Do you use NPC classes!?!

[Li Shenron]

Try this:

• Make most NPC spellcasters adepts, espcially those from rural or wilderness places.
• A friendly sage on a particular subject is most likely an expert with several knowledge skills regarding his area of expertise and skill focus (particular knowledge skill). Some might multiclass adept, bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer or wizard as well.
• Make most NPC thieves experts, not rogues. Ditto for many other NPC professons, such as sailor, merchant, scout, administrator, healer, blacksmith, etc.
• Make most members of the nobility and royalty artistocrats or multiclass aristocrat/xxx.
• Make most soldiers and guards warriors.
• Make all other NPCs at least 1st-level commoners; a particularly old commoner could be 2nd or 3rd level.

The point is... when am I going to really use those stats? They are all indeed very good uses for NPC classes, but usually for this kind of NPCs I don't need stats at all, except maybe one single stats in specific circumstances.

For ex. the Sage, a very Expert. If my PCs are going to seek for him to answer questions, first and foremost it's usually going to be mostly roleplayed, and then if he is a sage in Knowledge(History), what else do I need beside deciding only his K(History) ranks?

Very true that most the nobles could be Aristocrats, but do you REALLY write the stats, or even just fix the class level, if all you need from them is to talk with the PCs?

Your PCs are meeting a great Blacksmith who is able to craft superior weapons. Do you REALLY roll his Craft checks to see how much time it takes him to craft the wanted weapons? It could be done, but it's such a minor improvement to the campaign for the effort it takes, and to me it takes already a HUGE effort to write up a decent campaign without that level of details.

A better use could be the thief/expert hired by the party without a Rogue, for example to follow them into a dungeon, staying out of battle and helping just with locks. A 1st-level party may not want to hire a Rogue, which would be at the same level, so the hireling being an Expert 1 is a good idea.

As a side comment, I really dislike the Adept class. It looks like an uninspired mix between Cleric and Sorcerer, but mostly Cleric. I can't see the point in having a spellcaster who is somehow "non-special" therefore doesn't have a PC class. Plus, I wonder why Adepts have Familiars and Clerics don't, since Adepts are mostly weak Clerics.

 

[green slime]

Aristocrat only.

 

[clark411]

Commoners: Absolutely use them. Don't stat them however beyond hitpoints and their prime skill.

Adepts: Haven't yet had an opportunity to introduce any. All sub-wizards or sub-sorcerors that i've run were charletans.

Warrior: Absolutely use them. Fighters are, to me, the product of the most elite schools of martial training. Warriors are the people who are competent enough to wield a weapon with skill, or enough to be a regular in an army. Fighters are the cream that rises.

Aristocrat: Yes, usually meshed with Expert levels focused in some aspect of courtly duty, or Fighter levels denoting the prized products of house weapon masters.

Experts: Definitely use them. They compose most of the commercial district, and a good portion of the underworld.

 

[Fenes 2]

I use commoners for peasants, most servants etc., if I bother to stat them at all. Usually only those NPCs who run the risk of entering combat gets stats, and not even all of those.

I more often use aristocrats and experts for statted NPCs, if it is applicable, but those as well often only get descriptions, not stats. I can't remember using Warriors - I use Fighters or other Fighting Classes instead for goons etc.

 

[Madfox]

As most other people, I rarely need to work out the stats for commoners and experts. On a few occassions I did need the stats for aristocrats. I use warriors regularly, because I see fighters as elites. I hate adepts, though the idea of customizing the spelllists and to adopt the class to village healers, gypsies and the like actually make a lot of sense.

Still, the fact that one never uses the stats does not mean that there should be none in the DM. Those tables give us an idea of what it means to be an expert of level 10 as opposed to what we did in 2nd edition. The whole thing becomes a lot less arbitrary and it allows us to make skilled characters without resulting to silly heroic classes. It just makes a lot more sense to make a simple forester as an expert then as a rogue/ranger combination.

 

[dren]

Only the expert.

The way I look at it everyone is at least a first level class expert at something (ditch digger, baker, alcoholic, etc). Both commoner and aristocrats are experts but with differing names and job functions.

