PDA

View Full Version : D&D 3.x Class NPC classes as 10-level classes



Elves
2020-09-04, 02:04 AM
I have no idea what a 20th-level commoner or a 20th-level aristocrat means. The fact is, once you reach a certain level, these classes aren't appropriate and you should enter a PRC or a PC class. This is a simple idea to reflect that -- cap NPC classes at 10th level.

Also quickly threw in some tweaks for adept, expert and aristo.


NPC classes (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WRa-t5xlGWHN3H2_an3-3-D2LXfB6Ya2Pc8P3x3Rxos/edit?usp=sharing) (Google doc)

rel
2020-09-04, 02:20 AM
Nice. I feel like the warrior would benefit from some minor guard related class abilities.

Lvl 2 Expert
2020-09-04, 05:28 AM
What's the point?

These are classes meant for putting together characters quickly. That's why they have no features. It's just a way to know how many hit points the village blacksmith has if you manage to persuade him to fight the zombies with you. And if you want a specific NPC to have a specific feature you can always throw that on as an exception. Usually these characters will be maybe level 3 or below. There is no real reasonable use for a level 15 expert, let alone commoner. But...

What's the harm in those extra levels existing? The fact that the class has a table somewhere going to level 20 does not take anything away from that low level blacksmith expert NPC. I can see the point in not going to level 20 if you want to do a redesign to give these people class features and make them more interesting in your world, maybe even make them workable as a one or two level dip (of sorts) characters start out with before moving on to bigger and better things, but then that should be your point. "Hey, I made more interesting versions of these classes but I'm not building them all the way to level 20 because who uses that right?"

Speaking of your changes, I see that the adept is now a full caster, making it an actual pretty powerful class to take, made obsolete only by the existence of slightly better but otherwise very comparable PC classes. The expert has gotten some minor extra value as a possible dip for players who want to craft, but lost the little bit of fighting ability it had (which is unfair or fair depending on whether you put the matter as "does a burly blacksmith get a better physical attack than a nerdy wizard?" or as "does any NPC get as much fighting practice and exercise as the PC's do?"). The Faithful servant feature of the aristocrat is honestly pretty sweet, but completely unnecessary for an NPC, as they always have all the servants they need, and the warrior is left undeveloped because the fighter exists. What strikes me probably the most here is that they feel like less of a group now. The adept is hardly even an NPC class anymore. And the commoner was always the weakest one in every way, but another NPC class getting a commoner as a class feature? That's just mean to commoners. It's cool, it could add some flavor to a campaign setting, but to me it just doesn't add that much to the existing classes I guess...

JoshuaZ
2020-09-04, 07:39 AM
I like this version of the expert and has a much better feel for an NPC expert in some sense. The others though seem unnecessary. I don't think one needs mechanics for aristocrats having servants or having some sort of divine endorsement, and they make it so that one then cannot have a high level aristocrat without that. Making the adept a higher level caster also seems to be a move in the wrong direction; one of the difficulties from a setting consistency perspective is often how worlds are pseudo-medieval which isn't really consistent with lots of magic. Upping the level of NPC magic makes that problem more severe. If the adept should be adjusted it should be downward in terms of magical potential. (In my own settings one thing I've done is made adepts nearly non-existent, with also a magician class that casts from the sor/wiz list. Both the magician and the adept then can only recover total spell slots daily equal to their class level. This helps explain why they aren't going around healing every sick person or similar.)

Elves
2020-09-04, 10:41 AM
What's the harm in those extra levels existing?
I think they just lead to absurdities. According to the DMG table, every community of a certain size has their share of xteenth level commoners. For one, the scaling of their HP and BAB becomes weird at higher levels -- the world's greatest lawyer is also a powerful warrior who can survive a 500 foot fall? That may be more of a problem with the expert class.


Speaking of your changes, I see that the adept is now a full caster, making it an actual pretty powerful class to take, made obsolete only by the existence of slightly better but otherwise very comparable PC classes.
As you note it's directly weaker than PC casters, making it an NPC class.

The spontaneous casting is to make it easier to play, so that the DM doesn't have to go through the hassle of assigning it prepared spells. It has a tiny spell list, so makes sense.

The reason you throw some adept levels on the orc witch doctor instead of cleric levels is to save time and for ease of gameplay.

With that in mind, I was going to cut their familiar to reduce hassle but then remembered people like their orc witch doctor to have his eagle pet or whatever. May still cut.


The expert ... lost the little bit of fighting ability it had (which is unfair or fair depending on whether you put the matter as "does a burly blacksmith get a better physical attack than a nerdy wizard?" or as "does any NPC get as much fighting practice and exercise as the PC's do?").
Expert is supposed to represent anything from a nerdy scientist to a hapless law clerk to an old clockmaker etc. On average, noncombatants. Burly blacksmith should be represented by higher strength.


