-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 4E NPC classes? How are non-classed characters working in 4e?
- Thread starter Emirikol
- Start date
Good question. I don't think that we have seen anything that directly addresses this.
I wouldn't be all that surprised if we leave NPC classes behind entirely. It isn't a big jump to go from "monsters aren't built like characters and don't follow the same rules" to "NPC's aren't built like PC's, and don't follow the same rules." I wouldn't mind, really. The current system has some flaws from a logical standpoint: Bob the Human is a significantly better blacksmith than Thurg the Orc, so he must be a higher level (assuming that both max out skills and invest feats in blacksmithy things, and have similar ability scores), so therefore Bob is a higher level and hence a better warrior. That makes no sense.
I wouldn't be all that surprised if we leave NPC classes behind entirely. It isn't a big jump to go from "monsters aren't built like characters and don't follow the same rules" to "NPC's aren't built like PC's, and don't follow the same rules." I wouldn't mind, really. The current system has some flaws from a logical standpoint: Bob the Human is a significantly better blacksmith than Thurg the Orc, so he must be a higher level (assuming that both max out skills and invest feats in blacksmithy things, and have similar ability scores), so therefore Bob is a higher level and hence a better warrior. That makes no sense.
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
I've always liked the NPC classes, right from the beginning. The way they're tweaked in Iron Heroes may soothe some of the qualms people have about them. Anyway, I like them in general because they allow me to have a quick, handy way to stat up an NPC without simply handwaving. They allow for NPCs that aren't complete pushovers, but are still not in the league of PCs of a comparable level. I wouldn't mind seeing "generic" humans show up in either a new MM or a book of useful NPCs, but I'd like to see them use the NPC classes, where applicable. Plus, for those who want a low-power game, the NPC classes can be used as PC classes - sure, they don't have much in the way of powers, but that's pretty much the point of a low-power game.
The nonheroic class for Saga was horribly implemented. A level 4 nonheroic is roughly equivalent to a level 1 'real' class, but you have to juggle an arbitrary set of special restrictions. There isn't any meaningful reason why a 1st level stormtrooper isn't a 1st level soldier, perhaps with fewer hit points.
I doubt it will show up in 4e, simply because they're trying to make level a universal thing. So there really isn't room for a 12th level 'garbage mook' thats equal to a 3rd level PC or monster.
I doubt it will show up in 4e, simply because they're trying to make level a universal thing. So there really isn't room for a 12th level 'garbage mook' thats equal to a 3rd level PC or monster.
Frostmarrow
First Post
I did like the NPC classes and on occasion even played one; expert or aristocrat. But I wouldn't mind seeing them go. I too would like to find human in the Monster Manual. There is no more formidable monster than the human. Come to think of it; why isn't human the strong race of the player races?
I've been wondering about NPC classes as well. Obviously WOTC hasn't released any actual answers yet, but there are some clues.
First of all, monsters have roles the same way PC classes do. Different Design and Developments & Playtest Reports have referred to monsters as Brutes, Soldiers, Ambushers, and Skirmishers, along with Leaders and Controllers like PC's. It's also supposed to be easier to make 4e monsters weaker or stronger with a simple system. From the combination of those two hints, I think it's likely that these "monster roles" will work like NPC classes do now, only even more broadly. Each specific type of monster will have a role and a level, as well as a few unique abilities that make it special. Solo monsters (strong enough to take on a whole party of their level alone) will probably be different, but standardizing the mook monsters except for a few signature powers is so DM-friendly that they must have at least thought of it.
Basically, this means I think in 4e the city guards might be level 2 soldiers, while the elite dwarven infantry are level 6 soldiers with a couple cool feats or racial abilities. This is pretty familiar stuff, but instead of only applying to humanoids, all monsters might be this way. For instance, the wolves in the forest might be level 1 brutes (with a couple special powers that make them wolves) while the trained goblin war-wolves would be level 4 brutes, but with the same wolf powers as the wild ones, because they're all wolves.
