Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="d20Dwarf" data-source="post: 184176" data-attributes="member: 314">Our in-house D&D game is like this now. We all had to take NPC classes for the first 2 levels (was going to be 3, but read on...). The power level was not too different at first level, we didn't feel it that much except for lack of starting funds (I took Aristocrat and was the envy of the group with my chain shirt and rapier, man that chain shirt saved my life more than once). By 2nd level, though, our party strength overall was noticeably suffering, and CR 2 creatures were very strong comparatively. At least we convinced Greg to give us 150% XP while we were NPCs. <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Challenges still need to be moderated, in my opinion, and we've come very close to getting totally wiped out a few times. It is tough going in the D&D universe, where combat is simply a matter of course. Even in a game with less combat and more role playing, I think the NPC classes would severely limit our options because they are weaker than core classes, especially in skill selection.My opinion is that the game really suffers for the decision. When I'm a player, I want options, and NPC classes limit those options. I think a better way to simulate that feel would be by limiting starting gold, and then moderating treasure at a much lower level than is suggested by the DMG. NPC classes are just too confining, and it gets worse faster as you start to rise in level.Anyway, that's one person's experience.</blockquote>

Verification