM
It was a badly implemented (and ill conceived) idea to 'Class' everyone. Prior to 3e, you had 'Classed' and 'None Classed' (0 Level) NPCs. 0 Level NPCs could acquire a Class during the game, usually a Hireling became a Level 1 Fighter Henchman, but there were other variations.

What 3e did was stuff all the None Classed NPCs into 'NPC Classes' as a way of formalising their advancement for a variety of purposes (particularly on account of capping Skills by Level - a bad idea for NPCs).

Classed NPCs make little to no sense because they took the Class System for Adventurers, watered it down, and then tried to make them work for every 0 Level NPC conceivable, including Monsters.

Krelon
2007-09-19, 11:42 AM
A warrior is the guy from the city guard. Doing his job, family life after his shift and so on. Never goes adventuring.

Fighter is material for heroes (if he survives long enough).

In an encounter if I have a bunch of NPCs vs. a small party I like to have one boss with class levels, maybe one additional NPC with class levels and some warriors. Warriors do not have so many feats so they are not as effective dealing damage as fighters but still can have some hitpoints if the level is high enough, so they are well suited to balance encounters.

example:
I could bring one orc barbarian (same level as a PCs): rage, power attack, greatsword. Let's say theparty is L6, Str 22 +4 from rage, powerattack +6. He deals 2d6+24 damage per attack, double on crit, AT bonus probably around +15 (+9 with full power attack). Approx. 60 hitpoints. He can kill any spell caster with one hit and any fighter on a crit. However, if one hold person or something gets through he is worth nothing. The fight becomes a very random affair, the first lucky dice roll decides it all.
Instead I could bring four level 5 hobgoblin warriors with greatswords and simply expand the guys from monster manual, giving them 1 new L3 feat, for example weapon focus greatsword. No I have 4 guys with an attack of +8, doing 2d6+3 damage. (on average the same damage output as one barbarian) They'll have 34 hp each. Now tactics come into play.. who can flank who? what kind of spells will be used, who stands where? How will the damage distribute, can the rogue tank one or two while the fighter plows through the rest and mage casts his spells. When one PC starts taking damage the cleric can heal in time and so on.

Telonius
2007-09-19, 11:47 AM
I don't really understand the NPC classes, either... For instance, what exactly is a warrior? He's not the peasant just pulled off the farm and conscripted into the army... That's a commoner. And he's not a guy who's specifically trained in weapons and tactics... That's a fighter. Maybe he's someone who's only trained a little... But then, what's a fifth-level warrior? A guy who trained a little, a whole lot? Even more absurd, what's a high-level commoner supposed to be? A tenth-level commoner will mop the floor with a first-level fighter. In what sense is the fighter a "trained combatant" that the commoner is not?

Tenth level commoner? The guy guarding the wall in "Stardust" (movie version). :smallbiggrin:

TheElfLord
2007-09-19, 03:02 PM
Tenth level commoner? The guy guarding the wall in "Stardust" (movie version). :smallbiggrin:

Lol, yeah, talk about evidence of gaining levels, that guy is the prime example.

I use NPC classes, but I don't really like the idea.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-19, 03:46 PM
A warrior is the guy from the city guard. Doing his job, family life after his shift and so on. Never goes adventuring.

Fighter is material for heroes (if he survives long enough).
Yes, you're essentially quoting that from the DMG, but it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The guy from the city guard could as easily be a first-level fighter, especially since in guard duty he won't see all that much that gives him experience points. Low-level fighters do not have so many feats as high-level fighters do, obviously.

For NPCs at least, skills must not have a level-dependent maximum, because otherwise you can't have good artisans. But note that the present "commoner level" system doesn't work either, because it assumes that an NPC needs to get lots and lots of experience points before he can increase his skill to a decent level.

Kioran
2007-09-19, 04:05 PM
Yes, you're essentially quoting that from the DMG, but it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The guy from the city guard could as easily be a first-level fighter, especially since in guard duty he won't see all that much that gives him experience points. Low-level fighters do not have so many feats as high-level fighters do, obviously.

For NPCs at least, skills must not have a level-dependent maximum, because otherwise you can't have good artisans. But note that the present "commoner level" system doesn't work either, because it assumes that an NPC needs to get lots and lots of experience points before he can increase his skill to a decent level.

But then, he could also splurge most of his Feats and Skill ranks and ability increases into one skill - He doesn´t have to worry about AC or HP as a stonemason or whatever. So taking 10 on a DC 25 Craft Check(or similiar)? Using Non-standard array (13,12,11,10,9,8), he could do it at lvl 5: (+2 (Ability) + 8 (Ranks) + 3 (Skill Focus) + 2(Masterwork tools/fully stocked Workshop).
But yeah, for skills, just give them whatever they need.

