D&D 5E NPC / Expert Class

[steeldragons]

I like it...but I think I like it as an "advanced option." If that makes sense?

I am inclined to think that the NPC "Expert" should be a single thing. Like, default, as what you propose as the "Journeyman."

The blacksmith, the merchant, the moneylender/changer, the artisan of any craft, the knowledgeable in one or two subjects sages...they are the experts of their particular trade/craft.

For the basic/standard game, I think that is sufficient. For me! For my games.

I certainly want, and have done, the "master" expert...The swordsmith that is sought out by all great heroes and kingdoms for their superior craft. The only baker in the whole city who is commissioned to make the dessert pastries for the queen. The sage who is the preeminent in their field (or some field no one else has any clue about). The most wealthy/successful merchant of a particular good [who will have goods/knowledge/services available that your average "merchant of X" simply can't get/doesn't know. These are all great as individual NPCs.

But for the default NPC "Expert", I think they are fine just the way they are at journeyman level. "Commoner" merchants or craftsmen or even the smith who just shoes horses and mends farm tools, can do the basics needed for them. The "Expert" merchant or craftsman and smith is what we [or, at least, I] think of as the specialist or particularly talented or knowledgeable in their field. "Master" merchants/craftsmen/smiths are those that exist 1, maybe up to 5, in the whole campaign. They desrve a separate treatment.

So, yes. This is useful. It is a nice idea. But I do not see a need for all NPC experts to follow this kind of track in 5e. But as an "add on module/option", absolutely.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm saying you are not merely giving an opinion, but flat out wrong. There are contexts in which it makes sense for NPCs to be narrowly competent in a particular field without having general competency in the face of hazards, but their are equally many contexts where that is not true.

Okay, I concede that was poorly expressed on my part. My point is that the NPC classes of 3E produced absurd results because they slavishly imitated a system designed to produce PCs with broad adventuring competence. If you wanted a master weaver in 3E, the best in a kingdom with +25 in the relevant skills, that was a package deal with 20 or 30 hit points and a substantial base attack bonus and saves. The rules simply did not provide any other way to do it, unless you wanted to give your weaver terrible Strength and Constitution just to keep him or her from being able to fight.

If you want to create an NPC weaver, you should be able to decide how effective a combatant the weaver is, and how good a weaver s/he is, and those things should have nothing to do with each other.

The concept of an NPC class allows for both, simply by playing around only a small amount with things like STR, DEX, CON and feat selection. To the extent that you find that too complicated, fine, I understand that - but the alternatives end up being equally complicated however much simpler they may seem at first.

How is "Pick a skill modifier and slap it on the NPC" more complicated?

 

[Halivar]

NPC classes always annoyed me because their only purpose is to add the illusion of simulation simply to satisfy a particular design philosophy. NPC's with skills are best hand-waved. They are a collection of skills, as that is how the players will interact with them.

 

[ccooke]

I like it...but I think I like it as an "advanced option." If that makes sense?

I am inclined to think that the NPC "Expert" should be a single thing. Like, default, as what you propose as the "Journeyman."

The blacksmith, the merchant, the moneylender/changer, the artisan of any craft, the knowledgeable in one or two subjects sages...they are the experts of their particular trade/craft.

For the basic/standard game, I think that is sufficient. For me! For my games.

I certainly want, and have done, the "master" expert...The swordsmith that is sought out by all great heroes and kingdoms for their superior craft. The only baker in the whole city who is commissioned to make the dessert pastries for the queen. The sage who is the preeminent in their field (or some field no one else has any clue about). The most wealthy/successful merchant of a particular good [who will have goods/knowledge/services available that your average "merchant of X" simply can't get/doesn't know. These are all great as individual NPCs.

But for the default NPC "Expert", I think they are fine just the way they are at journeyman level. "Commoner" merchants or craftsmen or even the smith who just shoes horses and mends farm tools, can do the basics needed for them. The "Expert" merchant or craftsman and smith is what we [or, at least, I] think of as the specialist or particularly talented or knowledgeable in their field. "Master" merchants/craftsmen/smiths are those that exist 1, maybe up to 5, in the whole campaign. They desrve a separate treatment.

So, yes. This is useful. It is a nice idea. But I do not see a need for all NPC experts to follow this kind of track in 5e. But as an "add on module/option", absolutely.

That's exactly what I'll be using it for, yes.
However, in the absence of official useful non-combat NPC stat blocks, I'll probably also use it as the basis for my own. For instance:

Journeyman NPC/expert (knowledge)
Level 3 human
AC 10, 14 HP
Str 10, Dex 10, Con 10, Wis 10, Int 14, Cha 10
+2 with all relevant non-Intelligence checks
+4 with all relevant Intelligence checks
+9 with two specific relevant Intelligence-based skills
Attacks with a dagger if necessary: +2 to hit, 1d4 damage.

