Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8518736" data-attributes="member: 29398">For the below, NPC in all cases means NPC member of a PC-playable species.&nbsp; Monsters need not apply here. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I'm also talking about powers/abilities/spells that others can learn; innate monster/creature abilities e.g. Elvish night-sight or Umber Hulk confusion effects are NOT part of this.No, but all healthy NPCs in theory have the potential to pick up a class if they're willing to put in the time and training (or work).Yes, if this means what I think it means: NPCs use the same classes as PCs.&nbsp; That said, I'm very open to there being non-adventuring classes or quasi-classes geared mainly toward NPCs (Artificer being a good example); a player could make a PC one of these but it'd be nearly useless in the field.I don't understand the question.If the powers are of a suitable level for the PCs then they should have been gainable by appropriate PCs all along.&nbsp; Adding them in now is a rather clunky retcon.Yes, I think, if I'm understanding the question right.The 3e designers did, I think, long before this thread came about. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />One thing: it all works in reverse as well.&nbsp; PC powers and abilities should be gainable by appropriate NPCs.Agreed.&nbsp; My only point about those sort of things is that overusing them can very quickly come across as contrived.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8518736, member: 29398"] For the below, NPC in all cases means NPC member of a PC-playable species. Monsters need not apply here. :) I'm also talking about powers/abilities/spells that others can learn; innate monster/creature abilities e.g. Elvish night-sight or Umber Hulk confusion effects are NOT part of this. No, but all healthy NPCs in theory have the potential to pick up a class if they're willing to put in the time and training (or work). Yes, if this means what I think it means: NPCs use the same classes as PCs. That said, I'm very open to there being non-adventuring classes or quasi-classes geared mainly toward NPCs (Artificer being a good example); a player could make a PC one of these but it'd be nearly useless in the field. I don't understand the question. If the powers are of a suitable level for the PCs then they should have been gainable by appropriate PCs all along. Adding them in now is a rather clunky retcon. Yes, I think, if I'm understanding the question right. The 3e designers did, I think, long before this thread came about. :) One thing: it all works in reverse as well. PC powers and abilities should be gainable by appropriate NPCs. Agreed. My only point about those sort of things is that overusing them can very quickly come across as contrived. [/QUOTE]

Verification