PCs that start the game as 1st level NPCs -- good idea?

[tleilaxu]

here's how i would do it. all NPC classes have +0 BAB at first level so no problem

Give them their HP and their skill points x1 (not 4). When they get up to 1000 xp, have them all take PC levels. Treat this PC level as the actual first level (giving them x4 skill points, etc). In addition, the PCs restart their XP at 0 and must only get to 1000 to level up.

The end result? PCs have an extra 4-8 HP, 2-8 skill points, and +2 to a save in exchange for blowing their first 1000 xp.

 

[Nephet]

From a flavor stand-point the classes in D&D are generally the result of a character studying for a number of years in a master-apprentice relationship. When you start them out as an NPC class, you muck up this paradigm. I think instead of starting them out as an NPC level, I'd just grant them all an extra amount of skill points at first level that they can spend on flavor skills - say 2 + int modifier which they can spend on skills like prof, craft, knowledge or language. All of these are taken as if they are class skills.

 

[Mark]

Expert is about the only DMG NPC class that has a chance of not hamstringing a campaign run by standard rules. You'll likely have to make some adjustments at first level, and subsequent levels, to account for the weaknesses of starting as NPC classes.

 

[Olive]

Expert is about the only DMG NPC class that has a chance of not hamstringing a campaign run by standard rules. You'll likely have to make some adjustments at first level, and subsequent levels, to account for the weaknesses of starting as NPC classes.

Why not Aristocrat?

 

[Mark]

Why not Aristocrat?

They suggest in the DMG that the Expert and the Aristocrat might work but from what I've seen through play only the additional skill points of the Expert allow this NPC class to hold up as a possible substitute for a regular PC class.

The Aristocrat works out to be basically a poor Fighter or weakened Rogue.

Assuming (because of the access to martial weapons and all armor) a fighter it switches the Fort save for a Will save, has a low BAB, a few extra coins in his pocket at the start and some unusual Skills.

A lot of the Aristocrats class skills might steer it toward a Rogue starter kit, but the Skill points hold it back.

You give up a lot taking Aristocrat at first level rather than a regular PC class and don't see any benefit.

With the Expert, you gain lots of Skill points and can choose any ten Skills as your class skills, which goes a long way to making up for not taking a regular PC class.

 

[Cloudgatherer]

I'm just going to say I don't think it is such a good idea for reasons already discussed. Personally, doesn't appeal to me (quite the opposite).

 

[Lord Pendragon]

What do you think? Have you tried this in your campaign? Are there obvious balance issues between the NPC classes that I'm missing? Is this a really dumb idea?

I've done this twice now, and I like it. It adds a bit of background and flavor to the PCs, even those that don't have a detailed background in mind.

Two adjustments I've made:

1. The NPC class doesn't count toward XP penalties. That way the players don't feel shafted for being forced to multiclass.

2. The player can decide whether to use their NPC class, or their first level in a PC class, as the recipient of the x4 skill point bonus. That way rogue players aren't shafted out of 75% of their starting skill points.

It should be noted that I've never started a campaign with level 1 NPC class characters. I've always gone with level 1 NPC class/level 1 PC class (2nd-level characters), or higher.

 

[Olive]

They suggest in the DMG that the Expert and the Aristocrat might work but from what I've seen through play only the additional skill points of the Expert allow this NPC class to hold up as a possible substitute for a regular PC class.

I'm not sure the point here is to stand up against a regular PC class...

The Aristocrat works out to be basically a poor Fighter or weakened Rogue.

Or somewhere between... better HP than the rogue for example...

With the Expert, you gain lots of Skill points and can choose any ten Skills as your class skills, which goes a long way to making up for not taking a regular PC class.

Sure, but I think that you can make a perfectly playable character out of the aristo, just not one you'd take if you could take a PC class. Which in this example you couldn't so it's a moot point.

That said, I do kinda wish that DnD had a PC strength aristo class, kinda like a better fighting rogue, with specific skills. I'm not exactly sure how to do it tho...

 

[Mark]

I'm not sure the point here is to stand up against a regular PC class...

I thought that was exactly the point. I thought the question of the thread was "Is it a good idea to substitute first level of a PC class with the first level of an NPC class," and I explained that I do not think so except (possibly) in the case of the Expert. And it's a problem that will be persistent throughout the campaign as a 1NPC/4PC is not the equal of a 5PC, again, except possibly in the case where that 1NPC is Expert. A 1NPC/10PC is not the equal of a 11PC, etc. When prepping for a game like this you would have to keep a very close eye on CRs, ELs and XP rewards and make adjustments from the beginning of the campaign and all the way through. Not impossible to do, mind you, but something that still needs to be done if a fun and challenging game is to be assured.

(I agree that you would get a couple of extra hit points as an Aristocrat over a Rogue but the Class features coming a full level late, assuming you take one level of Aristocrat and then proceed to Rogue for subsequent levels, is hardly a trade off worth taking.)

...but I think that you can make a perfectly playable character out of the aristo, just not one you'd take if you could take a PC class.

You can make a perfectly playable character out of a cat familiar, too but that not the point I am making nor the point of the thread, as I am reading it. You asked why I thought the Expert holds up in comparison to PC classes, and why I thought the Aristocrat does not. You apparently agree with me about the Aristocrat but somehow think I am missing the point.

Please explain again to me what I am missing about the point of the thread and how the point I was making isn't pertinent because I am somehow misunderstanding what you are trying to explain so far.

 

[Olive]

I thought that was exactly the point. I thought the question of the thread was "Is it a good idea to substitute first level of a PC class with the first level of an NPC class," and I explained that I do not think so...

I think we're coming at this from different angles.... I get where you're coming from now, and I still think that you could make a fun game where everyone is a commoner for the first 1000xp, but you're right, you'd need to take into consideration later.

IMC I currently have a PC who is a grey elf aristo1/conj5, and he's goign pretty well. The exrta hp and skill points have made him much more versitile than a wizard6, but the slower spell progression is bothering him. As a kinda make up, I'm giving him leadership for free.

I'd still be interested on your opinions on what you could to turn the aristo into a PC class, if you had any.