NPC classes

[Emiricol]

I would like to post in Round Table Rules and in the upcoming User Guide that for official campaigns, that we ask DMs to lean heavily away from NPCs with PC classes, and use Experts, Commoners, Adepts and such for the rest (though not always, but keeping NPCs with PC classes for "special occasions").

For Rogues, we'd post an OGL NPC class called the Thug, from Fantasy Flight Games, which is quite balanced and realistic.

This would make PCs (who have PC classes) something particularly special. I've been thinking about how our world is only 3000 years old, and these realms *are* the "ancient empires" you find in most other settings. PCs are charting new territory.

Does anyone object?

 

[Emiricol]

Thug
The Thug is the counterpart of the Warrior - less skilled rogues who nonetheless are effective in their own environments. Whether pirates, thieves, gangsters or other unsavory types, the Thug is everywhere.

Most Thugs specialize in an area of crime, the better to compete with other Thugs. Cutpurse, hit man or con artist, they tend to do one thing well.

Hit Die: d6

Class Skills: The Thug's class skills are Appraise, Balance, Bluff, Climb, Craft, Disable Device, Disguise, Escape Artist, Forgery, Gather Information, Hide, Intimidate, Jump, Knowledge (Local), Listen, Move Silently, Open Lock,Profession, Search, Sense Motive, Slight of Hand, Spot, Swim, Tumble, Use Magic Device and Use Rope.

Skill Points at 1st Level: (4+Int modifier) x4
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4+Int modifier

Weapons and Armor Proficiency: Thugs are proficient with club, crossbows, dagger, dart, light mace, heavy mace, morningstar, quarterstaff, rapier, sap, shortbow, and short sword.

Level BAB Fort Ref Will Special
1 +0 +0 +2 +0 Backstab +1d4
2 +1 +0 +3 +0
3 +2 +1 +3 +1
4 +3 +1 +4 +1
5 +3 +1 +4 +1 Backstab +1d4
6 +4 +2 +5 +2
7 +5 +2 +5 +2
8 +6/+1 +2 +6 +2
9 +6/+1 +3 +6 +3
10 +7/+2 +3 +7 +3 Backstab +1d4, Combat Feat
11 +8/+3 +3 +8 +3
12 +9/+4 +4 +8 +4
13 +9/+4 +4 +9 +4
14 +10/+5 +4 +9 +4
15 +11/+6/+1 +5 +9 +5 Backstab +1d4, Special Ability
16 +12/+7/+2 +5 +10 +5
17 +12/+7/+2 +5 +10 +5
18 +13/+8/+3 +6 +11 +6
19 +14/+9/+4 +6 +11 +6
20 +15/+10/+5 +6 +12 +6 Backstab +1d4, Combat Feat

Class Features

Backstab: Thugs are not as subtle or skilled as rogues, but they still know that the fastest way to a man's heart is through his ribcage. A thug may perform a backstab against an opponent who does not get his Dex bonus to AC. This does not include flanked opponents, and cannot be performed with a ranged attack. A backstab does 1d4 points of bonus damage, increasing with experiences. All the limits of sneak attacks apply to the backstab ability.

Combat Feat: Thugs lead rough lives. At 10th level, a Thug may pick one feat from the Fighter's list of bonus feats, except Weapon Specialization. A second feat may be chosen at 20th level. A thug must meet all prerequisites to use his chosen feat.

Special Ability: At 15th level, a Thug may choose Crippling Strike, Defensive Roll or Opportunist from the rogue's list of special abilities.

 

[Memnus]

Thug looks great. But you have a typo at 5th level - it says +2d4. Either that one should also be +1d4, or the higher ones should increase above that.

If these are the ancient empires, then someone has to be building all the awesome ruins and powerful magicks that those empires always seem to leave behind - do we want to make some rules for PC artifact creation, in case any players ever get that high level?

 

[Emiricol]

backstab damage corrected, thanks for the catch!

