D&D 5E (2014) Poll: What is a Level 1 PC?

[Grydan]

One thing I'm becoming a bit curious about: for those of you who feel that NPCs need to be statted by following a formally structured rule system, what do you do when there's a viable NPC concept you want in your game that the system is incapable of providing?

 

[Lanefan]

Lots and lots to catch up on in this one.

First, the difference between commoner and 1st-level in the various editions:
- 1e had 0th level as a "bridge" between the two; not perfect, but it was something. 4e has what appears to be a bigger gap and no bridge mechanism at all
- I've never bought in to the idea that NPCs should have different-but-similar classes to PCs. A 1st-level NPC Warrior should be exactly the same as a 1st-level PC Fighter - what difference does it make to the character in the game world whether or not it has a player attache dto it?

Second, the combat comparison between editions of 1st-level Fighter vs. commoners is not the comparison to make. The difference between editions shows up much more clearly when you compare how long it takes when the battle is a 1st-level Fighter vs. another 1st-level Fighter. In 1e that combat would be pretty short. In 4e it'd take a while.

Third, how good a blacksmith someone is should have no relation to how good a fighter they are. The NPC class level system of 3e is fine but combat abilities need to be divorced from it. That, or just roll a separate die to determine your smithing skill once you've determined blacksmith to be your non-adventuring profession.

More later- got a game to run!

Lanefan

 

[Obryn]

No I think I nailed it.

That they decided to provide no system whatsoever to create "butchers and bakers" is telling of their gaming philosophy but it is also purposely negligent and a tip of the hat towards lazy DMing style (which I don't agree with). No system is not a different system it's just no system.

So I guess that what certain people want is a "system" that agrees with their gaming style and declares "there will be no system and you shall have none to worry about."That's a slap in the face, and goes against what I believe a gaming system should provide for me. Anyone can just declare "do what I please when I want to." I honestly believe it's bad game design.

"NPCs can do what is needed for their profession and suck at fighting" isn't "No system." And it is dramatically better than a clumsy shoehorn... Which is all the NPC classes - with full 1-20 progression - are. It's an obsessive, reductionist drive to categorize a universe full of farmers and butchers into a class and level structure that's a legacy of oldschool dungeoncrawl games. It doesn't fit for them, and there's a reason for that - this system was never meant to be used for commoners.

NPC classes are a solution to an invented problem. And that, IMO, is what bad design is all about.

I think calling it a "slap in the face" is a bit on the overwrought side. If there must be a system, that's fine - but the NPC class system from 3.x is, IMO, worse than no system at all. It could certainly be a module for those who want this degree of work, but putting anything more advanced than an AD&D-like 0-level in the core is pretty silly.

-O

 

[Ashtagon]

One thing I'm becoming a bit curious about: for those of you who feel that NPCs need to be statted by following a formally structured rule system, what do you do when there's a viable NPC concept you want in your game that the system is incapable of providing?

This is why I want a 5e system that can handle odd corner cases.

At a metagame level, there is a strong reason why NPC classes progress hit points. It's so His August Personage in Jade, The Emperor of all China (aristocrat 20) doesn't get killed by the nearest house cat (or level 1 PC), and doesn't have to be an amazing high-level PC class to avoid having the campaign casually destroyed by PCs of the Chaotic Lulz alignment.

fwiw, I'd rebuild NPC classes roughly as follows (following 3e concepts, since more people are familiar with that than 5e):

Warrior: Abolish this class. It's really just fighter-lite.

Commoner: Abolish this class. It's really just expert-lite.

Adept: Abolish this class. It's really just generic-full-caster-lite. "Civilian" priests are now multi-class cleric/experts.

Expert: Create a number of "sub-classes" with pre-defined sets of skills (with DM permission to create more such sub-classes), to discourage min-maxers from abusing the class for char-ops purposes. Knock the attack bonus done to the lowest possible, maybe lower.

Aristocrat: I'd build this one up to make a full PC-viable class. He fills the "non-magical, non-martial" leader role.

