Well, I'm not a big fan of class-and-level systems (though they can be OK), but in general I prefer having PCs and NPCs working by the same rules.  So, for example, if there is an NPC who has worked with the party - if we get a new player, the new player might take that NPC was a PC to play.

I necessarily don't like explicit "NPC" classes, but I do like the idea of having classes flexible that you can represent a heroic commoner, or a nobleman, or a sage with the class system.

This was a problem in 3rd ed D&D because PCs (especially above 1st level) were hugely complex to write up. My preferred solution would be to make it not hugely difficult to write up a 6th level NPC wizard (or whatever).

I thought the 3e NPC classes were dumb because they just messed with what a level means, and didn't make things much simpler. So a 3rd level fighter might be a match for a 5th level warrior or a 7th level commoner.

I haven't worked with the 5e NPC classes yet, so I don't have an opinion about them.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;839232So, with all that in mind, what did you guys think of the two NPC classes in the 5e DMG?

They arent. They are villain class options. A pair of extra paths actually. One for the Cleric, Death Domain. And one for the Paladin, Oathbreaker. And they are available to players at the DMs discretion.

They work for the purpose of keeping two very problematic paths out of the direct hands of players.

It depends.  I'm not a big fan of NPC only classes unless the restriction is for game balance purposes.  I can see why, for example, Kevin didn't think PC's of the Scarecrow RCC would be a good idea.  I never liked the idea of a class being considered "too evil", or whatever as a restriction, though.  If you want to run an evil party, full of evil characters, why not allow this class/race?  Hell, if you're running a high powered campaign, maybe the power/balance restrictions can be done away with, too.  I firmly believe it's up the GM's discretion, but said discretion should not be unreasonably exercised.  If a class/race can fit with your campaign, why NOT let it in is the question the GM should be asking himself.  One would hope (but one would often be wrong) that the players are smart enough to not take up a class that would take them out of adventuring.  Banning the use of such classes might be a good idea, too.  Some stubborn player insisting that he CAN TOO play an alchemist/sage/librarian/innkeeper/whatever can really drag things down for the rest of the group.  It can lead to unnecessary friction in the group, as well.  If a judicious, reasoned GM ruling prevents the waste of hours of gaming time, that's a good thing.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;839232So, with all that in mind, what did you guys think of the two NPC classes in the 5e DMG?

I quite like them, but they are also explicitly balanced as potential PC classes.  So if somebody wants to play an Oathbreaker, it is possible.  It is always possible any specific class might not be present in a particular campaign.  That gets rid of the major annoyance of NPC classes, in that they are not oddly overpowered.  If you want a NPC to be overpowered, you can just do that as a stat block.

I am not wildly against a commoner or expert class (to model non-adventurers).  They seem unnecessary, but they do not look like a problem if somebody finds them useful for world building

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;839038In a class-based system, are classes that are reserved for NPCs generally a good/useful idea or a bad/pointless one?

This could mean classes that are too weak, evil and/or powerful for players to take.

OOH, it could represent non-adventuring classes: farmers, laborers, innkeepers, etc. But I have to wonder what the point would be of bothering to create such classes to begin with. What does a Level 13 Blacksmith mean?

OTOH, it may just miss the point of classes altogether and make the mistake of class = occupation, which is what I kinda suspect is what you mean here. In which case, yeah....no.

Quote from: jhkim;839243Well, I'm not a big fan of class-and-level systems (though they can be OK), but in general I prefer having PCs and NPCs working by the same rules.  So, for example, if there is an NPC who has worked with the party - if we get a new player, the new player might take that NPC was a PC to play.

I'm also OK with NPCs who are statted as PCs (eg NPC Thief-3 same as a PC Thief-3), making them equivalent, though for most genres I don't want every NPC to look like a PC.

If NPCs are statted differently then I want them as simple as possible, they do not need a full NPC Class writeup.

I really like NPC classes. The problem is that too many morons read an NPC Class writeup and immediately start thinking of reasons why they want a player character of that class.

Quote from: Kellri;839324I really like NPC classes. The problem is that too many morons read an NPC Class writeup and immediately start thinking of reasons why they want a player character of that class.

Still enjoy the original Warhammer RPGs system. Rat catcher! Street urchin!

I'd like to see some more 5e backgrounds for things like that. Farmer was one was surprised wasnt included.