The Faithful servant feature of the aristocrat is honestly pretty sweet, but completely unnecessary for an NPC, as they always have all the servants they need, and the warrior is left undeveloped because the fighter exists.
It's a fair point, those two features might also be too much hassle in gameplay. Maybe at least cut bodyguard. Was thinking how to give them class identity, always having someone there to boss around made sense.


What strikes me probably the most here is that they feel like less of a group now.
They have their 10-level identity to unite them now. Adept got familiar so the rule was never no class features.


That's just mean to commoners.
So are aristocrats.


or having some sort of divine endorsement, and they make it so that one then cannot have a high level aristocrat without that.
As a 10th-level aristocrat, you're a legendary king of some sort and not a normal nobleman. The sign or messenger could be anything, it need not actually mean (at least from other peoples' perspective) that you have the world's endorsement. See Monty Python.


Making the adept a higher level caster also seems to be a move in the wrong direction; one of the difficulties from a setting consistency perspective is often how worlds are pseudo-medieval which isn't really consistent with lots of magic. Upping the level of NPC magic makes that problem more severe.
It doesn't seem like the job of the adept is to be a caster class for low magic settings. It seems like it's there to slap onto generic NPC casters for ease of play, especially from the mook races.

I don't think the old adept had enough bang for its buck. Slapping some adept levels on the troglodyte shaman should give them enough magic to recognizably play that role.

Elves
2020-09-04, 10:58 AM
On reflection, limiting warrior and adept to 10 levels doesn't work -- if they're a tool to create easy-bake NPCs, that tool shouldn't stop working at 10th level.

It's possible that NPC classes whose role is to represent the everyday folk of the world, like aristo, expert and commoner, could be capped at 10 levels, while others, with a different role as EZbake NPCs, could go to 20.

20th-level experts, aristos and commoners continue to seem like an ugly result to me.

Silly Name
2020-09-04, 11:09 PM
As a 10th-level aristocrat, you're a legendary king of some sort and not a normal nobleman. The sign or messenger could be anything, it need not actually mean (at least from other peoples' perspective) that you have the world's endorsement. See Monty Python.

I don't see that really working for a lot of genres and setting: does Billy, firstborn son of emperor Augustus Badassicus I of Mythika, immediately gain 9 levels because daddy died? Is lord Coolio McSkater, the most accomplished and decorated general of the realm, forever barred from 10th level?

A lot of big kingdoms in D&D settings keep working even without every single sovereign being heralded by the heavens as the rightful ruler. While this feature is flavorful, it also creates expectations that may clash with the setting.

Elves
2020-09-04, 11:40 PM
Clearly the language was misleading so I changed it to just "a token of rulership". It's not intended as any kind of objective anointment. It might signify the endorsement of some particular force, but that may not mean very much (again see Monty Python).

Maat Mons
2020-09-05, 02:05 PM
I kind of like the idea of reworking NPC classes. But I feel like only certain types of NPCs need any form of scaling:

The dude the PCs pay to cast healing spells.
The dude the PCs pay to craft magic items.
The dude who fails to keep the PCs from causing trouble in town.
The dude who somehow maintains a shop in the middle of a dungeon.


Other NPCs can probably always be 1st level. You wouldn't even need classes. Just a smattering of stat blocks:

Farmer
Ordinary Shopkeeper
Armorsmith
Weaponsmith
Blacksmith
Nobleman
Street Urchin
Hapless Victim
Prostitute
Bartender
Waitress
Drunk
Mysterious Quest-Giving Old Man

rel
2020-09-09, 01:57 AM
I like that.
If you are using stat blocks instead of classes for the non-scaling NPC's it might be a better option to create stat blocks for the scaling NPC's as well.
You could have town guard CR 1, 3, 6, 9 as separate stat blocks for example.

Yakk
2020-09-09, 10:39 AM
Adept: Remove bonus spells. Extra pointless bookkeeping. Tweak table.

Aristocrat: Birthright makes no sense as a level 10 feature, especially as it scales with HD.

Commoner: I'm not sure what a 10th level Commoner is. I'd just nix it.

Warrior: Baseline of what a NPC class is for; leveling up a quick soldier.

Expert: Here is an example of being a level 20 NPC makes sense. What do you do if someone is a legendary smith who needs insane skill ranks, but has no other features of note?

Elves
2020-09-09, 12:20 PM
Expert: Here is an example of being a level 20 NPC makes sense. What do you do if someone is a legendary smith who needs insane skill ranks, but has no other features of note?

I think expert is really just a victim of 3.5's linking of skill points with BAB, saves and hp. It's not a bad system, it just breaks down when you want to create a skilled noncombatant -- can't have a great craftsman who isn't also good at combat. Poor bab and possibly d4 HD is a start, but frankly in a game I would just assign the legendary craftsman NPC an EX SQ that gave them a +10 competence bonus on Craft (smithing) checks or whatever.


As I said upthread I think this fix has problems so I'm abandoning it.