Do you use Npc classes for your Npcs?

[Zhaleskra]

If I expect an NPC to be recurring - and thus, need a character class - it will generally be a PC class. That said, I can see using the Aristocrat and Expert NPC classes. Commoner? Commoner than what?

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I said occasionally. A lot of it depends on the PC level. When the PCs were low level, they would still face warriors and possibly experts as minions, while BBEG's always had adventuring classes. At higher levels pretty much everybody worth stating has adventuring classes.

 

[Ron]

All the nobles in my games has at least one level of Aristocrat, so I would say yes.

 

[Sammael]

On occasion. I don't usually stat out non-combat NPCs, but they are noted as "Aristocrat 5" or "Expert 3" in my notes.

I think that the Warrior (and to the lesser extent, Adept) class is redundant. If you feel the Fighter is too tough with bonus feats, use those bonus feats to take non-optimal feats. Adepts can be easily replaced by Clerics with appropriate non-optimal domains.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

My Current Age of Worms Campaign looks like this:
-The majority of my NPCs are either aristocrats, commoners, experts or warriors (single level NPCs - about 75% of the population).
-However, more talented NPCs (higher than 1st), either have more NPC levels or occasionally PC levels if there is something special about them.
-All BBEG's are full PC levels.
- Most monsters are straight out of the MM or occasionally buffed a handful of hit dice.
- Special Monsters may also have PC levels.

I only stat up NPCs/Monsters if I expect an encounter with the PCs (be it combat or non-combat).
For others, commoners I assume to have only basic skills while experts are assumed to have skill focus in whatever they are expert in (thus having a max skill check of about +9 if required).

I prefer the idea that PCs are special, mainly due to going up in PC levels from 1st (although I have had one aristocrat so far), as well as being able to progress to level 20 and above. Most of my NPCs are capped at 3rd level.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Glyfair]

On occasion. I don't usually stat out non-combat NPCs, but they are noted as "Aristocrat 5" or "Expert 3" in my notes.

Yeah, in most cases I think this is all of what's needed except maybe a couple of appropriate skill notes (Aristocrat 5 - Diplomacy +12, Commoner 5 - Blacksmithing +7)

I run an Eberron game now and I really like its paradigm. I likely would stat up high level NPCs (the 20th level commoner, the 16th level Expert) for comparison purposes. However, I certainly use more NPC levels among potential antagonists than the average game.

 

[demiurge1138]

If they have stats and are likely to fight the PCs, more often than not the NPC is all PC levels. If they're not going to be fighting the PCs, they're probably not directly statted, and most of the average people in the world will have NPC classes.

The exception to this is in Eberron. In my Eberron game, since it's part of the design ethic that NPC and PC classes are mixed and matched even for fairly important NPCs, the players are more likely to fight warriors, or even multiclassed warrior/fighters or warrior/barbarians, for example (the PC class part represents especially dedicated training, time spent adventuring, etc).

Demiurge out.

 

[SWBaxter]

Default assumption in many of my campaigns is that the vast majority of NPCs use NPC classes. Very few of 'em get statted out, of course. I try to stick to NPC classes as much as possible for the ones I do stat out, and save PC class levels for special occasions, but it doesn't always work out that way.

 

[NiTessine]

Yeah, I use warrior and expert a lot for low-level mooks and villanous noncombatant types. Instead of aristocrat, though, I prefer to use Dragonlance Campaign Setting's noble, and instead of adepts I have shamans, spirit shamans, dragon shamans, totemists, favoured souls and sorcerers.

Commoners I just don't bother statting out. They exist, but statwise, their existence is limited to "Joe Schmo, N human commoner 1."

 

[billd91]

I answered occasionally, but I use them probably about half the time.