 

[Obryn]

At a metagame level, there is a strong reason why NPC classes progress hit points. It's so His August Personage in Jade, The Emperor of all China (aristocrat 20) doesn't get killed by the nearest house cat (or level 1 PC), and doesn't have to be an amazing high-level PC class to avoid having the campaign casually destroyed by PCs of the Chaotic Lulz alignment.

The thing is, he really doesn't. I disagree with your basic assumptions here.

He doesn't even need stats most of the time. If he's completely unskilled at combat, he probably should go down to the first attack (assuming someone can get through his bodyguards). Assassination can be a thing, here - a high-ranking aristocrat is no longer immune to assassins with crossbows, and political killings can occur once again. If the PCs are determined to kill him and he's really just a lazy noble, then his protections - whatever those are - should be his shield, rather than a fake layer of HP tofu.

If he's trained at fighting, he's whichever class fits him best, Fighter being the obvious choice. Possibly whichever leader-y classes arise.

He doesn't even need to be particularly high level, because we're reasonable adults here and understand that the Emperor's skills are basically whatever seems appropriate. He's had a ton of intense education and training, after all, and restricting it to his level is selling him short. (This is the opposite case of a PC musician who spends 2 weeks killing goblins and magically gets better at music.)

(As for housecats - D&D doesn't have to model Cat on Emperor combat. It's an edge-case scenario for a reasonable DM to adjudicate.)

-O

 

[Hussar]

Who said anything about an average blacksmith?

I've never had NPC Classed NPCs go higher then 2nd level unless there was good reason. I have had some aristocrates go up to 10th level though. But past 5th level never really happens.

The above feels right for me. This would be your typical human master blacksmith in my game world. Very few people would be better than this but of course there would exceptions like the PCs.

I believe these are your words, so...

I don't know what your talking about either. I don't usually use standard arrays for creating NPCs unless their is a reason to and I create my own standard arrays as I see fit. I create the characters I want to create based on what is needed or just interesting to me.

In other words, you completely ignore the ruleset and then wonder why people are confused when you substitute your rules for what's actually in the books.

I don't know what's not believable. I really don't understand what your getting at. He's the 'royal blacksmith 56 year human' in my campaign he can be as intelligent as I see fit and have weak constitution too. It's completely up to me. I create their backgrounds.

You were presenting an "average" character. I would say that this character is MILES from average. Note, his Con is lower because of his age. Ok, that means in his prime, his other stats were the same, but his con was actually higher, which makes him even more exceptional.

No they don't. The average ability scores for an average person is 10. That means, it could be a 9 for int, could be a 11 for con maybe even an 8 for dex and a 13 for cha. You get the drift I think.

If you used straight 10's all the time, well then that was your personal prerogative. I think that's a strange way to DM but hey that's your thing.

Umm, nope. I'm using the 3e rules as written. I don't know what ruleset you're talking about.

I think the point that went over your head was that you can make a master blacksmith with very few NPC levels. You don't have to have a 10th or 15th level expert to make a one, in fact you shouldn't make one, but I definitely like that I can if I so desired to. If you wore making 20th level expert master blacksmiths I would probably laugh but maybe that's just your game logic so good luck with that.

Yup, if you start playing all sorts of silly buggers with the rules, you can create whatever you want. That's true.

 

[Hussar]

(picking out one line from a post many pages ago)

No, this is not true at all. It's always more difficult and less tolerated socially for the DM to take an easy game and try to twist the screws than to take a hard game and make it easier. When a game is difficult/high stakes it should have the most rules support and the least necessity for DM judgement/house ruling. Do you agree with that? If so, then hard mode should have the most robust rules support and easy mode should be accomplished by tinkering, not the other way around.

Swimming upthread because this is interesting.

Totally disagree with this. If you try to make a lethal game easier, without simply fudging your way through it, it's very, very difficult. The entire game is balanced a certain way, and if you remove that limitation, then game balance goes straight out the window.

It's, IMO, much easier to go the other way. You want to make a game more lethal, add three more monsters to the encounter, give the monsters a surprise round (or at least the chance of one, give the monsters better equipment, focus fire with the baddies, any number of other things. You don't even need to tinker with the mechanics to achieve your goal.

