Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
NPC Generic Classes: For NPCs in campaigns using the Generic Class variants
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="index" data-source="post: 1648641" data-attributes="member: 21195"><p><strong>Generic Class campaign = FEWER classes</strong></p><p></p><p>AFGNCAAP, thank you very much for re-posting in a</p><p>non-proprietary format, I truly appreciate it.</p><p></p><p>I think the point of a 'generic class' campaign is to</p><p>drastically reduce the number of classes. The whole point</p><p>is to reduce the number of classes so much that the system</p><p>is almost classless. But if you're willing to give that up,</p><p>your work looks good at first reading.</p><p></p><p>> Generic NPC Adept:</p><p>[....]</p><p>> Spellcasting: An adept learns and casts spells as a sorcerer.</p><p>> She may select her spells known from the adept, assassin, bard,</p><p>> blackguard, paladin, and ranger spell lists (if you wish, adepts may</p><p>> also select spells from the hexblade spell list).</p><p></p><p>IIRC, the assassin spell list is so focused, it's not a</p><p>problem to put it up there. Ditto for blackguards. But</p><p>some of the paladin (lesser restoration, discern lies, heal</p><p>mount, break enchantment) and ranger (delay poison,</p><p>protection from energy, spike growth) spells are balanced</p><p>not by spell level, but by the sucky spell progression of</p><p>those classes. A few bard spells also have this problem.</p><p></p><p>An NPC class should never be better than a PC class at ANY</p><p>spell-casting except maybe if they are restricted to a VERY</p><p>limited list. Don't allow your generic NPC Adept to learn</p><p>paladin or ranger spells unless they ONLY learn paladin</p><p>spells, or ONLY ranger spells.</p><p></p><p>I'm not familiar with the hexblade list.</p><p></p><p>[....]</p><p></p><p>> At the very least, all that's really needed for use in a Generic</p><p>> class-based campaign is the generic Commoner class: the Generic PC</p><p>> classes would work just fine for characters with some degree of</p><p>> combat, skill, or magical ability.</p><p></p><p>Very true. I've never liked the whole idea of NPC classes.</p><p>My opinion has been to just give weaker NPCs fewer levels.</p><p>I like the Expert and Aristocrat classes nearly as written</p><p>only because they provide abilities the PC classes don't.</p><p>(Pick your own set of skills for Expert; starting wealth and</p><p>prestige for Aristocrat -- and I think that can be handled</p><p>fine with a feat.)</p><p></p><p>I suppose the Commoner class is needed to represent people</p><p>who survive lots of challenging situations without ever</p><p>getting expensive training. Or you could just re-introduce</p><p>the optional 1st edition rule that if you get x10 the needed</p><p>experience without training, you get the level anyway but</p><p>lose the excess XP. Having a Commoner class is saying,</p><p>'hey, look, we have these simple farmers who can't afford</p><p>training, and they suck at almost any adventuring task, but</p><p>man, can they soak up those negative levels from wraiths'.</p><p></p><p>Just another weakness of a class/level-based system.</p><p></p><p>> However, all of the generic NPC classes listed above have less skills</p><p>> overall than the comparable PC classes, and less feats overall (they</p><p>> only get the standard feat per 3 levels, and do not gain any bonus</p><p>> feats from their class, unlike the PC generic classes).</p><p></p><p>So why not just have :</p><p>Generic NPC Warrior = Generic PC Warrior minus bonus feats, </p><p>Generic NPC Expert = Generic PC Expert minus bonus feats, and </p><p>Generic NPC Spellcaster = Generic PC Spellcaster minus bonus</p><p>feats with a little forced multi-classing to lower access to</p><p>high spell levels.</p><p></p><p>Remember, the whole point of a Generic Class campaign is to</p><p>LOWER the number of classes.</p><p></p><p>(The more I look at it, the more I like the concept. If you</p><p>want special stuff from various books, translate the</p><p>abilities into feats for the Generic Classes to take.)</p><p></p><p>--index</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="index, post: 1648641, member: 21195"] [b]Generic Class campaign = FEWER classes[/b] AFGNCAAP, thank you very much for re-posting in a non-proprietary format, I truly appreciate it. I think the point of a 'generic class' campaign is to drastically reduce the number of classes. The whole point is to reduce the number of classes so much that the system is almost classless. But if you're willing to give that up, your work looks good at first reading. > Generic NPC Adept: [....] > Spellcasting: An adept learns and casts spells as a sorcerer. > She may select her spells known from the adept, assassin, bard, > blackguard, paladin, and ranger spell lists (if you wish, adepts may > also select spells from the hexblade spell list). IIRC, the assassin spell list is so focused, it's not a problem to put it up there. Ditto for blackguards. But some of the paladin (lesser restoration, discern lies, heal mount, break enchantment) and ranger (delay poison, protection from energy, spike growth) spells are balanced not by spell level, but by the sucky spell progression of those classes. A few bard spells also have this problem. An NPC class should never be better than a PC class at ANY spell-casting except maybe if they are restricted to a VERY limited list. Don't allow your generic NPC Adept to learn paladin or ranger spells unless they ONLY learn paladin spells, or ONLY ranger spells. I'm not familiar with the hexblade list. [....] > At the very least, all that's really needed for use in a Generic > class-based campaign is the generic Commoner class: the Generic PC > classes would work just fine for characters with some degree of > combat, skill, or magical ability. Very true. I've never liked the whole idea of NPC classes. My opinion has been to just give weaker NPCs fewer levels. I like the Expert and Aristocrat classes nearly as written only because they provide abilities the PC classes don't. (Pick your own set of skills for Expert; starting wealth and prestige for Aristocrat -- and I think that can be handled fine with a feat.) I suppose the Commoner class is needed to represent people who survive lots of challenging situations without ever getting expensive training. Or you could just re-introduce the optional 1st edition rule that if you get x10 the needed experience without training, you get the level anyway but lose the excess XP. Having a Commoner class is saying, 'hey, look, we have these simple farmers who can't afford training, and they suck at almost any adventuring task, but man, can they soak up those negative levels from wraiths'. Just another weakness of a class/level-based system. > However, all of the generic NPC classes listed above have less skills > overall than the comparable PC classes, and less feats overall (they > only get the standard feat per 3 levels, and do not gain any bonus > feats from their class, unlike the PC generic classes). So why not just have : Generic NPC Warrior = Generic PC Warrior minus bonus feats, Generic NPC Expert = Generic PC Expert minus bonus feats, and Generic NPC Spellcaster = Generic PC Spellcaster minus bonus feats with a little forced multi-classing to lower access to high spell levels. Remember, the whole point of a Generic Class campaign is to LOWER the number of classes. (The more I look at it, the more I like the concept. If you want special stuff from various books, translate the abilities into feats for the Generic Classes to take.) --index [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
NPC Generic Classes: For NPCs in campaigns using the Generic Class variants
Top