Expert/Master for C&C?

[Dragonhelm]

I was wondering if there was some sort of expert or master (from DLCS) type of class for C&C. Basically, a class that is very skilled, and can represent ideals such as performers, merchants, craftsmen, sages, and so on.

Thanks in advance.
_________________
Trampas Whiteman
---DragonHelm--->
Dragonlance Nexus

[gideon_thorne]

Ya. Its called CZ background Skills. ^_~`
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Maliki]

No official class. There has been some home brewed NPC classes discussed (either here or Dragonsfoot).

For my game I just make them as skilled as I want them to be, and for combat/HP I give them a bth 0 and a d6 HP. If I want them a bit tougher I just up the HD by one or two (this in turn affect thier saves and bth.)
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

[anonymous]

This is an aspect of 3rd edition D&D I don't much care for: the habit of giving everyone and everything a character class, levels and hit dice. Because the locked-down system prevents anyone from being good at anything without the concomitant number of levels, you're stuck with an illogical situation which is this: a highly skilled and talented craftsman of any kind is what he is because of that ability. It stands alone. In D&D, though, the character has to have more hit points, be better at fighting and be more resistant to spells. Why? It makes little sense. Thankfully, in C&C we're free. We can create NPCs as if they were monsters; just as a Stirge has a +3 attack bonus just because it does, an NPC can have any plus the CK wants to do whatever he's supposed to make a living doing: so the blacksmith gets +5 to blacksmithing rolls (if any are ever needed) and a street urchin can get +4 to pickpocket people in the market without having to be made a medium level Rogue...

[Nelzie]

Heheh...

I like the "D&D-ism" of having classes and levels for just about everyone. I also like to better show the split between PCs and NPCs.

So, I created NPC Classes, like the NPC Soldier, which is a very weak version of the Fighter. The XP chart for the NPC Soldier is much, much lower than the chart for the fighter and thus the character levels much faster. The NPC Soldier maintains a much lower BtH and Hit Points as well.

I haven't really been bothered with needing to do any other NPC Classes, besides maybe the NPC Priest class. The other NPCs are usually taken care of via descriptive elements, such as how awesome a given Blacksmith might be.
_________________
Earned the following:

50 Useless Trivia Points from Serleran

[Maliki]

I never liked the idea of common folk with PC classes, a real pet peeve of some classic modules. IMHO fighter class is too much for normal folks, even town guards. My solution was to give guards and such a d8 for HPs and a bth like a ranger/paladin. Good against the common human/humanoid foe, but nor much use verses the Dragon or Beholder that wanders into town. I never bothered with XPs just give them the HD I think they deserved.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

[irda ranger]

Tenser's Floating Disk wrote:
This is an aspect of 3rd edition D&D I don't much care for: the habit of giving everyone and everything a character class, levels and hit dice. Because the locked-down system prevents anyone from being good at anything without the concomitant number of levels, you're stuck with an illogical situation which is this: a highly skilled and talented craftsman of any kind is what he is because of that ability. It stands alone. In D&D, though, the character has to have more hit points, be better at fighting and be more resistant to spells. Why? It makes little sense. Thankfully, in C&C we're free. We can create NPCs as if they were monsters; just as a Stirge has a +3 attack bonus just because it does, an NPC can have any plus the CK wants to do whatever he's supposed to make a living doing: so the blacksmith gets +5 to blacksmithing rolls (if any are ever needed) and a street urchin can get +4 to pickpocket people in the market without having to be made a medium level Rogue...

Yes! Adventuring classes are a means of describing the general skill advancement of adventurers. There's no reason to require that "everyday folks" have a class. They don't even need stats or HP, most of the time, just a name, maybe a little back-story and physical description, and a general note of their profession and skills. Frankly, they often don't even need to have skills with modifiers. The blacksmith can either make the sword you need, or he can't. CK's discretion.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

[Dristram]

I had something on this subject happen in my game while running the Mortality of Green mod. The players had a hard time grasping the dwarf in End's Meet was just a blacksmith. No levels of fighter, expert, commoner, or anything. Just a highly skilled blacksmith. They just assumed he must be some bad a**e in combat or something. Especially since there are some high level NPCs, which they found out when I had the Troll Lord attack Ends Meet with an army.

But anyway, it's refreshing to just have NPCs that do things and not have to worry about the mechanics behind it.

[Treebore]

Yeah, I approach this the same way as the others have mentioned. I always work up some kind of fundamental concept for an NPC.

Even if it is just "has been a blacksmith for a very long time and is very good."

If I wanted him to have 30 HP he had it. I often gave blacksmiths 17 or 18 Strengths as well, and high CON's, benefits of such hard work after all.

