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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GX.Sigma" data-source="post: 6116360" data-attributes="member: 6690511">I'm not aware of a thread of this precise nature. So... should NPCs have class levels?<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Yes, as an optional means of monster advancement. This is your "ogre with a few levels of monk" wackiness from 3.x. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Yes, as a general rule. Every  wizard you meet is mechanically a magic-user of a certain level.  Githzerai can be fighters, mages, fighter-mages, or thieves (they're not innately X-level monsters just because of their race). Etc. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">No. Well, maybe as an option, but I don't want it in my game. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Lemon Githzerai: Other/I don't know/I am a special snowflake. </li> </ol>I'm in favor of number two. Apart from the consistency and naturalism it affords, it allows greater freedom of monster/NPC design while still allowing a 4e-style "here's a few stat blocks" approach. For example, you could have "Githzerai Warrior," "Githzerai Mage," and "Githzerai Zerth" stat blocks that people can just use right out of the book, but in the small print you define them as level 4 fighters or whatever. In the back of the book, you could have "blank" level 1 fighter, level 3 fighter, level 7 fighter, etc. stat blocks, which you could modify with monster race templates.Actually, one of the side benefits of this approach is, since you're going to have battles with a million level 4 fighters, it forces the designers to give each class a dirt-simple option to make it easy to run (which will be appreciated by many players as well!).Also, it would make it a lot easier to run classic adventures, where many NPCs are just defined as "a 4th-level cleric" or whatever.</blockquote>

Verification