Starting with NPC classes (my players out!)

[brehobit]

Hi folks,
I'm going to start a new game sometime soon and I'm planning on starting with the 1e module "N4: Treasure Island". In that module the characters are 0-level and advance to 1st by the end.

So how do I do this in 3.5?

I've got a few ideas. I'm starting the PCs with 1 level of an NPC class (or 2nd level commoner if they want). But how do I move them to a PC class afterwards without either gimping them or killing off their NPC class.

Option 1:
Just given them a level in a PC class and advance from where they are. So Expert 1/wizard 1 or something. And I can deal with the fact that they are weaker than your average 2nd level PC.

• Problem: A skill-based character gets hosed. A warrior 1/rogue 1 with an int of 12 has 3*4+9 or 21 skill points. A level 1 rogue with an int of 12 has 36 skill points. Icky.
• Problem: Casters get gimped relative to a non-caster. An adept 1/wizard 1 is much weaker than a warrior 1/barbarian 1.

option 2:
Just replace their NPC level with a PC level.

• Problem: Part of the idea is to have a less-standard character and this just makes them "out of the box"
• Problem: Losing NPC abilities (like an expert/fighter would) seems really troubling and could harm character concepts.

I've worked out a bunch of options in between, but I'm not seeing anything good. I'm currently thinking about just giving them 4 PC levels and going with option 1 (it makes sense in the plot). That seems to smooth out a lot of the problems.

Anyone else have any good ideas?

Mark

 

[Kahuna Burger]

well, in a perfect world, the npc classes would have been picked to model the pc classes they eventually wanted, making option 2 more reasonable. Since I usually like higher level parties, I had considered for a "prologue" adventure having the players make their main characters then ask them to "make 2nd level npc classed versions of these characters."

but to add another options to your two, after the first adventure, you could make the first level a gestalt between their chosen npc class and new pc class. This would still gimp some combos, but no one would lose abilities. (as a not quite full gestalt power boost for one campaign I allowed gestalting only with npc classes, and it led to some very interesting but not overwhelming characters.)

 

[Darkwolf71]

I know that at least 2 of Goodman's DCCs are 0-level adventures. If someone has access (I do but obviously not while at work.) they could see how they handled it there.

Edit: Yeah, I got called away and now I have no idea what else I was going to say.

 

[Volsung]

In the 3.0 DMG there are apprentice levels intended to allow multiclass characters at 1st level. You could just use those instead of NPC classes.

 

[blakkgutz]

This doesn't seem quite like what you had in mind, but I've occasionally considered starting characters at 0th level, meaning no levels at all...

In other words, since the characters have no class, they just have their raw stats and racial abilities, and everything becomes a straight ability roll. D20 plus Dex mod to avoid the pit, D20 plus Str mod to hit the enemy, and so on. I suppose hit points would be 4 plus Con mod, just to keep things from being too brutal. Weapon Proficiencies would also be a bit tricky, maybe everyone gets one simple weapon proficiency like a commoner.

Once they get their level, just layer generate it based on their pre-existing stats. Nothing is lost, 'cause nothing else was there in the first place. Note that this approach would probably work best in a high-stat environment... if you're doing by-the-book rolling and someone gets one of those low but still "usable" sets, like 14 13 11 10 8 8, they will have a pretty hard time of it.

 

[Nifft]

I'd go with Kahuna's mini-Gestalt idea. It's effectively "level replacement" but with retention of the best attributes of both classes.

I would also expect my players to choose NPC classes that were reasonable precursors to their PC classes (Expert -> Fighter would be looked at askance since Warrior -> Fighter makes more sense).

Cheers, -- N

 

[Xath]

well, in a perfect world, the npc classes would have been picked to model the pc classes they eventually wanted, making option 2 more reasonable. Since I usually like higher level parties, I had considered for a "prologue" adventure having the players make their main characters then ask them to "make 2nd level npc classed versions of these characters."

but to add another options to your two, after the first adventure, you could make the first level a gestalt between their chosen npc class and new pc class. This would still gimp some combos, but no one would lose abilities. (as a not quite full gestalt power boost for one campaign I allowed gestalting only with npc classes, and it led to some very interesting but not overwhelming characters.)

*Yoink*

I like this suggestion alot. Alternately, though, you could try using the Generic PC classes from Unearthed Arcana.

 

[EricNoah]

What I did was have them start with an NPC class. They had one adventure. Then they got to become a 1st level PC class of their choice. The npc level disappeared -- it was replaced with the PC level. They just morphed into whatever they wanted to be.

Edit: You know what, that's not true. That's what I intended to do, but the players had different (and better) ideas. They didn't end up using NPC classes as written. They used a "lite" version of whatever 1st level class they thought they might morph into. So the future spellthief had a minor version of that power; the future psion had some limitations to his "casting method" and so on. There was a lite monk and a lite duskblade as well. I guess one guy did do a version of an NPC warrior though I let him be a little bit more swashbucklery than tanky by removing heavy armor proficiency and giving him, oh, I don't recall, maybe weapon finesse as a free feat.

 

[Xath]

If you don't want your PCs to lose their origins, consider giving them a "fluff" 4 skill points when they merge over to 1st level of a PC class. They have to put it into Profession, Craft, or Perform; something reflects what they used to be but doesn't gimp their usefulness.

 

[brehobit]

Good thoughts all, thanks!

The problem I have with the gestalt idea is that you are best off picking a PC class that is far removed from your NPC class (as with gestalt rules that gives the most bang-for-the-buck). Warrior/Fighter gestalt is no better than fighter 1, but warrior 1/wizard 1 is much better than wizard 1.

Xath's idea I like, but it still means that some PCs could be losing hitpoints or something...

Starting with "apprentice" levels could work, but I like the idea of being a non-adventuring class, though it seems like I probably should have done that. But I already told them how to make the characters...

-----------------------------

So here's what I'm thinking of for each NPC class.

Warrior: Keep all skill points and prof., +4 hit points at first level +1 BAB, +2 fort save. -8 skill points from first level class.

Aristocrat: Keep all skill points and prof., +2 hit points at first level. +2 will save, -4 skill points from first level class.

Expert: As Aristocrat.

Adept: Keep all skill points and prof., +2 hit points at first level, +2 will save. -8 skill points from first level class. Keep Adept spells. +1 caster-level for purposes of spell effects for one "real" class.

Commoner: Keep all skill points and prof. +1 hit die (+3 hit points plus con bonus). +1 BAB +1 to all saves. Don't count hit die against level for EXP purposes. -4 skill points from 1st level.

I think it keeps things largely balanced and no class combination I see gets hugely hosed. The PCs will be something like level 1.5...

Thoughts? Obviously it's complex...

Mark