D&D 4E 4E NPC Classes - has there been any info?

[Incenjucar]

The main thing with NPC classes is that their survival progression needed to taper off.

 

[National Acrobat]

I didn't hate the NPC classes . . . and i'm sad to see them go. the examples you guys used are statistical outliers that only bad GM's would use.

I'm pretty sure in a "real" D&D world that a 20 year old wizards apprentice (ie. Wizard lvl 1 or whatever) would get his arse handed to him by a guy who was a blacksmith for 20 years (ie. 45 year old Expert lvl 5 or whatever).

That doesn't mean that non PCs will be always getting their butts kicked by non heroes. I thought the aristrocrat was a good class for all of those lords and kings and whatever. A young prince will learn some form of combat, diplomacy and so forth, and probably survive a fight better than a dirt farmer -- yet not be as hearty as a PC (fighterish class) of a similar age and experience level.

But it all depends on the type of game and game world that's being run. In my games the PCs were the heroes, but it's not like they lived as Gods in a world of weaklings. (otherwise why the heck would there be any rulers save for PC classes?)

My games weren't set up where 5th level parties couldn't just kill entire towns and take all of their stuff.

I don't see how 50 year old peasant farmers wouldn't have more skill ranks in nature or ride or whatever than a 1st level ranger or whatever. In my games you get experience from more than just experience point tables. The only way to get better at something doesn't always involve killing random encounters.

But perhaps I just have a vastly different point of view on the subject of how towns and game worlds work mechanically.

True. I agree. Also I guess since my current character actually has 3 levels of aristocrat I am pretty biased.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'm pretty sure in a "real" D&D world that a 20 year old wizards apprentice (ie. Wizard lvl 1 or whatever).

I'm pretty sure 4E characters are supposed to have some experience behind them, even at first level. Think of them more as the "Honors graduate of the wizard school - top of his class"

or the fighter who spent "Ten years as a caravan guard perfecting his skills" before setting out on the suicidal and heroic path of the adventurer.

Fitz

 

[Amrynn Moonshadow]

one PC actually had a pretty crappy life . . . Commoner 3 / Expert 2 / Wizard 1

very pesant hero-esque. not the most optimum build for 6th level, but you know what, it's not always about power gaming.

the guy grew up as a stable boy to a noble house in a big city, eventually got skilled over time in his craft, and his life was radically changed by the fact that the patron of that noble's house had a wizard who happened to notice that the stable boy has 18 INT, and had the FR feat that makes the PC a magical phenom.

that campaign started @ an advanced level though, so that guy didn't have to play 5 levels of NPC class to get to being a 1st lvl wizard. he had a lot of flavor though . . .

another of the PCs was actually that guys best friend growing up (one of the nobles that the wizard was a stable boy for), and he was a straight fighter / paladin. he played the big brother role, protecting his friend, who eventually grew to be able to take care of himself.

mechanically, NPC classes are sub-optimal. but they are sub-optimal on purpose. D&D is about having fun, so not everyone finds fun in having crappy class abilities.

 

[Amrynn Moonshadow]

Fritz -- cool beans. that takes away some of the necessity for npc classes . . . but not entirely.

 

[National Acrobat]

one PC actually had a pretty crappy life . . . Commoner 3 / Expert 2 / Wizard 1

very pesant hero-esque. not the most optimum build for 6th level, but you know what, it's not always about power gaming.

the guy grew up as a stable boy to a noble house in a big city, eventually got skilled over time in his craft, and his life was radically changed by the fact that the patron of that noble's house had a wizard who happened to notice that the stable boy has 18 INT, and had the FR feat that makes the PC a magical phenom.

that campaign started @ an advanced level though, so that guy didn't have to play 5 levels of NPC class to get to being a 1st lvl wizard. he had a lot of flavor though . . .

another of the PCs was actually that guys best friend growing up (one of the nobles that the wizard was a stable boy for), and he was a straight fighter / paladin. he played the big brother role, protecting his friend, who eventually grew to be able to take care of himself.

mechanically, NPC classes are sub-optimal. but they are sub-optimal on purpose. D&D is about having fun, so not everyone finds fun in having crappy class abilities.

Exactly. My current character in the group I play in is an Aristocrat 3/Paladin 4/Divine Lorekeeper 1, and she was raised in a noble house, fostered at a noble's house who was a member of the prominent church in the region, and they discovered that she would make an excellent knight. She was squired to a paladin, and once she won her spurs, all those ranks in social and knowledge skills qualified her for a hard to reach prestige class.

