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

[Mark]

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.

Ah, I see what you are saying. Thanks for bearing with me, I'm a bit thick sometimes.

If sticking with this idea, I guess I'd suggest just playing out the NPC level and then ignoring it after they move to PC classes. Remove any of the skills they don't wish to further pursue, or somehow fold them into what would be chosen as that first level of the PC class. That's the cleanest way to avoid the future pitfalls.

As to making the Aristocrat into a PC class, I have a few ideas...

...but I also have a new Lexus - Culture Class - Ne'er-Do-Well Noble coming out that incorporates those ideas so I have to keep it under my hat for now.

 

[Olive]

As to making the Aristocrat into a PC class, I have a few ideas...

...but I also have a new Lexus - Culture Class - Ne'er-Do-Well Noble coming out that incorporates those ideas so I have to keep it under my hat for now.

Damn you, you gaming professional!

I want your ideas for FREE!!!

So if you need playtesters, send me an email.

 

[Mark]

...send me an email.

Check your Email...

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Keep in mind that NPC classes are weaker than normal classes. Their CR is one lower than with PC classes (with 1/2 for 1st-level warriors etc). Give them the 1st level in a "real" class at 500 XP, and their first real levelup at 1000, as usual. Either remove the NPC levels later or don't figure it in at all.

But personally, I don't like the idea. To much work for to little to get for it.

I've been toying with this idea also. I think it might work best to have them all start off as 1st level commoners, and maybe children. Run a low-combat, rules-loose, short story arc (3-4 sessions) as a sort of "prelude". Let the actions of the characters determine what classes they end up playing. When you actually start the real campaign, have them re-write their characters as 1st level PC classes.

How do you become a wizard that way?

 

[Shallown]

How about doing a split campaign I dea.

In other words run the characters as Npc classes at say 8-10 years old rolling up stats and adjusting them etc. Don't give them the multiplier for skills etc but the normal per level skill points and say they just started apprenticing into thier various life paths then run an adventure low level stuff they could handle.

Then advance the time line 8 years let them level up to 2nd and do the starting skills thier and money etc carrying over what they did as kids into the future. Perhaps the adventures as first level characters guided them towards being adventurers.

Other ideas I would include

Look at each NPC class and let them carry something over such as a few skills become class skills permanently or something else.

do it in a moderate sized town when they are kids reasons being this gives the opportunity to get help if the odds go against them IE grown ups a near enough by to bail them out, They could have access to future training that a small village wouldn't offer , a big city what they did as kids wouldn't impact the game world as much etc.

You could even have them gaina few levels before switching to the future. say 2 levels then go to PC classes I think 2 levels would equal out to 1 actual PC level or be close enough for me. That way they can develop their relationship to each other and the town and the event that changes them. Instead of theold my parents were killed by orcs so I am an orphan actual kill the parents... would be interesting.

later

 

[Storminator]

I've always wanted to do this, but I haven't the time nor the players.

I think you need full consent from your players to pull it off. If anyone doesn't like the idea, shelve it. If everyone's on board, it could be a lot of fun.

My idea was to make everyone start as commoners. Yes, they would suck, and a drunken orc with a crossbow would be a seriously challenging encounter.

Then I would make all the PC classes into "prestige" classes, with extremely weak requirements, such as all the full BAB classes require +1 BAB, etc, such that any PC class was impossible to get before 3rd level. So 1 level commoner, 2nd level NPC class that points you towards your PC class, 3rd level PC class.

The resulting PCs would definitely be weaker than equal level straight PCs, but the 3rd level com/NPC/PC should compare favorably to a 1st level PC. I would also demand a very truncated background, as the characters are really developing their background in play.

There was a 2nd ed adventure, Treasure Hunt, that started PCs as 0-level PCs that would work great for the start of the campaign.

PS

 

[Trickstergod]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'd always assumed there was a little leeway in what was a challenge for a party of PC's; that, for example, a party of four level 5 characters were reasonably challenged by anything from around a CR 3 to 7, without the challenges being too under or overpowered. Slightly less challenging in one instance, slightly more, but still reasonable challenges. If that's not the case, then there's something seriously wrong with the way monsters are being designed.

Why do I mention this? Well, quite simply, at least a few of the NPC classes shouldn't be so serious a handicap that the DM needs to sweat over each and every instance of combat and skill use.

It goes without saying that the NPC classes are universally weaker than the PC classes. That's the point, to a degree. But, thankfully, there's a bit of a buffer zone in the way the games set up that a character doesn't (or shouldn't) need to be optimized to be a viable character.

Now, obviously, a 1st Level Aristocrat/4th Level Fighter is going to be inferior to a 5th Level Fighter (in most instances - and those that it's not, the 1st Level Rogue/4th Level Fighter mix beats out what the Aristocrat level offers). But both are going to be able to reasonably offer something to a CR 5 encounter, particularly when everybody else has an NPC class, as well. The only truly worthless NPC class would be the Commoner.

Sure, you can do some tweaking to get the NPC classes "up to snuff", but doesn't that take out some of the point? If the classes are going to be equivalent to the Core classes, why run a game with the NPC classes? A Warrior is nothing more than a watered down Fighter, after all. Might as well just let someone play a Fighter if you intend on making the two classes equal in anyway. Less complex, and the character concept likely won't change. Now, admittedly, the rogue gets a kick in the ass for the first level not being rogue, but that's the only class that really gets the shaft for being taken on later as opposed to starting off.

Here's the only thing that really matters: You need to make sure your players are all fine with the idea. The idea itself isn't a dumb one, but as some people have said, they really wouldn't want to play an NPC class. Not, at least, without certain stipulations. It would be best to see what the opinion is of those actually playing in your game. I for one wouldn't necessarily mind playing a game like that, though I would make sure that the multiclassing penalties didn't apply to the NPC class; otherwise, the Elven Fighter, Gnomish Rogue, Halfling Paladin, and other such characters, are all going to be taking it in some place unpleasant when it comes to experience or leveling up.

 

[haiiro]

Wow, all sorts of things to respond to.

This just seemed like a neat idea. I hadn't thought it through all that much, and figured I'd toss it out and see what other thought of it.

I envisioned the NPC level as a sort of bonus after the PCs had gotten through it -- so as an expert 1/fighter 1, that PC would be a bit stronger than just a fighter 1. I'm not really interested in making the NPC classes equivalent in strength to the PC classes (which would defeat the purpose), nor in penalizing anyone for having an NPC level. Essentially, it sounded like an interesting background/flavor option.

As has been brought up, it might work very well as only a background option -- i.e., all the PCs already have a level of an NPC class under their belts, and start the game as NPC class 1/PC class 1s, more or less like normal.

In that case, I'd have the NPC skill points be normal, and the PC skill points be as first level (x4 and all). Coupled with fairly high point buy and a reasonably deadly game, this would provide a small boost and some background hooks without throwing things off too much.

I haven't brought this up with my players yet (and wouldn't force it on them if they weren't up for it, of course), and I'm far from certain that I'll wind up using it. I'm looking for ways to set the game apart a bit from what we're all used to, and also to unify the PCs before play begins (which is a separate topic entirely). If everyone's game, having the entire party begin with a level of the same NPC class (aristocrat, adept or warrior, perhaps) might be an interesting way to tackle both issues at once.

In any case, thank you for the responses -- all sorts of things have come up that I probably wouldn't have thought of on my own.