NPC-Class levels essentially were made for mooks, if tougher mooks. An opportunity to advance them with HD(if you take NPC-Classes always unassociated, or at least take a discount on them). Warrior, Aristocrat and Expert are even derived from the humanoid HD. They make good mooks if bought at a discount and used in bulk, because they might hit or interfere with the PCs, but seldomly insta-kill anything. Breaks down with increasin powerlevel though.

Humanoid: d8, 3/4 BAB, one good save, 2 Skill ranks
Warrior: +BAB for 1 BAB
Aristocrat: +Skills for 4 Skill ranks
Expert: ++ Skills - HP for d6 and 6 Skills

And commoners - well, in case you ever need someone than can´t do jack but mundane tasks at his level - a lvl 10 commoner can be taken down by a lvl 4-6 PC easily, depending on class. Maybe that lvl 15 commoner as a squishy target to protect.

I for one like NPC classes and like to employ them, even if they´re not a huge advancement over level 0 NPCs.

Matthew
2007-09-19, 04:21 PM
I for one like NPC classes and like to employ them, even if they´re not a huge advancement over level 0 NPCs.

Just out of interest, in what way do you consider them an advancement? About all I can think of, off hand, is that they give new DMs some basis for figuring a Challenge Rating.

Krelon
2007-09-19, 04:22 PM
Yes, you're essentially quoting that from the DMG, but it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The guy from the city guard could as easily be a first-level fighter, especially since in guard duty he won't see all that much that gives him experience points. Low-level fighters do not have so many feats as high-level fighters do, obviously.

For NPCs at least, skills must not have a level-dependent maximum, because otherwise you can't have good artisans. But note that the present "commoner level" system doesn't work either, because it assumes that an NPC needs to get lots and lots of experience points before he can increase his skill to a decent level.

Well, didn't know I'm quoting DMG, it kinda occures to me naturally.

I think a 4th-6th level warrior with low attributes fits the city guard much better than a PC class of lower level. Has enough hitpoints to live a bit, has one or two skills at an acceptable level and better saves but doesn't have the potential to insta-kill someone.

most important, they are different from heroes - I sometimes even give my NPCs 1 or two of the crappy feats (like skill focus in the area where they are supposed to know something). Its ok if they suck.

Kioran
2007-09-20, 01:13 AM
Just out of interest, in what way do you consider them an advancement? About all I can think of, off hand, is that they give new DMs some basis for figuring a Challenge Rating.

They´re actually worse at modelling civilians, since a lvl 5 Expert Master artisan is actually toguher than a Fighter 1 or 2, but he needs to be that high to be able to take 10 on his Craft of Profession Check. 2nd Ed NPCs with arbitrary scores set by the DM were better at creating specialist civilians or similiar.

NPC-Classes were made for combat as far as I am concerned: They offer some semblance of the capabilities of the PCs, and while being similiarly competent in Skills and about 80% as tough, they pack only 50% of the punch - which is actually good, since now you have opponents who last 2 or 3 rounds and stand a good chance of hurting the PCs, but pose no serious threat of insta-kill. They are the prime ingredient for long fights wearing PCs down.
Of course they aren´t worth their noted CR after about lvl 2, so you´ll have to take a "discount" for them.

Tor the Fallen
2007-09-20, 10:44 AM
I've always found NPC classes and level progression to be rather strange and mostly useless, and have never used any of them. I'll grant that many NPCs are what used to be called "level zero" (as in, no useful skills or abilities beyond their trade) but rather than making someone a "5th level warrior" I'd simply make him a 2nd level fighter. It's effectively the same and saves a lot of fuss. I don't see a problem with giving some NPCs a bunch of levels in a "real" class; the PCs are, at least at low level, not that special, and a local merchant could easily be a low level rogue.

Except, you know, for the difference in saves, HP, BAB, and equipment.

Krelon
2007-09-20, 11:03 AM
about CR:

what I do is CR= 1/2 Warrior or Adept class level

e.g. hobgoblin warrior starts with CR1/2
a level 4 hobgoblin warrior has CR 2 in my book.

Aristocrats are hard to estimate.
Often they have a leadership feat, therefore they have a cohort plus some warriors followers that do not generate CR themselves. Also they are the ones to be likely in possession of a nasty artifact (can be cool with use magic device as class skill, for my a NPCs I inventeda feat called "Hobby": one skill becomes a class skill and gets +X, where X is an amount that the DM thinks is justified) plus they have friends in high places. It depends on the situation and setting. Could be CR=level or CR=1/2 level.

Workers and such I give CR=1/3 their level but only if it makes sense to fight against them. Usually defeating a common commoner yields zero XP.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-20, 11:48 AM
Except, you know, for the difference in saves, HP, BAB, and equipment.