It's all about fun with the non-heroic NPC classes and I have thoroughly enjoyed it, although our campaign is about 33% combat, 33% role play and 33% investigation so it works well.

Plus, to have a noble or landed background in our campaigns, your first character level has to be in Aristocrat, and that of course comes with intangibles that the other classes do not.

 

[Greenfaun]

I'd like to make a distinction between two of the main things NPC classes existed for: the first is tiered combat ability, the second is generating NPC's the characters arent' expected to fight.

For the first, I definitely think that the toughness categories (Minion, Standard, Elite, Solo) solves the problem that NPC classes were an attempt to address in 3e; i.e. "what do other people do, since everyone can't be uber?"

The other issue, though, which I haven't seen anything about, is whether the DM can use his/her discretion in creating non-combat NPC's in order to make, for instance, a courtier with a huge diplomacy bonus or a non-combatant mage who can create magic items but is useless in combat, (perhaps using the Rituals system?) I'd love more info about this, too.

I think in 3e the NPC classes were kinda good at the first one, and probably should never have been applied in the second. Hopefully in 4e they improve both situations, they already seem to have gotten the first one right. Here's hoping.

 

[hong]

Li Shenron -- true, evey sane person living inside D&D "WOULD" prefer to take a regular class . . . however not every person living inside D&D is born to be a hero. The king of craptown wouldn't need to hire adventurers to kill the dragon if he was a PC class in the first place. Where does that leave the PCs? I just used the NPC classes as mechanical filler. There is no good reason for a blacksmith to have any idea about how to sneak attack someone, or have 4 bonus fighter feats. He didn't go to a war college, or learn to be a rogue . . . but dude needs to have enough HD to allow for him to have 12+ skill ranks in Craft to be able to make good quality stuff. Hence: the expert class.

1. This is an artifact of 3E tying skill ranks so closely to level for PCs, and applying the same rule to NPCs.

2. You don't need 12 ranks in Craft to make good stuff. Justin Bacon/Alexander/Zeno/whichever letter he's up to this week has a web page explaining what skill ranks mean in real-world terms. Basically, a really good artisan only needs to be 3rd or 5th level at most to craft any masterwork item you can imagine.

 

[FadedC]

I'd like to make a distinction between two of the main things NPC classes existed for: the first is tiered combat ability, the second is generating NPC's the characters arent' expected to fight.

For the first, I definitely think that the toughness categories (Minion, Standard, Elite, Solo) solves the problem that NPC classes were an attempt to address in 3e; i.e. "what do other people do, since everyone can't be uber?"

The other issue, though, which I haven't seen anything about, is whether the DM can use his/her discretion in creating non-combat NPC's in order to make, for instance, a courtier with a huge diplomacy bonus or a non-combatant mage who can create magic items but is useless in combat, (perhaps using the Rituals system?) I'd love more info about this, too.

I think in 3e the NPC classes were kinda good at the first one, and probably should never have been applied in the second. Hopefully in 4e they improve both situations, they already seem to have gotten the first one right. Here's hoping.

If worse comes to worse, making any NPC a minion should put them pretty securely into the non combat camp. The courtier could be a lvl 20 NPC will +21 diplomacy, but he's still not going to be much good in a fight if he goes down in 1 shot. Although hopefully you won't need to make him lvl 20 (with all the amazing defence and attack bonuses that go with it) to make him an amaziing diplomat.

 

[Li Shenron]

Li Shenron -- true, evey sane person living inside D&D "WOULD" prefer to take a regular class . . . however not every person living inside D&D is born to be a hero. The king of craptown wouldn't need to hire adventurers to kill the dragon if he was a PC class in the first place. Where does that leave the PCs? I just used the NPC classes as mechanical filler. There is no good reason for a blacksmith to have any idea about how to sneak attack someone, or have 4 bonus fighter feats. He didn't go to a war college, or learn to be a rogue . . . but dude needs to have enough HD to allow for him to have 12+ skill ranks in Craft to be able to make good quality stuff. Hence: the expert class.

Just my opinion . . . then again, i'm a DM who likes to make things harder for himself. Yes, I've stat blocked random tavern npcs before . . . you're not really displaying a psychopathology unless you're up late at nights figuring out how many experience points a journeyman candlestick maker would have . . .

Yes, but those who aren't heroes, don't even need full stats

We are too much used in serving the rules rather than be served by the rules, so if we need a cook with +10 in cooking, we "need" to make it 4th level in something... but that NEED is a complete illusion.