When should NPC's get PC classes

[Slobber Monster]

An NPC gets PC class levels when he or she fulfills a role similar to that of a PC, or that requires abilities not covered by the NPC classes. It's mostly a matter of function. An adept can be good for the back-country local spellcaster, but it doesn't work well to represent a major item-crafter in a big city.

I've always thought the Adept class was superfluous even for that role - might as well just use levels in Druid, Wizard, or Cleric with a non-heroic stat array.

 

[ivocaliban]

I use the Expert and the Aristocrat on occaision, but I haven't bothered with the rest. I don't think I've ever used Commoners, because I've never needed their stats. I've never cared much for the idea of high-ranking Commoners. High-ranking Wizards are more Wizardly...high-ranking Commoners are more Common? I tend to use Experts for any commoner who's uncommon enough to need stats.

 

[Voadam]

In villains I use a level of npc warrior instead of fighter if I want to bump up the HD and BAB without extra feats or CR.

 

[Slobber Monster]

That makes sense, though technically speaking you're adding 1/2 CR to the creature. I'll go back to not thinking about this too much now.

 

[Buttercup]

I've never used the NPC classes before. I've always rolled up an npc with a pc class. So i'm thinking about going with everyone gets npc levels and those that are specials threats or encounters will have levels in pc classes. I have some questions though. If you have a 5th level adept and they discover the secret to becomeing an actual wizard and take their first pc class level would they be then a cr of 5? 5 levels of adept would be a cr of 4 and one pc class level so 5 right? would summon familiar ability stack so that now they can summon an improved familiar? Comparing the straight level 5 wizard and the adept/wizard I think the latter comes out ahead. The straight wizard has a one additional 2nd level spell and a 3rd which is more fire power but the a/w has more hit points access to healing spells and possibly an improved familar.

Truthfully, I generally don't worry about details like this with my NPCs. If I want the NPC adept/wizard to have an improved familiar, he'll have one. If I want the adept to have certain spells, she'll have 'em. As long as I don't deviate too far from the RaW, I don't worry about it.

And you're correct, the Adept/Wizard is a different animal, better in some ways and worse in others. If it doesn't fit your story concept, make that NPC a straight Wizard. Personally, I like the NPC classes so much that I think (contrary to what the DMG says) they're fully playable classes. Well, except for the commoner.

I think the thing to remember is that you have lots of latitude here. For instance, if you give some of your warriors listen, spot, run, and intimidate as class skills, you'll have good guards/beat cops. Others might not have intimidate, but survival. They could be the local trappers. Still others might have move silently, climb and open lock as class skills, and be experts at breaking & entering. You should really use the NPC classes as starting points for your imagination.

Finally, you should get the PDF called Everyone Else from EN Publishing. It offers all the basic NPCs any community would ever need, from fishmongers to scribes to bailiffs, all statted out.

 

[Buttercup]

I've always thought the Adept class was superfluous even for that role - might as well just use levels in Druid, Wizard, or Cleric with a non-heroic stat array.

And I've always loved the Adept. In fact, I think it's a very interesting class, especially if one wanted to create a world without gods (and clerics). I think with a bit of tweaking to the spell list, it could replace the druid as well. But maybe I'm strange.

 

[Slobber Monster]

...

And you're correct, the Adept/Wizard is a different animal, better in some ways and worse in others. If it doesn't fit your story concept, make that NPC a straight Wizard. Personally, I like the NPC classes so much that I think (contrary to what the DMG says) they're fully playable classes. Well, except for the commoner.

...

Anything is playable so long as the player doesn't mind the character being gimped compared to other members of the party. There's no question that the NPC classes are fragile and ineffective in combat compared to a standard PC class, though.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The game needs complete non-combatant character classes.

I think that the warrior, aristocrat and expert FAIL to fill this need, primarily because they're too good in a fight. I'd cut the expert down to a 1/2 bab and drop the warrior (use a fighter) and aristocrat (use a bard or expert) completely.

I'd ditch peasant too. If someone is so unimportant that I wish them to have absolutely no ability, then I'll just arbitrarily assign them a hitpoint and attack penalties.

I mean really - if you were given the option to take a level of fighter, or TWO levels of warrior, which would you pick?

If an NPC is anything even slightly combatant, then they get appropriate PC classes.

 

[Psion]

I've always thought the Adept class was superfluous even for that role - might as well just use levels in Druid, Wizard, or Cleric with a non-heroic stat array.

I replace adept with Green Ronin's Shaman or AEG's Priest.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

IMO it's based on level and "drive".

At higher levels, NPC classes simply vanish. Running into a 10th-level adept is very rare, even in FR.

I think D20 Modern and Spycraft do this slightly better. In those systems, you can have mid-level NPC classes without being total wimps. You would have a leader, several henchmen (frequently of different classes) and some grunts. Grunts only have NPC classes.

You usually fight only one or two henchmen at a time, with a bunch of grunts. You will need to tweak things if your party is big, however, as two henchmen will quickly get killed via the "Akbar" method.