If I wanted him to have a good BtH I gave him whatever I thought was appropriate for a guy who has made weapons for 20 years, or whatever.

So the bottom line is you don't need a class write up for NPC type job fields. They can be whatever you want. A 9th level thief who became a successful merchant, or a smart guy with a lot of initiative and good bit of luck who has been travelling the roads for 10 years.

If you need combat mechanics just decide what the NPC would most operate like in terms of PC classes and then give him that BtH and whatever level (for spell saves, etc...) you think he should operate at.

Do it about 6 times and you'll see how easy it is to do.

[Dragonhelm]

This presumes the expert/master is going to be an NPC, though. What of a traveling historian who adventures to find lost artifacts?
_________________
Trampas Whiteman
---DragonHelm--->
Dragonlance Nexus

[serleran]

That's called a wizard. Or a bard.

Or, to use a term familiar to most roleplayers... a motivation to play....

If your players want to play a character like that, I'd stat it it out like a NPC, because it would have been one. A hireling, or retianer, or somesuch. New abilities would never be obtained, especially in the case of someone who just records history, but lots could be learned... and that's accomplished by keeping track of what the character has discovered.

Seriously, there are "roles" that don't make adventurers... that's why they hire those non-adventurers in the first place.

[Treebore]

If it is something you think needs a class write-up, or most importantly of all, is something one of your players wants to play, write it up as a class.

If you want an Indiana Jones type base it off of the Bard. If you want the all brains no brawn type base it off of the Wizard. Then determine its xps on how effective or ineffective it would be in combat based on BtH, class abilities, and spellcasting, if they have them.

If you take the time to really look at the classes and what they are capable of, you can make a good guess as to what kind of xp progression to give them.

Or I can send you the "class deconstruction" document I have. When I saved it I said Reaper was the author, but I think it was actually Serleran's.

[Dristram]

Dragonhelm wrote:
This presumes the expert/master is going to be an NPC, though. What of a traveling historian who adventures to find lost artifacts?

Take a look at the offerings at Beyond Belief Games and their Netbook of C&C classes. Or what's in their Medieval Murder Mysteries book.

[Treebore]

Yes, Simon W.'s Netbook of C&C classes. It is part fo why I pointed him at cncplayer.net.

Of course now I am glad I was pointed at their website. Those are some cool looking genres using the Siege engine.

[Ghul]

Maliki wrote:
I never liked the idea of common folk with PC classes, a real pet peeve of some classic modules. IMHO fighter class is too much for normal folks, even town guards. My solution was to give guards and such a d8 for HPs and a bth like a ranger/paladin. Good against the common human/humanoid foe, but nor much use verses the Dragon or Beholder that wanders into town. I never bothered with XPs just give them the HD I think they deserved.

I agree, which is why the 0-level fighter as a town guard is a nice and logical alternative. Castle Zagyg Vol I., Yggsburgh has plenty of town militia that are 0-level halberdiers and crossbowmen. They typically have about 5 HP.

--Ghul

[rabindranath72]

This is the single thing I hate most about 3.x: classes for common people.

A 20th level commoner who can mop the floor with a low level fighter is just not right. I will not tell you the "explanations" I got from 3.x fanboys on why a 20th level commoner should have two attacks per round and a boatful of hit points.

Even in Dragonlance 3.x there is one such "monster" in a recently published book: an expert butler with 70+ hit points, two attacks per round etc. Apparently he did fight a lot of cockroaches and assassin dust
Simply put: ludicrous.

[Nelzie]

Maliki wrote:
I never liked the idea of common folk with PC classes, a real pet peeve of some classic modules. IMHO fighter class is too much for normal folks, even town guards. My solution was to give guards and such a d8 for HPs and a bth like a ranger/paladin. Good against the common human/humanoid foe, but nor much use verses the Dragon or Beholder that wanders into town. I never bothered with XPs just give them the HD I think they deserved.

My NPC Soldier class fits that bill quite nicely. It uses the BtH of the Cleric though and d8 Hit Point Progression. The class is meant for those NPC Hirelings that PCs may wish to include in their merry band of fellows. They are the people left at the camp watching the horses and gear, while the PCs enter the ruined keep or ancient crypt.

The level quickly, but that's only to enhance their survivability as it is assumed they won't be laden with Magic Items, like the PCs will be and thus wouldn't benefit from typical Saving Throw bonuses that might be provided from some of that equipment.