Quote from: TristramEvans;839289OOH, it could represent non-adventuring classes: farmers, laborers, innkeepers, etc. But I have to wonder what the point would be of bothering to create such classes to begin with. What does a Level 13 Blacksmith mean?

... that this is the guy you want to go to when you want to reforge the Sword That Is Broken, rather than the Level 2 schlep you see when you'd like to pick up a few nails and have the crack soldered in that Dutch oven you take adventuring?

Quote from: Ravenswing;839342... that this is the guy you want to go to when you want to reforge the Sword That Is Broken, rather than the Level 2 schlep you see when you'd like to pick up a few nails and have the crack soldered in that Dutch oven you take adventuring?

Which could just as easily be handled with:

Hans Schroeder, Master Blacksmith
His work is too important for kings, referrals only, reasonable fees

If necessary, you could give him a skill:

Knowledge (Blacksmithing) d12+4

But more than that? Why? Do NPCs in your world where badges with their level on it? Is there a detect level spell?  If not, you're just making extra work for yourself.

Tom

Quote from: TristramEvans;839289OTOH, it may just miss the point of classes altogether and make the mistake of class = occupation, which is what I kinda suspect is what you mean here.

Nah, I was actually leaving it open for all the possible uses of "NPC-only class". Seeing what people assume that term means is revealing and interesting in itself. For instance:

Quote from: OmegaThey are villain class options. A pair of extra paths actually. One for the Cleric, Death Domain. And one for the Paladin, Oathbreaker. And they are available to players at the DMs discretion.

They work for the purpose of keeping two very problematic paths out of the direct hands of players.

Some people (not me) would argue there shouldn't be such a concept as a "villain class" for thematic or mechanical reasons.

Well, what's the purpose of a class in a class-and-level system?

  It seems to me that it serves two primary functions:

  1. Providing an archetype
  2. Guiding character development in a balanced and thematically appropriate way.

  #1 can be useful for NPCs ... but #2 seems less so, since NPCs usually don't fill the same role in the game as heroes. They can be more specialized, or broader in focus, than a typical PC.

  Therefore, it seems that full classes are generally unnecessary for NPCs. The same role is usually better served with discussion of archetypes and a list of talents and powers, although the latter can be helped by being flagged with notes that 'this is usually appropriate to a character of X degree of power in the setting' or 'this will provide an appropriate challenge to PCs of X level, but may be too much for those far below it or trivial for those above it.'

  IIRC, 4E went a pretty far way in this direction with its monster templates and themes, using tiers for broad appropriateness and scaling precise numbers to level.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;839353It seems to me that it serves two primary functions:

  1. Providing an archetype
  2. Guiding character development in a balanced and thematically appropriate way.

#1 can be useful for NPCs ... but #2 seems less so, since NPCs usually don't fill the same role in the game as heroes. They can be more specialized, or broader in focus, than a typical PC.

Therefore, it seems that full classes are generally unnecessary for NPCs.

In many of my games, there isn't a sharp line between NPCs and PCs. I like sometimes having a character like Samwise who is just a steadfast gardener caught up by circumstance, or otherwise "normal" people who get into adventures - rather than special adventurers.

Even in campaigns where the PCs are all special professional adventurers, I find that class-and-level systems also tell people things about the world. For example, most groups assume that a town priest will be able to cast cleric spells - and a high-ranking druid will be able to change shape - and even things about non-magical characters - like what to expect from a member of the thieves guild.

The main reason to have an NPC class, as opposed to just assigning whatever abilities you want, is if the players will encounter characters of that class at differing levels and can over time make informed guesses about their capabilities; I've made up spell lists for NPC classes where a focus of adventuring for a while was the players figuring out what those NPCs could do.

The reason to forbid PCs of an NPC class is if the NPC class has qualities that make them inappropriate for player characters: unable to cooperate with other PCs, ineffective in the usual adventuring situations, or breaking game balance in some critical way. For the aforementioned spell lists, I would prefer not to worry about whether they would be balanced enough for a PC. Insane characters in Call of Cthulhu must be NPCs because the sanity mechanic is too important a limitation on PCs; a class of caster who had insanity as a prerequisite would have to be NPC only. There are a lot of races that aren't allowed for PCs because they just won't work: too large or wrong kind of mobility or unbalanced power.

We had an NPC class Specialist in our OD&D campaign, just to assign better hit points and saving throws to NPCs who might accompany the party. The actual professional ability of the specialist (sage, stonemason, blacksmith, etc) was not a class feature.

Rawma, that makes a lot of sense.