I can reuse that again and again whenever I need a decent shopkeeper, librarian, priest, etc.
I'd use the same block with a different stat at +2 for different types of profession. Might want a set with +1 to two stats instead for things like a woodcutter (+1 str, +1 wis). But I can sort those out on the fly as they're needed, and once it's done I can reuse it repeatedly. And sure, that means I'm playing a bit fast and loose with what they're proficient in, but I don't see any issue there. The stat block is really simple to work with and that trumps detail for the general case.

 

[Celebrim]

NPC classes always annoyed me because their only purpose is to add the illusion of simulation simply to satisfy a particular design philosophy. NPC's with skills are best hand-waved. They are a collection of skills, as that is how the players will interact with them.

So, let's start from first principle.

Good RPG design suggests that as a proposition decreases in risk and interest, the number of fortune rolls decreases proportionally. In general, this suggests that if the outcome of the proposition doesn't really matter, we shouldn't bother with dice or mechanics.

In this case, basic RPG principles suggest that in the majority of cases, NPC's don't have and don't need stats. There is usually not a case where the NPC does something where we need to really worry about the outcome enough to throw a dice about it.

But, that isn't always true. We do care about exactly what an NPC can do when the NPC is acting as a foil, villain, ally, or ward of the PC.

There are basically now two theories here, depending on what we are willing to risk. Either we can pick what happens based on what the Storyteller(s) think is best for the narrative, in which case we still don't need stats but we're risking impartiality and not allowing ourselves the joy of unexpected surprises, or we can try to resolve the test within the constraints of the system in which case impartiality demands stats and preferably stats that can be derived from the context as needed.

In general, there are two ways to define something. Either we can make a list, or we can make a 'rule'. Both have advantages and we might choose one or the other depending on the scale of the thing being described and often we choose 'both'. We make a system for the sake of consistency and make lists for the sake of usability.

Where I find the system is particularly useful is when I'm surprised by the fact than an NPC has become elevated to a position I didn't anticipate. Suddenly, I've gone from a note that says 'Expert 2' or 'Craft (Masonry) +9' to needing a bunch of attributes I never expected to know for this NPC because I never expected them to matter. For example, I had a very minor NPC - a 1st level clerk - that I never even necessarily expected the characters to meet become elevated to an important NPC because he was adopted as the henchmen/ward of the party. In this capacity, it's easy to conceive that I need to know everything about the characters abilities, and not just 'Knowledge (Math & Accounting) +10'. Having a system lets me build the character in a way that a monster manual entry for 'Apprentice Clerk' (!!!) doesn't, even if the writers of the monster manual could anticipate my need for an apprentice clerk. In the same way that a robust character creation system helps inform good character design (if it is indeed well designed) or at least imaginative character design, having robut NPC generation can be a good thing.

In short, I don't think we can know how NPC's will be interacted with unless we are on a railroad. I've had NPC's meant to be quest givers/mentors end up being enemies/foils, and NPC's meant to be enemies become allies. The course of the story seldom goes where I anticipate it.

 

[Umbran]

Having hit points, attack bonuses, and saves increase by level only makes sense in the context of professional adventurers.

I don't know about that "only". Absolutes often aren't as absolute as we might think. Why is it all or none? Why isn't there room for having someone in the middle of the road?

How, pray tell, did he get that expertise? Maybe a bit of adventure and peril was involved, but not so much as a truly professional adventurer?

The result is a character who can hang around with the PCs and not expect to fall over dead the first time they meet an orc, but who won't be much of a tactical boost, either. This is a character you can build a plot around - really weak commoners die so easily they shouldn't survive their first contact with adventurer-appropriate plots. This expert can survive getting into the muddle a bit, but won't be able to resolve the issues themselves.

 

[Celebrim]

Okay, I concede that was poorly expressed on my part. My point is that the NPC classes of 3E produced absurd results because they slavishly imitated a system designed to produce PCs with broad adventuring competence. If you wanted a master weaver in 3E, the best in a kingdom with +25 in the relevant skills, that was a package deal with 20 or 30 hit points and a substantial base attack bonus and saves. The rules simply did not provide any other way to do it, unless you wanted to give your weaver terrible Strength and Constitution just to keep him or her from being able to fight.

I would first argue that you are getting this result because you aren't listening to the system. What the system is trying to tell you is that the best weaver in the land doesn't have a +25 in the relevant skills. That isn't the best weaver in the land; that's a figure of myth and legend, an Arachne if you will. Your 12th level Weaver is an epic figure, and epic figures in the system are meant to have that package and everything that goes along with it.

