Do you use Npc classes for your Npcs?

[frankthedm]

A fair amount of warriors. Most likely one to be splashed with a PC class.

Pure Commoners and experts are not stated

I want to stat a few aristocrats that might think they can take on heroes.

I never use Adepts. Druids and Sorcerers suffice for primitive spell casters.

 

[frankthedm]

Aristocrat: Never, why is this a class again?

To represent the wellborn who will receive the best teaching nobles can afford and only pay attention to half of it at best. They are trained in weapons by the best combatants Papa can buy because it is a violent world, though the well to do child will never truly appreciate the trials that their teachers endured to become skilled veterans. The Idle Rich, the Beautiful People.

Commoner: Never. Each of the creature types have racial hit dice defined in the MM... why can't Joe Turnup Farmer be a 2 HD Humanoid (Human)?

Because the bulk of humanity is supposed to be at risk of dying from the wound of a dagger. A few commoners might endure enough hardships to reach 4th level[4d4 is about 2d8], but these should be rare. Commoner also represents well those who learned little save how raise [and sometimes bury] their younger siblings and how to help with the crops. [or to obtain sustenance in the poorest parts of the city without picking up rogue levels.]

Expert: Yes, yes, and yes. Everybody who isn't an adventurer can easily be an expert. The skills selected (as well as personality portrayed) define the NPC.

To me experts are the children of families who could afford to have their children taught a trade, and poor enough where the children had to learn their trade or face going back to squalor. Also among this number are those with the natural knack and creative desire at their trade.

 

[GQuail]

I voted "occasional". Anyone of any real import usually gets PC levels, but I'll occasionally use the NPC classes when I want a power kick to a mundane encounter without the full power of PC levels.

I keep a few sheets of pre-made NPCs to hand so I always have a random encounter or two. Last combat used this sheet to add a Dwarf Expert (who was a Cobbler who worked for a crime lord) and a Gnome Warrior (who was guarding the shop as it was being used for storing contraband) into the fray. The crime lord himself is an Half-Ogre Commoner 16: I didn't want a Rogue or Assassin to be leading every evil thievery endeavour. ;-)

 

[Glyfair]

T Because the bulk of humanity is supposed to be at risk of dying from the wound of a dagger. A few commoners might endure enough hardships to reach 4th level[4d4 is about 2d8], but these should be rare. Commoner also represents well those who learned little save how raise [and sometimes bury] their younger siblings and how to help with the crops. [or to obtain sustenance in the poorest parts of the city without picking up rogue levels.]

To me experts are the children of families who could afford to have their children taught a trade, and poor enough where the children had to learn their trade or face going back to squalor. Also among this number are those with the natural knack and creative desire at their trade.

This reminds me of one misconception I see a lot from people who do deal with NPC classes. Anyone they feel should be focused on a skill tends to gets pigeonholed into the "Expert" class. Many of them should really be commoners.

If someone is great at a skill or maybe two, they don't need all the skills the Expert gives them. World's Greatest Chef? High level commoner (perhaps with skill focus). He doesn't need much more than Craft (Cooking). Sage? High level expert, he needs to skills to focus on multiple knowledge skill;s.

My eyes were opened to this when Keith Baker was explaining his rationale behind the 18th level commoner in Sharn. He compared her to high level PC classes, and other NPC classes, and explained why he thought it was appropriate for her to be a commoner. She had one main skill, and one or two minor skills, but she was Great at that one skill.

 

[lukelightning]

I run an Arcana Unearthed (Evolved) game, set in the Diamond Throne. Most of my "townfolk" NPCs are NPC classes, or at least multi-classed NPC/PC classes (such as the local Count being an Aristocrat 7/Ritual Warrior 3).

Also, most non-human races tend to take racial levels instead of (or in addition to) NPC class levels, so Mrs. Litorian Farmer might be Litorian 2, Minormage McVerrik might be verrik 3/Adept 4, and Gi-Ant Smith the giant weaponsmith is Giant 3/Expert 6.

Of course, I rarely stat out these minor NPCs (though the party's arch enemy is an expert, of all things). Instead I just keep this in mind when I am deciding what sorts of resources a community has.

 

[painandgreed]

I use some of them, but typically they represent untrained acheivement. Warriors are simply untrained fighters. if they actually recieved training, they would substitute a different full BAB class for their warrior levels. Commoners are typically untrained experts or possibly even other classes such as rogue or fighter and can change their commoner levels out with proper training.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Nope. If I want Joe the fighter to be goot at Wilderness Lore, I simply give him x ranks in the skill. Same with any other skill. Simple enough and rules be damned.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Only a few. . . of those who are statted out, that is.

But more get the '3 generic classes' treatment (from UA).

Many have PC class levels instead or as well.

 

[Thomas Percy]

To make commoners more funny one can make them advance as animals: commoner -> large commoner -> dire commoner etc.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I'm not fond of the NPC class concept. I'm working on boosting them up to PC class power (or perhaps more accurately, making them as interesting as PC classes). I've created a new aristocrat class, and I'm bouncing around ideas for an Expert class. I don't use Adept, I figure if they're unusual enough to know magic, they deserve a PC class. I don't know how I'm going to to upgrade the Commoner...