I also reject adept and warrior. If you cast spells then be a Cleric, Sorceror, Wizard. If you can efficiently use a weapon you are a fighter. If not specifically stated, everyone is a level one expert with 3-4 hp.

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

I use all of them (in fact I allow Expert and Aristocrat to be PC classes). I never thought of using Adepts in the way others have (for quasi-magic tradefolk) - I think I like that more than the existing "NPC spellcaster" version.

- Ma'at

 

[Destil]

I don't much like warrior. If you can fight but not as well as a fighter then you're a low level fighter. Not a warrior.

Commoner & Expert make sense, but Aristocrats are just experts with certian skills selected.

Adept I never really liked, but the idea of allowing them with custom spell lists I like... I may have to up the BAB to 2/3. I'll need to stat up a 'talented' psionic equivelent now too, I suppose....

Basicly I don't like the idea of some classes being just so much better than others, it really really messes up the CR system (CR 19 = 20th level commoner or 19th level cleric) and just makes the idea of levels pointless. People who arn't as good just have lower levels, generaly.

 

[paulewaug]

I use them when I need them.
I don't feel the need to generate Everybody the PCs encounter but I do keep in mind the concept of who they are, but most don't need stats, unless the PCs notice them and interact with them on some level.

Most people Are Commoners, hence the term and the need for Heroes to save them from the terrible evils of the world they live in. Stat wise I wouldn't even use the "average NPC stats" form them. If I wanted to randomly assign them a stat I would just generate [ 8+1d4 ], (or figure the majority are 10 in everything.)

Experts are great. They can be all kinds of things. Although I would have to think about if I wanted a particalr NPC to "just have" or "just know" what it is the PCs need to move the story along. I use Expert now to represent the majority of the accolytes, etc. that can be found in a temple. IMC true Clerics are kind of rare. (They are "special" like Paladins, they are gifted and follow a calling most are not able to aspire to.)
Merchants,Smiths, etc. are experts, as well as Sages., and non-magical healers.

I have a problem with the Adept in that it really doesn't seem to fit the role t sometimes tries to fill. If they are the follower of some divine or infernal power then they would be CLerics. If they make extensve use of arcane powers then they would be a Wizard or Sorcerer. Having them be a "little of both" kinda misses the division of Divine vs. Arcane magic. Witchdoctors are fine as Adepts I suppose, but I would more likely use a Cleric or Sorcerer in that role.

Warriors are "ok", for me, in that they can represent the more common warrior that can fight well but doesn't have the style of a true Fighter.
The Fighters bouse feats allow them to develope a fighting Style and they can do cool things the common fighting man can't. Granted a lower level fighter has less fighting style than a higher level figther so YMMV.

I ilke the Aristiocrat. They are like a Rogue but without the "thiefly implications." I think they fit their nitch fairly well. Granted an Aricsocrat could be a fighter or some other PC class but that is easy. Just give them some PC levels. They have the money and the time to train in the PC levels. They just will likely lack the experience. So an Aristocrat that is a well know duelist would be an Aristocrat(xx)/Fghter(xx). One that has a penchant for carousing and getting into trouble would likely be a Aristocrat/Rogue. An Aristocrat would be more able to afford to become a Wizard than an other "class" although an Expert that specialized in magical lore would be a good candidate also if they could work it out.

I had all of the players in my current campaign choose an NPC class when they made their characters. Upon reflection I would have ruled out the Warrior and (esp.) the Adept. They have been to problematic as background pc classes. The Warrior provides a BAB increase of +1, and the Adepts "weird spell choices" just don't work for me as outloined above.

That's about it for me!

 

[Derulbaskul]

The only thing I can add to this discussion is my policy on maximum levels for the NPC classes. Basically, I won't allow, for example, a warrior to be above about 5th level simply because, if your fighting skills are good enough to get you past there, surely you're a fighter? Similarly for the commoner, although the argument needs to be varied slightly.

I haven't bothered with formal caps for experts and aristocrats, but I would struggle to see either class above 10th level.

And I simply don't use adepts because I think sorcerers fit the bill for talented arcanists and all divine spellcasters IMC are either clerics or druids and must choose a specific deity.

Cheers
D