You know that See the Future power that crops up in games all the time, and it's basically always useless because the GM won't actually just tell the players the entire plot of the campaign? So you always get advice on how to give the player who was foolish enough to pick that power vague, misleading or just plain useless glimpses of the future?

That's a good NPC-only thing.

Quote from: rawma;839572The 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;

Very good point. I'm reminded of a post I saw a while back where someone defended the multitude of distinct looking but not very mechanically different evil humanoid types in D&D as giving players a way to display skill by gradually recognizing and responding to their traits and limits.

Although I liked the NPC classes in 3e because they fit the system, I much prefer the non-class NPC stylings of 5e.

I follow the apparent trend of NPCs as they exist in the DMG.

Pure spellcasters get spell slots based on hit dice = class levels.
Pure fighting types get their 2nd attack at 5 hit dice, and a third at 11 hit dice.
Mixed types get spell slots every other hit dice, 2nd attack at 5 hit dice.

Add a special ability or two for whatever the theme is for the NPC, and good to go.

As far as how skilled a non-combat NPC should be, such as a blacksmith, they should be as skilled as it matters for the game just like anything else with a skill that won't involve rolling at the table. Skip HP and any stats unless it is likely to come up, maybe define what they know how to do if it matters and leave it at that.

NPC classes make sense to me in just a couple of contexts:

1.  Highly simplified versions of PC classes for quick NPC generation.

2. Classes that represent some form of expertise not generally useful for full-blown adventurers (sages, in particular).

In both cases I think it makes sense that if a player really wants to play an NPC class, they should probably be allowed to with only a few exceptions based on a campaign (for example, if you have a "Noble" NPC class and don't really want players to be from the nobility).

In general, NPC classes should be mechanically somewhat 'sub-optimal' for what typical D&D characters need to be good at in an adventuring context.

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.

My preference is that character class are not special for NPCs or PCs. My settings are ones where level reflects experience thus in every settlement there are leveled characters.

With that being said Jeff Rients came with a awesome idea for leveled NPCs if you wanted the opposite approach.

The Hedge Mage

The difference from the usual approach are

- The NPC is still just one hit dice
- Experience is based on the number of years practicing the class/profession.
- Each level has additional abilities but not as much as the adventuring class.

I think this is a great setup for referees that view player characters as heroes rising above the wider population. It allows the wider population of the setting to have varying levels of skills and capabilities without turning into yet another PC style character.

With his permission I expanded that into the array of NPC classes in my Majestic Wilderlands supplement.

http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/08/old-school-non-adventurers.html

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.

Which is why Jeff Rients idea of using years of experience in his Hedge Mage NPC class is brilliant. It makes sense in terms of the setting but fundamentally unappealing to players even if you heaped on extra abilities.

Quote from: Blusponge;839345But 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.

Classes are template for character at varying levels of experience.

What is the difference between a soldier, sergeant, lieutenant, and a captain?
What the difference between a Greek style warrior and a Egyptian style warrior?

A class writeup is a shorthand that wraps up the above in and explains it in game mechanics.

Now if the difference are simple with little no options then a bunch of NPC templates is called for. With warriors perhaps that what needed. For example I wrote this document of stat blocks for a feudal level for D&D 5e.

However if the NPC class reflect an organization or profession with more options say a religious hierarchy then some type of class writeup would be the way to go.

In short you need both and learn when to use the one over the other.

For me, they are useful on a situational basis. Like, if Druids are my big bad you don't get to play a goddamn Druid so stop asking! Probably not their lapdog Barbarians either. Play a Fighter and like it! *ahem*

But classes that get made solely for an NPC and an NPC only? No. If I need something special I just make it look like a monster but it's "Good King So-and-So" rather than "Lich" or "Vampire" or whatever. Just a stat block, no classes involved.

In Dark Albion's "Appendix P" I present a 'sage' class, which is suggested only for NPCs, but a Player could certainly take it if they wanted.  

The inspiration for including this was because one of the most successful characters of the Dark Albion campaign has been "the doctor", who was a 'specialist' class that focused on Medicine and Tinkering rather than the traditional "thief skills".