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

[Hussar]

Ok, this is confusing me... is your only problem with class based NPC design that combat ability rises with level? If so, then isn't that more of an issue with how the class was designed as opposed to the general system. I mena you could just as easily have a commoner class with little to no combat advancement. I guess I'm not seeing how this one issue that is being harped on by numerous people makes NPC's with classes a bad system as opposed to 3.x being an implementation of it they didn't like for their particular campaign world.

Once you strip out all combat advancement from a class, what are you left?

Now, why do I need a class/level system for NPC's if all combat elements are being stripped out? If the only thing that advances by level for NPC classes is skills, then why bother? Just advance the skills.

 

[Hussar]

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.

But, why are your guardsmen mechanically different from a "normal man"? What is the function of that stat block? Isn't the reason because those guardsmen will possibly interact with the combat rules at the table? Either as opponents or allies of the PC's?

Thus, they are no different than any other monster in the Monster Manual. Their function in the game (I mean the guardsmen) is to provide some sort of combat element. The vast majority of NPC's, though, will never interact with the combat rules.

Any time the PC's are not present, DM's will simply ignore the rules and go with whatever they feel is appropriate (I doubt too many DM's actually go through every round of combat when those orcs raid that caravan that the PC's are then supposed to track down). If the PC's are present, an NPC who does not advance at all in any combat stats is essentially a minion (to use the 4e term) and pops like a soap bubble.

Now, all that said, there is nothing stopping you from making stat blocks for NPC's. What's being advocated though, I think, is that the default is "Assign NPC skills as appropriate (and here's a chart for a baseline by PC level) and go beyond that if you need to." Starting from the default of "You will give full stat blocks to every Tom, Dick and Harry" is just busywork for DM's. And needless padding to source books.

 

[pemerton]

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?

Once you strip out all combat advancement from a class, what are you left?

Rolemaster is the only system I'm familiar with that uses levels but strips out combat and makes it just another skill.

And the consequence is that level isn't a measure of anything except maximum bonus in any given skill - but there is no requirement that any given character actually have that maximum bonus in any given skill.

What is the point of this? I'm not entirely sure anymore, but on the PC side it's about rationing PC-build resources to maintain some sort of fairness/parity. On the NPC side I've got doubts that it serves any point at all.

it gives me a quick comparative range of "level" to base challenges on

Once you've stripped all mandatory progression out of your classes, what do those levels measure? I mean, if one 5th level NPC has a +3 bonus in 10 skills, and another 5th level NPC has a +6 bonus in 4 skills, in what way is the level measuring the challenge posed? This is why, in Rolemaster, level is useless as a measure of challenge - all it measures is the number of points available for building, plus the maximum bonus in any skill.

What determines the degree of challenge is not the maximum bonus but the actual bonus in the relevant skill. So why not just cut straight to that?

 

[Ryujin]

What is the point of this? I'm not entirely sure anymore, but on the PC side it's about rationing PC-build resources to maintain some sort of fairness/parity. On the NPC side I've got doubts that it serves any point at all.

What it does is help to make 'regular people' the effective equals of something that they shouldn't be the equals of; heroes, villains, and monsters.

 

[Imaro]

What it does is help to make 'regular people' the effective equals of something that they shouldn't be the equals of; heroes, villains, and monsters.

Isn't this campaign specific? In some people's D&D worlds... "heroes" started as 'regular people'... and some NPC's can be heroes and/or villains... so I think your distinction is only considering a particular style of play.

 

[Imaro]

Once you strip out all combat advancement from a class, what are you left?

Now, why do I need a class/level system for NPC's if all combat elements are being stripped out? If the only thing that advances by level for NPC classes is skills, then why bother? Just advance the skills.

Skills, defenses, ability scores, feats, etc. all tie into level.

 

[Imaro]

But, why are your guardsmen mechanically different from a "normal man"? What is the function of that stat block? Isn't the reason because those guardsmen will possibly interact with the combat rules at the table? Either as opponents or allies of the PC's?

Possibly is the key word... but then again in a sandbox style any NPC can possibly interact with the combat rules... right?

Thus, they are no different than any other monster in the Monster Manual. Their function in the game (I mean the guardsmen) is to provide some sort of combat element. The vast majority of NPC's, though, will never interact with the combat rules.

Now you've gone from "possibly" which can apply to any being in the imaginary world... to assigning the guardsmen a specific purpose... which is not something I do in a sandbox campaign.

Any time the PC's are not present, DM's will simply ignore the rules and go with whatever they feel is appropriate (I doubt too many DM's actually go through every round of combat when those orcs raid that caravan that the PC's are then supposed to track down). If the PC's are present, an NPC who does not advance at all in any combat stats is essentially a minion (to use the 4e term) and pops like a soap bubble.

I would disagree with this... I would say some/many (as I can admit I have no idea what the 'majority' do) extrapolate actions outside of the PC's influence from the stats of the NPC's/Monsters... they don't just disregard the numbers and do whatever they want since this can cause a disconnect and continuity problems for players.

Now, all that said, there is nothing stopping you from making stat blocks for NPC's. What's being advocated though, is that the default is "Assign NPC skills as appropriate (and here's a chart for a baseline by PC level) and go beyond that if you need to." Starting from the default of "You will give full stat blocks to every Tom, Dick and Harry" is just busywork for DM's. And needless padding to source books.

The thing is I can also see... "Hey we'll show you how to construct a full NPC and as you get familiar with the process and understand it then go ahead and make up whatever you want." After fully grasping how an NPC is made then someone new to the game will get a feel for what does and doesn't work in his/her particular campaign. Again, YMMV of course.

 

[Imaro]

Once you've stripped all mandatory progression out of your classes, what do those levels measure? I mean, if one 5th level NPC has a +3 bonus in 10 skills, and another 5th level NPC has a +6 bonus in 4 skills, in what way is the level measuring the challenge posed? This is why, in Rolemaster, level is useless as a measure of challenge - all it measures is the number of points available for building, plus the maximum bonus in any skill.

What determines the degree of challenge is not the maximum bonus but the actual bonus in the relevant skill. So why not just cut straight to that?

Who said anything about stripping all mandatory progression out of your classes. Again, ability increases, feats, defenses, etc

 

[Imaro]

Once you've stripped all mandatory progression out of your classes, what do those levels measure? I mean, if one 5th level NPC has a +3 bonus in 10 skills, and another 5th level NPC has a +6 bonus in 4 skills, in what way is the level measuring the challenge posed? This is why, in Rolemaster, level is useless as a measure of challenge - all it measures is the number of points available for building, plus the maximum bonus in any skill.

What determines the degree of challenge is not the maximum bonus but the actual bonus in the relevant skill. So why not just cut straight to that?

I never advocated stripping all mandatory progression out of NPC classes. There are still ability increases, feats, defenses,etc. to be accounted for all of which are tied into level... just as there is no reason an NPC class couldn't have a BAB increase tied to it since that would be class dependant... a warrior NPC class would have a BAB progression tied to it.

The level of the PC determines the upper limits of the degree of challenge for numerous things such as skills and abilities. How do we cut straight to actual bonus without context. Again you are focusing on one skill but let's say your baker is challenged to a arm wrestling contest by one of the PC's... how would you determine the baker's strength in a fair manner...since all you gave him was a skill in bakery? Is everyone in the village the exact same strength?

 

[Imaro]

Ultimately I guess I just don't see how giving those who want a fully fleshed out NPC construction system that is based on the same creation rules asC's (whatever they are in the new edition) in any way hinders those who are going to choose to make it up anyway? Ignore it and make it up if you want... and for those who do want to use it, it's there.