Secondly, I would note that there is not nearly enough 'terrible Strength and Constitution' in most games. If 10 or 11 is meant to be average, why does almost nothing and no one has less than a 10 in anything? There is a huge amount of ability score inflation in most campaigns, where in practice 14 is average and anything less than 10 is consider 'terrible'. If you haven't given NPC's 4 or 5 Con or Str rather often you aren't doing it right, because there has to be some of those to balance out all the burly guards you are blithely decorating with 14's in Strength and Constitution (or in my experience, much higher). Otherwise you are guilty of saying the PC's are 'above average, just like everyone else', and you get into runaway expectations about what is 'good'. There is nothing wrong with having a 9th level commoner with 6 STR and 6 CON, a net attack bonus of +0 (no weapon proficiency!) and 9 hit points. Such a commoner could easily have a +20 bonus on a Craft check just using RAW and not even getting that obscure about it. There is your 'best weaver in the land' for you, and frankly, most of my countries would not have so capable of a weaver (unless they had a large elven population, where 9th level commoner's aren't so uncommon, seeing as they live such long lives).

Thirdly, to the extent that you are right, this isn't a hard problem to fix. I do it with a very simple advantage/disadvantage system. It would be a trivial matter to have a 20th level commoner with a +0 attack bonus just by taking the 'noncombatant' disadvantage. I do similar sorts of things when I want clerics that have spent more time studying and less time fighting than your typical PC crusading type. But, for that matter, nothing in the rules stops you from slapping "Fairy God Mother's Gift (ex): This character was granted at birth supernatural insight into weaving by a powerful supernatural figure, and get a +5 luck bonus and a +5 insight bonus on all Craft (Weaving) checks." on your low level NPC and calling it a day. Are you the DM or aren't you?

How is "Pick a skill modifier and slap it on the NPC" more complicated?

It's not at first. The problem comes with trying to be fair about all those fiat decisions. I hate winging it. Often as not, I may only write only something like Exp3 in a stat block and slap a skill modifier on the NPC if it ever comes up. Attack bonus often gets a similar treatment, and justify it retroactively if I need to.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The result is a character who can hang around with the PCs and not expect to fall over dead the first time they meet an orc, but who won't be much of a tactical boost, either. This is a character you can build a plot around - really weak commoners die so easily they shouldn't survive their first contact with adventurer-appropriate plots. This expert can survive getting into the muddle a bit, but won't be able to resolve the issues themselves.

It's true that most NPCs will die when subjected to anything near a PC level adventure. Sometimes you want them to survive. That's understandable. However, shouldn't the amount of survivability and effectiveness in combat be unique to each NPC?

The seamstress who practices sewing 8 hours a day for the last 50 years is really good at sewing. They might also be 70 years old, frail, and incapable of holding their own in a fight, using a weapon or surviving even one sword blow.

Meanwhile the 30 year old seamstress who personally brings her wares from city to city to sell them and show them off might fight bandits and monsters on a regular basis and can hold their own in combat.

Both are good at sewing. Both aren't the same at combat. Using a class with a formula in order to generate all "experts" creates cookie cutter NPCs who aren't very realistic. It does the same thing for PCs, however PCs at least all have one thing in common: They are adventurers and routinely defeat monsters and face danger. That fact is the only reason the class system even works at ALL in D&D.

 

[Halivar]

Suddenly, I've gone from a note that says 'Expert 2' or 'Craft (Masonry) +9' to needing a bunch of attributes I never expected to know for this NPC because I never expected them to matter.

This is completely understandable. Let me caveat my earlier "handwaving" suggestion with another: I want a system such that if I suddenly, during play, need a fully-statted out character (as happens to me, too, and often), then I can derive his stats instantly and without interrupting the flow of my game.

Now, how that would work I have no clue. In 4E I kept a print-out of page 42 on hand for such purposes, and in 1E is was trivial enough not to need any such chart (EDIT: as is Savage Worlds).

The problem with fiddly systems like in 3.x is that I can either (a) keep a stable of stock NPC's, which is doable I suppose, or (b) stat out every single NPC beforehand, just in case. I hate both of these options because they cut into my prep-time, as well as yield what I consider to be absurd results (I want a wizened old sage that is the most knowlegable in the land about nature, but to do that by the rules, I have to load him down with hit points, and BAB's, and saves, etc.).

I want an outcome*-based approach, not a model-based approach.

*Not outcome of die-rolls or conflicts, but outcome of NPC generation methodology.

 

[Umbran]

It's true that most NPCs will die when subjected to anything near a PC level adventure. Sometimes you want them to survive. That's understandable. However, shouldn't the amount of survivability and effectiveness in combat be unique to each NPC?

Sure.

Using a class with a formula in order to generate all "experts"

Stop for a moment, please.

I said, "Why is it all or none? Why isn't there room for having someone in the middle of the road?"

I want to know how you get from that to, "This should be used for all experts".

Intentionally or not, I believe you've created a strawman here, and I'd like to torch it before we continue in misunderstanding.