O-level characters are back?

63 posts / 0 new
Last post
weishan's picture
Offline
Factor
Joined: 2007-04-16
O-level characters are back?

NPC classes are usless, but the 0th level system wasn't impossible to house rule.

Dire Lemon's picture
Offline
factotums
Joined: 2007-11-06
O-level characters are back?

NPC classes can be fun. I don't like it, but I'm not outraged, which is what I feel about most things in 4E. Puzzled

Jack of tears's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2005-12-13
tr

I liked 0-level characters in 2E, and - personally - am glad to hear they will be back ... though I imagine they'll do something stupid with it.

I liked the fact that lvl 1 meant something - that you were more than the average joe. I ran a handful of adventures from 0th level back then and the pcs generally loved it ... gave them that feeling of evolving from "peon" to adventurer status.

Dire Lemon's picture
Offline
factotums
Joined: 2007-11-06
O-level characters are back?

Well I've just recently started DMing a game and have changed my opinion on NPC classes from indifferent to appreciative. So this is now just another thing to add to my pointlessly long list of things I don't like about 4th Edition.

Lord Zack's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-11-10
O-level characters are back?

Actually I have heard that NPCs may be built like monsters instead of actually having classes.

Jack of tears's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2005-12-13
re

Does that mean we get to kill them indescriminately?

Spiteful Crow's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2007-10-10
O-level characters are back?

Why not? The world revolves around PCs now. :mrgreen:

Zeniel's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2007-03-27
O-level characters are back?

You know call me paranoid anime fan, but it seems to me that you have stuck up a good number of posts recently whose entire purpose seems to be selling the imagery in 4E.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Or maybe its the lack of sleep and the chicken and icecream and the depression talking. Still.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Make. Me. Wonder.

Kobold Avenger's picture
Offline
factotums
Joined: 2005-11-18
O-level characters are back?

It was hard to conceive of 20th level characters in NPC classes, though Sharn: City of Towers had a named 20th level Commoner among the NPCs.

Zimrazim's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2007-01-14
O-level characters are back?

I still dislike the D&D leveling system altogether.

__________________

BoGr Guide to Missile Combat:
1) Equip a bow or crossbow.
2) Roll a natural 1 on d20.
3) ?????
4) Profit!

Lord Zack's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-11-10
O-level characters are back?

To be fair the games always revolved around PCs. If they just want to go around slaughtering things that's ok, it's a game.

Jack of tears's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2005-12-13
re

I can't say I agree with that. I wouldn't run a party who just wanted to run about killing npcs ... and if they tried they'd get a reality check real quick, as militias and bounty hunters were sent after them ... not to mention the constant fear of being knifed in your sleep by a hooker.

If it were planescape, they'd learn even quicker, as there is always something bigger and badder just ready to take some loud talking berk down a few notches. (and of course, unlike the default DnD settings, Planescape doesn't really have such a thing as "pointless monsters waiting to be killed" ... well, unless we're talking about Xaositects)

Lord Zack's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-11-10
O-level characters are back?

'Jack of tears' wrote:
I can't say I agree with that. I wouldn't run a party who just wanted to run about killing npcs ... and if they tried they'd get a reality check real quick, as militias and bounty hunters were sent after them ... not to mention the constant fear of being knifed in your sleep by a hooker.

If it were planescape, they'd learn even quicker, as there is always something bigger and badder just ready to take some loud talking berk down a few notches. (and of course, unlike the default DnD settings, Planescape doesn't really have such a thing as "pointless monsters waiting to be killed" ... well, unless we're talking about Xaositects)

That's all true, and that's the style of play I prefer, but it's a matter of opinion. Besides why is creating NPCs the same way as monsters mean they're only around to be killed? It's just a different way of getting the stats for the character. I consider my monsters to be NPCs anyway if they have a high enough intelligence.

ripvanwormer's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2004-10-05
O-level characters are back?

I like NPC classes in some cases - I love that an extremely skilled sage like Factol Hashtar can be a 20th level expert. Not a wizard or fighter, but a legendary character in his own right. Whether a sage who has never experienced combat should gain hit dice is another question.

One of the key differences in 4th edition seems to be that NPCs don't follow PC rules, though, where one of the main premises of 3rd edition is that they do. So in 3e a NPC needed to gain levels in some class if they were going to improve their skills, while in 4e they don't. If you need an NPC to know a lot, they just know a lot, and you don't have to explain it.

They're getting rid of a lot of skills that they feel don't really need game definition, too, so a shoemaker doesn't need to be a 20th level shoemaker in order to make extremely good shoes. There's no Profession (cobblery) skill for them to have ranks in. They just make quality shoes, and that's all you need to know.

weishan's picture
Offline
Factor
Joined: 2007-04-16
O-level characters are back?

I like NPCs to obey the same rules as PCs. It provides an accurate comparison (for encounter design and such) when you are fighting alonside the town militia, say.

BlackDaggr's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2007-11-15
Skilled Characters

One problem for separating the mechanics of PCs vs. NPCs is what happens when PCs retire and decide to take up a trade? Or what happens when the village blacksmith has to take up arms against invading goblins? Its much easier to have the NPCs statted up.