The class is also something that can "bridge" between NPC Soldier and one of the "regular" fighting classes, such as the Fighter, Ranger, Knight, Paladin, Bard, through "acquiring" the XP difference between their current level and the same level XP requirement of that Fighting Class. (This is meant to make use of them as "Replacement" PCs, if they are needed in the course of a campaign.)
_________________
Earned the following:

50 Useless Trivia Points from Serleran

[Nelzie]

rabindranath72 wrote:
This is the single thing I hate most about 3.x: classes for common people.

A 20th level commoner who can mop the floor with a low level fighter is just not right. I will not tell you the "explanations" I got from 3.x fanboys on why a 20th level commoner should have two attacks per round and a boatful of hit points.

Even in Dragonlance 3.x there is one such "monster" in a recently published book: an expert butler with 70+ hit points, two attacks per round etc. Apparently he did fight a lot of cockroaches and assassin dust
Simply put: ludicrous.

Commoners, if I create such a class for my game, wouldn't gain very many hit points, virtually nothing in terms of BtH and definately wouldn't gain additional attacks per round. They would only gain some of those things because, it's a dangerous world.
_________________
Earned the following:

50 Useless Trivia Points from Serleran

[irda ranger]

Nelzie wrote:
My NPC Soldier class fits that bill quite nicely. It uses the BtH of the Cleric though and d8 Hit Point Progression. The class is meant for those NPC Hirelings that PCs may wish to include in their merry band of fellows. They are the people left at the camp watching the horses and gear, while the PCs enter the ruined keep or ancient crypt.

The level quickly, but that's only to enhance their survivability as it is assumed they won't be laden with Magic Items, like the PCs will be and thus wouldn't benefit from typical Saving Throw bonuses that might be provided from some of that equipment.

The class is also something that can "bridge" between NPC Soldier and one of the "regular" fighting classes, such as the Fighter, Ranger, Knight, Paladin, Bard, through "acquiring" the XP difference between their current level and the same level XP requirement of that Fighting Class. (This is meant to make use of them as "Replacement" PCs, if they are needed in the course of a campaign.)

The D&D 3.x idea of the Warrior and the Adept (non-PC figther and spell-caster, respectively) were good ideas. They were your village guard, army regulars, hedge wizards, country priests, witches, and herb women. They had the stats they needed to fill out their role. The Noble wasn't half-bad either. It was almost a playable PC class.

Where the scheme went wrong was Expert and Commoner. Those should never have been classes. The idea of a "unified mechanic" can be taken too far, and that was an example of such.
_________________
Check out my Iron C&C House Rules: The Tombs of Akrasia

[Nelzie]

irda ranger wrote:
The D&D 3.x idea of the Warrior and the Adept (non-PC figther and spell-caster, respectively) were good ideas. They were your village guard, army regulars, hedge wizards, country priests, witches, and herb women. They had the stats they needed to fill out their role. The Noble wasn't half-bad either. It was almost a playable PC class.

Where the scheme went wrong was Expert and Commoner. Those should never have been classes. The idea of a "unified mechanic" can be taken too far, and that was an example of such.

I can't see those that persue Arcane Magic as being anything other than a the full Wizard class. (In C&C) It just takes to much training and focus to become a wizard. They are also very non-combatant as well, so it fits fine for an NPC.

I do, however, have an NPC Priest class in the works that is a non-combatant Cleric that only sticks around temples, village churches and makes up the heirarchy of the larger church. They have access to priestly magic and can turn undead and that's it. Of course, being a dangerous world, they aren't completel incapable, the church does require even it's non-combatant members of the order to learn a few martial skills. Thus, they have access to a handful of weapons; Club, Mace, Staff and are trained to wear a few different armors; From Chain Shirt down to Leather Coat. However, their martial training is only in the most basic of moves and thus they have a BtH of the Wizard.

This works, as the major personality factor of any NPC Priest Class character is a strong desire to stay as far away from martial situations as possible. If this point of view is altered through character growth, then the Priest is on the road to become a Cleric. The conversion to full Cleric requires that the difference in XP needs to be made up before the NPC Priest can take the next character level. At that point, Hit Points, BtH and assumed training on the additional weapons and armor that a Cleric can use is learned by the one time Priest.
_________________
Earned the following:

50 Useless Trivia Points from Serleran

[Dristram]

Commoners, i.e. farmers, merchants, laborers, etc., in my game have 1 HD forever unless they happen to be something like the village tough guy or something where I would give them an additional hit die or two depending.

Those kind of commoners live through their skills and if I were to have one run as a character, the x.p. gained would be gained through using the skills and would go towards advancing the skill level, not a "class level". So, a 5th level farmer would still be 1 hit die and only +1 BtH, but would make his farming related checks modified by 5. A master blacksmith would probably be 12th level in blacksmithing skill or higher, but would still have 1 or 2 hit dice only.