If you need an NPC with the saves, HP and BAB of a 5th-level fighter, you use a 5th-level fighter. If you want him to be slightly weaker, give him a poor con or a sucky feat. Standard array vs Elite array, and so forth. Equipment depends on his employer, anyway; WBL is (1) a guideline, and (2) for player characters. Still doesn't make warrior anything less than redundant.

Kioran
2007-09-20, 12:06 PM
If you need an NPC with the saves, HP and BAB of a 5th-level fighter, you use a 5th-level fighter. If you want him to be slightly weaker, give him a poor con or a sucky feat. Standard array vs Elite array, and so forth. Equipment depends on his employer, anyway; WBL is (1) a guideline, and (2) for player characters. Still doesn't make warrior anything less than redundant.

A warrior is a Fighter without Feats. Of course you could also model him as Fighter, and give him Feats with a passive Bonus, but at least at lower lvls, NPC classes are not without merit. The Idea is a similiarly tough opponent with less offensive power and significantly reduced versatility.

Krelon
2007-09-20, 12:07 PM
It's a matter of taste then.

I prefer a lot of commoners and a few heroes. Makes you kinda special, I mean this is a fantasy game where you are supposed to be the main character of the story (at least one of the few main characters).

For me the commoner classes offer a help in designing NPCs and filling the world. If you're the DM and you dont like it, dont use it.

Matthew
2007-09-20, 12:36 PM
They´re actually worse at modelling civilians, since a lvl 5 Expert Master artisan is actually toguher than a Fighter 1 or 2, but he needs to be that high to be able to take 10 on his Craft of Profession Check. 2nd Ed NPCs with arbitrary scores set by the DM were better at creating specialist civilians or similiar.

I completely agree.


NPC-Classes were made for combat as far as I am concerned: They offer some semblance of the capabilities of the PCs, and while being similiarly competent in Skills and about 80% as tough, they pack only 50% of the punch - which is actually good, since now you have opponents who last 2 or 3 rounds and stand a good chance of hurting the PCs, but pose no serious threat of insta-kill. They are the prime ingredient for long fights wearing PCs down.
Of course they aren´t worth their noted CR after about lvl 2, so you´ll have to take a "discount" for them.

I think that you're probably right about that. Still, it's not really an advancement, since you could do all of the above under previous editions as well. What it does provide is an easy framework for new DMs. The downside is that published modules and settings often feel obligated to use them, which is stifling in my opinion. One of the interesting things about Savage Worlds is that it draws a distinction between generating PCs and NPCs. PCs follow formula X, NPCs get whatever you need them to have. Very sensible and a much more straight forward design concept.

Kioran
2007-09-20, 01:31 PM
I think that you're probably right about that. Still, it's not really an advancement, since you could do all of the above under previous editions as well. What it does provide is an easy framework for new DMs. The downside is that published modules and settings often feel obligated to use them, which is stifling in my opinion. One of the interesting things about Savage Worlds is that it draws a distinction between generating PCs and NPCs. PCs follow formula X, NPCs get whatever you need them to have. Very sensible and a much more straight forward design concept.

Creating these per DM adjudication is, of course, superior if in the hands of a halfway competent DM, mainly to adjust some smaller bits and pieces easier. But then, nothing keeps you from doing it anyway - It´s just not, in my opinion, sufficiently encouraged in most sourcebooks.

But I think the requirements of Monsters and foemen-NPCs are different than those for PCs, building quasi-PCS as enemies leads lots of encounters that are either pushover or realy lethal. It sholdn´t be quite as obvious as in Console-RPGs (think Final Fantasy), where Monsters have 20 times the HP but only weak offensive capabilities, but PC-capabilities are just plain scary and quite lethal.
An Expert is really just a Rogue without the really scary stuff. They can sneak just as well and do stuff, but don´t have it in them to kill a PC with 2 full attacks. I don´t think it works quite as intended, but using rogues would kill PCs quite fast, I think.

Chronos
2007-09-20, 02:45 PM
An Expert is really just a Rogue without the really scary stuff. They can sneak just as well and do stuff, but don´t have it in them to kill a PC with 2 full attacks. I don´t think it works quite as intended, but using rogues would kill PCs quite fast, I think.Actually, I think Expert is one of the few NPC classes which does make sense. If you've got a guy who's trained long and hard to become the best blacksmith in the world, he's clearly got some class levels, but class levels in what? Just because he's good at making swords doesn't necessarily mean that he's good at using them, and he probably can't do any magic. None of the PC classes really fit, but Expert does. Alternately, you could choose a different set of class skills (Knowledge, etc., instead of Crafts) and make a levelled-up Expert who's the world's foremost scholar on some subject (who isn't necessarily a mage), or a different guy with maxed-out social skills who's a honey-tounged trader who could sell ice to frost giants, but never learned to sing or play an instrument.