When I handle NPCs, I generally let them earn a set amount without significant adventuring or whatever to emulate skill advancement. For instance, an NPC Leatherworker who spends a year working leather may earn 1000XP per year for typical work. This allows older characters to be justly more experienced; a leatherworker working for 25 years would be 7th level if he did nothing but routine work. Making masterwork items would give a 300xp bonus per item.

As far as gaining hit dice, I don't have a problem with that. Hit points are more than physical stamina. They also include personal resiliency, luck, etc. So a 7th level leatherworker would be a little tougher than a 3rd level leatherworker simply because they've been around longer and know a few tricks.

This can add some cinematic elements too, as the 1st level PCs' old mentor (parent, whatever) makes a stand to hold off the goblins while the PCs escape.

One thing I think 3rd Ed. did make more difficult is by combining all skills with the same mechanic, they made it less useful to buy up trade skills. Why bother putting points in Skill:Cobbler when you would rather have another few points in Search?

ripvanwormer's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2004-10-05
O-level characters are back?

NPCs will still have stats, like hit points and attack bonuses. There won't be any trouble comparing their stats to those of the PCs, or letting them fight goblins or so forth. They just won't have stats as detailed as those PCs get.

I'm sure you *can* still use PC rules to build them. It's just no longer assumed that you have to.

Tequila Sunrise's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-11-17
O-level characters are back?

'Anime Fan' wrote:
I read that average joe NPCs will be o-level characters again in 4E. Your thoughts and feelings on the subject...? Do/did you find the NPC classes in 3/3.5 E useful?
That's effectively what NPCs are in my 3rd edition games. I've never used NPC classes and frankly consider them a waste of page space. Why does the town baker need to be statted out? If the PCs for some reason pick a fight with him, it's as simple as 4 hp, +0 AB (1d6 damage for his improvised club), 10 AC and +0 saves. If he's in the militia, I'll give him a few extra hp, raise his AB by one or two and leather armor if he's expecting a fight. Why worry about anything more than that? Who cares how what his Profession (baker) bonus is?

TS

Jack of tears's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2005-12-13
re

If you want this cook to be the best damned cook the pcs have ever encountered, then he is ... why is it necessary to give him a level?

Realistically the only reason is so that a pc who takes up cooking on the side can determine at which point he becomes the "best damned cook ever".

But a pc who spends most of his time cooking in camp between adventures isn't ever going to compare to someone who does it for a living - and takes pride in it - no matter his or her level.

Tequila Sunrise's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-11-17
O-level characters are back?

Agreed. I don't even use the Profession, Craft or Speak Language skills for PCs. If a player wants his character to be the Iron Chef of d&d or speak 17 different languages, it's not going to break anything as long as they have some kind of story reason.

weishan's picture
Offline
Factor
Joined: 2007-04-16
O-level characters are back?

Same, here. if a PC can provide a good reason, or they can have a skill as a reward for good RPing.

Anime Fan's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2007-06-13
Why NPCs need levels

One reason why giving NPCs levels is a good idea is that otherwise, it's too easy for the PCs to just wade into town (or the nearest castle) and knock off the poor, 4-HP major or King! Whereas, if the King is a 15 or 20th Level Aristocrat, he'll have enough HP to fight back (and so will his guards!) A 5 or 6th level PC party just shouldn't be able to mop up the town so easily, and not every King or other official will have a convenient high level NPC Cleric or Wizard to defend him... While 0-Level NPCs are certainly easy to run, they're just too easy to bump off, and HEY, if the PCs can do it, why hasn't the local villian done it already?

Jack of tears's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2005-12-13
re

Which is why the DnD level system is broken. In order for this sort of thing not to happen you have to have fair number of high level people wandering around ... but then you invalidate the prestige of being high level.

It would be better to have no high level people than every king and his personal staff statted out at lvl 12-20.

ripvanwormer's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2004-10-05
O-level characters are back?

'Anime Fan' wrote:
One reason why giving NPCs levels is a good idea is that otherwise, it's too easy for the PCs to just wade into town (or the nearest castle) and knock off the poor, 4-HP major or King!

I don't think they're saying that all characters who don't belong to adventuring classes have a single hit die. They're just saying that if they level up, they don't need to use PC rules to do it.

I suspect the MM or DMG will have stats for "typical guard" or "typical aristocrat," and they'll have multiple hit dice and a reasonable attack bonus.

Jack of tears's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2005-12-13
re

I don't know, I think that's awful. How does being more aristocratic make you better able to take a sword blow?

ripvanwormer's picture
Offline
Factol
Joined: 2004-10-05
O-level characters are back?

'Jack of tears' wrote:
I don't know, I think that's awful. How does being more aristocratic make you better able to take a sword blow?

Because in a feudal society, a properly raised aristocrat is presumed to be trained in the knightly arts. Fencing, at the very least. In the abstract D&D combat system, hit points represent ability to dodge, deflect, and parry blows, and ability to endure longer combats without becoming exhausted, able to withstand pain for longer and so on (natural armor class represents toughness of skin and bone).