Anyway, that's just the way I'd do it.

[Nagisawa Takumi]

rabindranath72 wrote:
This is the single thing I hate most about 3.x: classes for common people.

A 20th level commoner who can mop the floor with a low level fighter is just not right. I will not tell you the "explanations" I got from 3.x fanboys on why a 20th level commoner should have two attacks per round and a boatful of hit points.

Even in Dragonlance 3.x there is one such "monster" in a recently published book: an expert butler with 70+ hit points, two attacks per round etc. Apparently he did fight a lot of cockroaches and assassin dust
Simply put: ludicrous.

Actually, that's what I like about Iron Heroes. The Expert and Commoner classes in their Mastering Iron Heroes get a Hit Die for every 3-4 levels. So a level 20 Commoner would have maybe 15HP, and his BAB/BTH would be negligible.

I like giving my NPC's some sort of class mainly because of overzealous players (And yes they still exist) who WILL give lip or otherwise assault them, just because they can. So giving them a 'class' but not one from the core gives player pause, and reason to be special among them, and yet when they face a foe that's a PC class, they know they may be in trouble.

[anonymous]

Iron Heroes sort of fudged it; if only they'd had the courage to go all the way and divorce HP from NPC classes altogether.

Another thing is, the NPC class system can tie your hands. An adventure hooks calls for the king to have been stabbed through the heart by a traitor, and what do you get?
How old was the king? How long was he on the throne? Was a he a noob kid?

No, he'd been on the throne for nearly 10 years. Quite well liked.
Okay, so this traitor must be a high level rogue. Maybe an assassin. We'd better be careful.

Yeah, or he couldn't have done it. He must do serious Sneak Attack damage to have killed a medium level aristocrat in one blow...

No, look, forget about that, the king was stabbed in the heart and he died. End of story. The murderer is nobody special.
So how come he managed to kill the king? How many HP did the king have?

etc. etc.

[serleran]

In my games, NPCs have the abilities I say they have. These abilities are not possessable by PCs unless I allow it, and this includes the magic items. Say, for example, you slay this elf who had this neat ring, and were hoping you'd be able to use it. Nope. I'm afraid that ring had this thing called "attunement" and only worked for that particular elf. Tough luck. Maybe if you killed another one, or found the guy who made that ring....

Stuff like that begs for continuing hooks.

Players take the role of the game's heroes. Not the game's schmoes. If someone wants to play the useless mook, they could... but I wouldn't give them anything for it. In my games, you get what you ask for, and what is in the game world.

[Dragonhelm]

serleran wrote:
That's called a wizard. Or a bard.

You know, I took a closer look at the bard and realized that what I was thinking about already exists. Nifty.
_________________
Trampas Whiteman
---DragonHelm--->
Dragonlance Nexus

[Gnostic Gnoll]

Tenser's Floating Disk wrote:
Another thing is, the NPC class system can tie your hands. An adventure hooks calls for the king to have been stabbed through the heart by a traitor, and what do you get?
How old was the king? How long was he on the throne? Was a he a noob kid?

No, he'd been on the throne for nearly 10 years. Quite well liked.
Okay, so this traitor must be a high level rogue. Maybe an assassin. We'd better be careful.

Yeah, or he couldn't have done it. He must do serious Sneak Attack damage to have killed a medium level aristocrat in one blow...

No, look, forget about that, the king was stabbed in the heart and he died. End of story. The murderer is nobody special.
So how come he managed to kill the king? How many HP did the king have?

etc. etc.

I would just ask, "So why haven't the clerics resurrected him yet?"

[Dristram]

Gnostic Gnoll wrote:
I would just ask, "So why haven't the clerics resurrected him yet?"

That's why in my games, unfortunately for players, the ability to raise from the dead can only be done by the head of a particular church in the form of a miracle and is not guaranteed as the deity may say "No!".

[Nifelhein]

There are, for me, moments that are mechanical derivations, like a combat, and others that are simply the result of story development, like the king's death.

Else we would also have to tell anyone with a dead character that he could not do a dying in the ground scene, which would suck, badly.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

[Nagisawa Takumi]

Dristram wrote:
That's why in my games, unfortunately for players, the ability to raise from the dead can only be done by the head of a particular church in the form of a miracle and is not guaranteed as the deity may say "No!".

So, as a GM you'd deny players coming back? That seems a little harsh.

Personally, I say no to resurrection spells, and give a whole metaplane example why.

[Nifelhein]

I deny players coming back myself, but I deny characters coming back more often...
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.