To go the other way requires rewriting the mechanics.

 

[Hussar]

Y'know, all the rules back and forth aside, I think I seen now where the issue lies. People's ideas of an "average" person can vary greatly. To me, a blacksmith would never be an expert. Why would you use that class for a blacksmith? He has absolutely no need for those skills and even the writeup in the DMG for experts would lead me to think that a commoner is a much better model.

After all, the only skill our blacksmith needs is Profession Blacksmith. That's it.

Then we have the example, some time ago, of an average town guard. Warrior 1 with weapon focus longsword and toughness (of course it presumes human) armed with a longsword and wearing scale mail. Really? To me that's an experienced soldier or mercenary. Someone who's fairly high up on the food chain. Not some standard town guard who is more likely carrying a truncheon and a pike and wearing leather armor. How rich is this town that can afford almost 100 gp worth of equipment for an average town guard? Never mind the advanced training to give him weapon focus.

To me, a town guard is likely a commoner with Feat: Polearm proficiency. That's an average town guard, to me.

The game has always presumed that about 95% of the population is normal humans (either that or 1st level commoners) with no stat bonuses whatsoever.

Yup, you can start fiddling about with the stats, giving them masterwork tools and the like, but, to me, this is just a solution looking for a problem. No thanks. I'll stick with my statblock thanks - Bob the Blacksmith, Smithing +X.

Just so much easier.

 

[JamesonCourage]

This would be your typical human master blacksmith in my game world.

I believe these are your words, so...

You know, even in the sentence you emphasized, it seems to be clear that it's not your "average" blacksmith by his use of the word "master" (and that's not counting his original description, much less the title of "The Royal Blacksmith").

You were presenting an "average" character. I would say that this character is MILES from average.

He was presenting a "typical" "master" "Royal Blacksmith". I think it's okay for him to be above average.

Y'know, all the rules back and forth aside, I think I seen now where the issue lies. People's ideas of an "average" person can vary greatly.

Indeed.

Then we have the example, some time ago, of an average town guard. Warrior 1 with weapon focus longsword and toughness (of course it presumes human) armed with a longsword and wearing scale mail. Really? To me that's an experienced soldier or mercenary. Someone who's fairly high up on the food chain. Not some standard town guard who is more likely carrying a truncheon and a pike and wearing leather armor. How rich is this town that can afford almost 100 gp worth of equipment for an average town guard? Never mind the advanced training to give him weapon focus.

I've always run towns as outfitting most guards (many towns allow guards to augment their own equipment if they pay for it, but this varies by setting / region with that setting). When it comes to arms and armor, there's a lot of stuff leftover from dead people. That last town guard (or bandit/invader) died, and his arms/armor gets passed onto the next guard (after repairs, if it's necessary). It's an investment, sure, but between looting enemies / upkeeping old weapons and armor, it's never really popped out as me as breaking my suspension of disbelief.

And Weapon Focus can be explained a number of ways; natural leaning or skill (which may be why he cut it as a town guard), training (I imagine that people might learn from town guard as children if they have a knack for it [stats for it] and the town wants a defender), etc. Again, never really killed my sense of verisimilitude.

To me, a town guard is likely a commoner with Feat: Polearm proficiency. That's an average town guard, to me.

This is where "averages" differ, I agree. I'm not even sure 3e agreed with your take on it (not that it should dictate your world to you; I used Fighters as town guard, not Warriors). But I also pretty vehemently hated the Commoner class, so meh. I could see your guy being the stock rabble during conscription in most games, but it wouldn't be that way in mine.

Yup, you can start fiddling about with the stats, giving them masterwork tools and the like, but, to me, this is just a solution looking for a problem. No thanks. I'll stick with my statblock thanks - Bob the Blacksmith, Smithing +X.

Just so much easier.