This is just my opinion, of course. I don't actually know for sure what aristocrat stats will look like in 4e. That's how I'd do it, though - I'd make a typical aristocrat be moderately capable in combat, more than a peasant but less than a professional soldier. Individual aristocrats might be weaker or stronger, and can be adjusted ad hoc by the DM (by adding or subtracting hit points and bonuses) without worrying about what "level" they are.

Anime Fan's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2007-06-13
being Aristocratic

Being more aristocratic IN AND OF ITSELF doesn't help the poor 4-HP King, but piling on levels in the Aristcrat NPC class certainly does! Remember, more levels=more HPs!!! But I guess we don't need to worry since, in 4E, there ARE no Kings because there are NO KINGDOMS... just isolated "points of light" with a few inns and blacksmiths, and what PC in his or her right mind is gonna attack the only rest and relaxation for the next 300 miles? I hope the NPC system in 4E is not as messed up as everything else seems to be in most people's opinions (epecially here)...

Jack of tears's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2005-12-13
re

I'll swallow the "aristocrats are trained fencers and duelists" angle to a point ... but still no one who hasn't been in a real adventure should be able to stand a chance against even a 5th level fighter.

As for the "No kings in 4E" comment, I wasn't aware of this ... I have read nothing about the implied setting for the new edition ... sounds like they're really trying to get back to a "sword and sorcery" feel ... which can be fine ... but kingdoms provide vast potential for political adventure ... are they saying that the official brand of adventure is now "hack and loot"? Okay ... so it probably always was ... but there were vehicles for alternate styles ...

Eh, whatever, not like it's going to change the way I'm doing anything ... and I guess they have to market toward the audience which will make them the most money.

This is why I buy from Indi companies these days.

Tequila Sunrise's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2006-11-17
O-level characters are back?

'Jack of tears' wrote:
I'll swallow the "aristocrats are trained fencers and duelists" angle to a point ... but still no one who hasn't been in a real adventure should be able to stand a chance against even a 5th level fighter.
I think the meaning of levels are subjective. I myself consider levels 1-5 to be appropriate for any non-exceptional, non-adventurous NPC. Level 1 might be an apprentice, while level 5 would be a "master" of a given trade.

For me, having NPC classes at all is just anal. When I stat out an NPC, there are three possibilities. (1) If the NPC has any reason to have particular training I give them a PC class (mundane guards are fighters, everyday thugs are rogues, nobles might be bards/fighters/wizards/whatever). (2) The NPC is unstatted; like I said before, I can ad-lib stats for Joe Shmoe if necessary. Or (3) if the NPC has no particular training but needs to be statted I use the generic "humanoid" class--d8 HD, average BAB, good Fort and Ref, etc...

In other words, it's just not necessary to differentiate between (have different classes for) Joe Shmoe the Baron of Bungleton and Jane Shmoe the peasant wife.

Flame_Drake's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2004-12-05
O-level characters are back?

'Kobold Avenger' wrote:
It was hard to conceive of 20th level characters in NPC classes, though Sharn: City of Towers had a named 20th level Commoner among the NPCs.

I will defend this point as said NPC is over 200 and has focused her entire life on being a chef, her only maxed out skill.

as for zero-level character... meh. If they need to do something, they can. I actually find that profession can be usful for PCs and defining their relative skills, but most NPCs don't need to worry about it. The only time it really matters is when they are making opposed checks with the PCs.

Drake

Mechalich's picture
Offline
Namer
Joined: 2004-05-16
O-level characters are back?

Quote:
I'll swallow the "aristocrats are trained fencers and duelists" angle to a point ... but still no one who hasn't been in a real adventure should be able to stand a chance against even a 5th level fighter.

Maybe not, but a 20th level wizard shouldn't have double the BaB of that 5th level fighter, but he does, even if said wizard have never wielded a dagger once in his career (quite possible).

In D&D levels proxy everything, so NPCs who've been around the block ought to have levels of some kind, to inflate their hitpoints if nothing else and to give them some capabilities, to prevent certain inanities like mass-area minimum damage spells (very practical against armies of zero level NPCs where twelve damage kills absolutely everyone it hits) or high level wizards charging through angry mobs wielding their knives and not their magic. Whether those need to be classes or not is debateable.

Of the NPC classes I personnaly felt that expert had a strong place, since there was no PC class with the skill set to say, run a business full time and make things to support himself. The adept was also useful because it fullfilled the village wize-man or humanoid witch-doctor role admirably. I'm not sure if there was much of a need to differentiate between aristocrat and commoner much and warrior always seemed like something only useful in very specialized circumstances (for example regions where commoners might have gained warrior levels via long periods of civil war).

Of course, the ultimate justification for NPC classes is suppossed to be that PCs are different from NPCs and therefore progress upon these superior life paths. Now this doesn't really work in third edition when you have all these monstrous races and monsters with class levels, or in a setting like the Realms or Planescape where high-level NPCs are abundant but that was the idea anyway.

Planescape, Dungeons & Dragons, their logos, Wizards of the Coast, and the Wizards of the Coast logo are ©2008, Wizards of the Coast, a subsidiary of Hasbro Inc. and used with permission.