Yes, I agree with your other comments, but that deserves another thread

 

[Northman]

Honestly, I don't see any reason to not use PC classes for NPCs. Both PC classes and the NPC ones are appropriate. It just matters what you want them for. If it's a bad guy and you want to use warrior instead of fighter, well you're going to need more levels of warrior to equal the same ECL of a fighter.

I don't think it's an issue really.

 

[Emiricol]

The reason is this: it makes PCs more special, and the BBGs (who presumably use PC classes) that much more special as well. No game reason; much flavor reason.

As with everything else we do, I see no reason to prohibit DMs from using whatever they want, but I see this as a very flavor-ish and ultimately worthwhile suggestion to make.

So - if it isn't an issue, and we aren't actually dictating what DMs use, is this option something you'd oppose, Northman?

The Thug itself as an option for DMs to use is a separate matter from suggesting DMs use NPC classes for most bad guys, though. What do you think of it?

((As an aside, most of the MM humanoids use warrior, not fighter, so there is some precedent for this thinking))

 

[Northman]

I like the thug, that's pretty cool.

But I don't understand the need to encourage DMs to use warriors, adepts, etc. When appropriate DMs will use them, when appropriate for fighters and wizards, dms will use those.

 

[Silverglass]

I also agree that we should not put such a restriction in place. The PC's are already special because they are PCs. A certain proportion of NPCs in any given area will have PC classes. Also the Pcs are not the only adventurers in Aerde, there would and should be NPC adventuring groups made up of people with PC classes.

In addition the sole spellcasting NPC class, the Adept, does not a good BBEG make, as against a Wizard etc. The kingdoms should not be full of PC's but conversely there will be PC classed NPC's out there. Of course the numbers will always seem relatively higher than the actual ratio because PC classed people are more likley to be involved with interacting with the party, the majority of people will have NPC classes but they are also tend to fill in the background so their actual class is less obvious.

In the prospective DM's guide to Paludosus I have a Class Demographics table that shows the rough split. Due to the martial nature of the realm, extensive military service, the Shatrisa caste and the Fighter preferred class a higher proportion of Fighters exist than I would consider normal because a lot of people who might otherwise end up as Warrior take Fighter. In a like way the very strong established church means that in civilised areas the will be more clerics and fewer adepts.

The result is that 70% of the population are pure NPC classed. Of the 30% PC classed a fair proportion will be multiclassed with 1 PC class and 1 NPC class, especialy the Shatrisa caste who will be Fighter 1/Aristocrat 1 or Fighter 1/Adept 1 depending on their life after being in the army. For the tribal populations 45% are Expert(Hunter/Herder) and 30% Warriors.

I do support the use of the Thug as it fills a real niche that the NPC classes can't quite build.

What we should have instead are notes for DMs that say "In most cases the majority of low-level NPCs encountered by players should have NPC classes. Most soldiers/caravan guards and the like will be Warriors and most merchants/tradesman and the like will be Experts" etc etc.

 

[Emiricol]

Works for me, guys. Mostly I care about the Thug, because as you say, it fills a niche.

 

[Renfield]

I like the idea of the Thug personally, and always believed in a mix of NPC classes and NPC's with PC classes. In a recent campaign (one of my SH's to be exact) The enemies were primarily warrior classes with NPC's with Fighter levels as captains of various contingents. Though with these particular group there were more Fighter classed NPC's considering the groups comparitive skill as a mercenary band. Alas they were still military and were promptly thrashed by the expert planning of the PC's. Still, I've been contemplating a thieves guild game recently where the PC's would have to all be members of a thieves guild in some way or another, the thugs would make great enemies/allies as depending on how the campaign went the PC's would work on running protection rackets and likely cross over into other guilds turfs and so on and so forth. Alas at the higher levels (with my groups at the least) I'd probably float away from using any NPC class. But yeah, my thoughts on the matter.