At which point you've got a Normal Man (to use the old name) who happens to have a high bonus in some skills. So what are they getting for their high level other than high skill in something, and why isn't it just simpler to give them the high skill without bothering about class/level?
D&D 5E Poll: What is a Level 1 PC?
- Thread starter Jester David
- Start date
At which point you've got a Normal Man (to use the old name) who happens to have a high bonus in some skills. So what are they getting for their high level other than high skill in something, and why isn't it just simpler to give them the high skill without bothering about class/level?
Imaro
Legend
Well first off... every NPC isn't going to be a Normal Man... different classes are like templates that allow you to customize a particular NPC.. My guardsmen are going to be better in combat than our hypothetical Normal Man (perhaps my baker spent some time in the military??)... second, it gives me a quick comparative range of "level" to base challenges on as opposed to having to decide a multitude of character components arbitrarily. Finally, things such as # of feats that could be dependant upon being a particular class and level are accounted for.
Edit: You seem to be advocating the just make it up method... as opposed to class or even a chart. So my question to you is how does a relatively inexperienced DM know what he should be making up? Even if he doesn't like the results of the classes they give him a basis to tweak and work from.... while experienced DM's can just ignore them completely.
Last edited:
Obryn
Hero
I think it's because you're not carrying this argument to its conclusion.
OK, so we may be able to agree that increasing combat-relevant stats is kind of asinine for most NPCs in the world. From there, if you say, "I am going to make a class that advances without increasing hit points, saves, or attack bonuses," then I'll ask, "Why have that class at all?" It basically reinforces my opinion that classes for NPCs are useless, and that the class/level structure should never be applied to most of the world.
-O
Imaro
Legend
Because there are a multitude of different types of NPC's... every NPC is not a baker who never in his life studied other skills or, in the typically dangerous and monster-ridden world of default D&D... chose not to so much as even familiarize himself with the basics of combat with armor or a weapon. You're using a very specific case... A baker who knows and does nothing but baking and applying it to a general procedure... making NPC's.
As far as I can tell, most people are just getting on with their everyday lives. It might be different if this was someone who lived in an unusually dangerous region, but the average baker isn't going to be as capable as even a partly trained armsman.
For how, that's what the DMG is for. Given a range of settlement sizes and suggest the range of levels to be expected for trade-skills in that settlement. Hardly advanced GMing.
Obryn
Hero
...Which is another good illustration of why a class/level system is not the right tool for every job.
-O
Sure, you could design more mundane NPC classes that don't have escalating hit points, attack values, saving throws, and Feats, ie the things that make them all hero-y...
... make NPC classes that don't progress in the core characteristics of a D&D class. But why use the class framework if you intend to gut it? Just assign skills ranks that seem appropriate and be done with it.
Last edited:
GhostBear
Explorer
I find it funny that people are arguing that simply giving an NPC a +10 to a skill is more arbitrary than deciding to make that NPC level X. Adding levels to an NPC isn't any less arbitrary. It just gives you the warm, fuzzy feeling of justification for a large bonus in a strict RAW style of gaming.
Both are just as arbitrary. Both give the exact same end result: An NPC that can do what you, as the DM, need it to do. One just requires a lot less effort.
Not only is it flavorful (thank you, thank you, I'll be here all night, try the veal), but the DM has humored us all and made it legitimately useful in game. (o:
Both are just as arbitrary. Both give the exact same end result: An NPC that can do what you, as the DM, need it to do. One just requires a lot less effort.
Funny you should mention this - I am playing a Gnoll fighter in a current game that sticks a skill point into Profession: Butcher every level. Quite handy with his blades, and he ensures that the party never goes hungry at the same time.
Not only is it flavorful (thank you, thank you, I'll be here all night, try the veal), but the DM has humored us all and made it legitimately useful in game. (o:
Last edited:
Neonchameleon
Legend
The issue of NPC combat just shows how ludicrous the whole issue is. The basic problem is that giving NPCs full stat blocks almost invariably circumstances fits one of three categories
1: The NPC is intended to be a companion character and be with the party for at least half a dozen sessions.
2: The system is simple enough that you can write the whole thing down in 30 seconds and run it even before you've written the numbers down.
3: A stonking waste of DM time that adds nothing but pseudo-justification to numbers that are ultimately arbitrary anyway, and often leads to unfortunate and unnecessary complications (like the best baker in Sharn having a BAB of +10/+5).
The baker-kicks-the-ass-of-a-fighter problem is brought up because it is so pointlessly unnecessary.
Neonchameleon
Legend
Yup.
Even this is pretty pointless. As DM I would humour a gnoll butcher whether or not the profession skill existed. And the actual profession skill itself merely tells you how much money you can make and has no other rules-based consequences.