The other side of the coin is the recent revelation of rituals for non-combat magic. Personally, I think this has the potential to be great, although obviously I won't know until I see finished product. If I were designing a fantasy RPG, though, it would be an easy jump to create NPC classes for each power source that only have access to the out-of-combat ritual stuff.
So, there might be NPC priests who can't wear armor or use in-combat healing, but they can use rituals, so this means you can go to their temple and buy a ritual for restoration, or resurrection, or curing a disease, but they're still not the kind of folks that can cast a spell in three seconds to blast their enemies with fire.
By the same token, a mage's guild in a city could do business using rituals for divination, magic item creation, removing curses and things like that, but be totally useless at throwing fireballs while people are trying to stab them. For that, you'd need someone with such unusual insight into magic that they can use it instinctively and instantly, i.e. a wizard.
I have no idea if they'll actually do it that way, of course. It depends on how they create the rules for rituals and OOC magic, and how interested they are in creating a fantasy world as opposed to a fantasy combat game. ::shrug::
First of all, monsters have roles the same way PC classes do. Different Design and Developments & Playtest Reports have referred to monsters as Brutes, Soldiers, Ambushers, and Skirmishers, along with Leaders and Controllers like PC's. It's also supposed to be easier to make 4e monsters weaker or stronger with a simple system. From the combination of those two hints, I think it's likely that these "monster roles" will work like NPC classes do now, only even more broadly. Each specific type of monster will have a role and a level, as well as a few unique abilities that make it special. Solo monsters (strong enough to take on a whole party of their level alone) will probably be different, but standardizing the mook monsters except for a few signature powers is so DM-friendly that they must have at least thought of it.
Basically, this means I think in 4e the city guards might be level 2 soldiers, while the elite dwarven infantry are level 6 soldiers with a couple cool feats or racial abilities. This is pretty familiar stuff, but instead of only applying to humanoids, all monsters might be this way. For instance, the wolves in the forest might be level 1 brutes (with a couple special powers that make them wolves) while the trained goblin war-wolves would be level 4 brutes, but with the same wolf powers as the wild ones, because they're all wolves.
The other side of the coin is the recent revelation of rituals for non-combat magic. Personally, I think this has the potential to be great, although obviously I won't know until I see finished product. If I were designing a fantasy RPG, though, it would be an easy jump to create NPC classes for each power source that only have access to the out-of-combat ritual stuff.
So, there might be NPC priests who can't wear armor or use in-combat healing, but they can use rituals, so this means you can go to their temple and buy a ritual for restoration, or resurrection, or curing a disease, but they're still not the kind of folks that can cast a spell in three seconds to blast their enemies with fire.
By the same token, a mage's guild in a city could do business using rituals for divination, magic item creation, removing curses and things like that, but be totally useless at throwing fireballs while people are trying to stab them. For that, you'd need someone with such unusual insight into magic that they can use it instinctively and instantly, i.e. a wizard.
I have no idea if they'll actually do it that way, of course. It depends on how they create the rules for rituals and OOC magic, and how interested they are in creating a fantasy world as opposed to a fantasy combat game. ::shrug::
zoroaster100
First Post
Actually, I think this is an area where 4th edition could make a major improvement. What we need are some NPC classes that are just as powerful in combat as the PC classes, but which are far easier to stat up at any level than the PC classes. The DM will have monsters which are fairly simple to run relative to 3rd edition (we hope) for any given level, but what about civilized opponents from the PC races? How will the DM create challenges to the PCs in town/city/political intrigue based campaigns without the same or even greater challenge of stating up high level NPCs? We need alternative NPC classes such as warrior, mage, priest and thug to replace fighter, wizard, cleric and rogue. These should not be weaker than the PC classes in a normal fight, but they should have fewer options. So the reason players would not play such a class is because they are boring to play, not because they can't stand up to a PC in a straight up combat.
Similar Threads