To me, this is something you can do regardless of whether or not there's a guideline for building NPCs; you'd just ignore the guideline. I'd rather they do what I did for my RPG: do all the math for you, and give a guideline for levels. It doesn't need to map exactly to my game, but for example:

Hit die 1 is just starting out.
Hit die 4 is the average settled adult.
Hit die 8 is a very experienced or very well-trained adult.

Then, you'd have a handy chart for what bonuses might look like depending on focus at various levels. For example, skills from levels 1-4:

Exceptionally Skilled....Professionally Skilled...Interested..............Hobby
1) +7 (Can take a 12).....+5 (Can take an 11).....+3 (Can take an 10)...+1
2) +8 (Can take a 12).....+6 (Can take an 11).....+3 (Can take an 10)...+2
3) +9 (Can take a 12).....+7 (Can take an 11).....+4 (Can take an 10)...+2
4) +10 (Can take a 12)...+8 (Can take an 11).....+5 (Can take an 10)...+3

So, then you can say "well, he's not just starting out, but probably not an average settled adult yet", decide on level 2-3 (depending on which one he's closer to), decide on how much he's focused on the skill, and give him an appropriate bonus.

I got all these numbers by running the numbers for my system. My players routinely build characters and see how they rank up against these guidelines -even though there's no reason to- and are happy with how they stack up ("I'm professionally skilled at attack bonus for my hit die ").

Now, I also have loose rules on how to make an NPC with these guidelines (which takes about 5 minutes), and it'll give you a set of stats for them (attack bonuses, HP, saves, initiative, skills, etc.). Or, you can just use what's convenient on the fly; did the party just run into the Royal Blacksmith? Use your best judgment for his hit die (based off of the descriptions given every 4 levels, which are easy to learn with use), estimate how focused he is on his craft, and then look at his bonus. Done. You can write it down, flesh him out later, or forget it, your call.

But the numbers are all derived from the system. There's no real reason not to have both, here. The objections (tons of HP for high level noncombatants?!) are fair; let's make it so that PCs are shoehorned into that, too. Make it opt-out (not default), of course, since most people will want high HP characters. But I've had players want low HP to help fit their character concept of a non-combatant. And yeah, I'm still in support of non-combat classes / feats (or the equivalent), too.

Regardless, if it's too much trouble, ignore the guidelines and say "Bob the Blacksmith, Smithing +X" and be done with it! No skin off my nose. For people that want a compromise, I think the charts like I've used in my RPG are a good compromise. Still, people can make full-fledged characters if they want (sometimes I just get the urge to completely stat someone out, but not most of the time).

But yeah, just my feelings on it. As always, play what you like

 

[S'mon]

Then we have the example, some time ago, of an average town guard. Warrior 1 with weapon focus longsword and toughness (of course it presumes human) armed with a longsword and wearing scale mail. Really? To me that's an experienced soldier or mercenary. Someone who's fairly high up on the food chain. Not some standard town guard who is more likely carrying a truncheon and a pike and wearing leather armor. How rich is this town that can afford almost 100 gp worth of equipment for an average town guard? Never mind the advanced training to give him weapon focus.

To me, a town guard is likely a commoner with Feat: Polearm proficiency. That's an average town guard, to me.

To me, a Warrior-1 is a trained novice soldier, or a typical inhabitant of a harsh land where conflict is common (per 3e DMG) - typical nomads, tribesmen etc. Whereas a full time town guard is normally a professional veteran soldier, so probably 2nd or 3rd level Warrior in scale, chain or better. A Commoner-1 is a typical peasant labourer. I'd probably stat an English Yeoman as a Warrior-1, since they were required to train with bills, poll axes, or longbows.

Edit: In a poor town, a part-time watchman might just have a leather jerkin and a club, but to get the job he'd still be tougher than the average man, so certainly Warrior-1 at minimum.

Edit 2: I suppose when I think of City Guard & Watch in a dangerous fantasy environment, I think of the men of the Royal Ulster Constabulary I knew back in Northern Ireland in the '80s, more than the men of London's Metropolitan Police today. The former would be statted as Warriors, the latter mostly as Experts, with some multi-class Warrior/Expert. Only part-time unpaid Special Constables might be Commoners.