Café de Nuit

I thought Ryan was saying that they are *severely* outclassed in PF. Like if you use the rule that their CR = their NPC level -2, that is a gross overestimation of their challenge. In reality, Ryan mentioned that it should be CR = NPC level divided in half.

The problem with that, is to keep Godefroy at the same challenge rating as before, he'd have to be a somewhere around an 20th level or more Aristocrat.

At least, that's what I got from what he said; he may mean something else.

Obviously, the aristocrat's class skills are aristocraty (huntin' and shootin' and dancin', don'tcherknow), whereas the fighter's class skills are fightery (um... huntin' and shootin', but no dancin'). Your skill choices are obviously influenced by your class skills, and give colour to your character.

Previously, a cross-class skill was only worth 1/2 a point per rank. So the best a 10th level fighter could get on Knowledge (nobility) - something you'd think would be pretty fundamental to an aristocrat - was +5, for 10 ranks. The aristocrat got +10. At 20th level, the fighter's still only at +10, whereas the aristocrat is at +20. So the fighter loses out on an important aristocrat skill.

In Pathfinder, class skills give you a +3 bonus, and that's it. You're otherwise free to choose whatever you like. So the fighter can now get a +10 bonus for 10 ranks, while the aristocrat gets +13. At 20th level, the gap is still the same rather than widening (as it does under the old system): +20 and +23. And a gap of 3 is statistically irrelevant for unopposed checks after about level 6 (for opposed checks, or really high DC ones, it stays relevant longer).

So you can build a perfectly servicable "aristocrat" fighter who has all the skills an aristocrat should have, plus all the good stuff you get for being a fighter. The flavour you get from skills is no longer tied to your class choices as strongly. And because the class skill bonus works retroactively, a single level in aristocrat gives you all those bonuses anyway.



The other point is that NPC classes are dead levels: they give you no abilities beyond the basics (like racial HD do). Mortavius is right: they are severely outclassed, and Godefroy would be of ridiculously high level to present the same challenges as before.

But that's a slightly different issue.


I'm not against NPC classes per se (if they're at a realistic CR). For big name characters though, I don't see the point - why not have interesting abilities that suit the flavour as well as just feats and skills ranks?

In fact, in most cases, if you compare by builds with the 3e originals, you can see they're covering all their old bases plus more.

You're right, but it still bothers me. I loved the NPC classes in 3e and that RL NPCs made use of them. They were dead levels in 3e too but at least thir skill access (for expert & aristocrat) was worth a bit.

The new skill system destroys any class related niche protection for all classes, rendering the NPC classes even more useless for PC antagonists and the rogue even more subpar than in 3e. I go into a but more detail about how the new skill system gimps rogue even more in this post on paizo's forum, where I also provide some links to products that patch up the rogue a bit.

OTOH assigning skill points to NPCs was a major PITA in 3E. Maybe the PF skill system can be slightly adjusted giving back some niche protection but keeping the easier handling.

Or maybe the NPC classes should get overhauled getting rid of those dead levels? There were several noble classes in 3e, and PF has the Noble Scion prc, and some noble bloodline feats to steal from err get inspired by. Expert too had many upgrade versions, and there's the PF artisan from a 3pp.

Ryan Naylor wrote: I'm not against NPC classes per se (if they're at a realistic CR). For big name characters though, I don't see the point - why not have interesting abilities that suit the flavour as well as just feats and skills ranks?

In fact, in most cases, if you compare by builds with the 3e originals, you can see they're covering all their old bases plus more.

I feel that the issue is only amplified in PF (skill system more open, all PC classes get little extras) but the same could have been said in 3e too.

So in 3e, would you have preferred an all Ari build for Godefroy ? In 3e too you could have covered the all the ari 13 bases too by multiclassing him as ari with a bit of fighter (maybe thug variant) and rogue or maybe going prestige with something fitting.

I think the new Godefroy build is one of your best and it makes a lot of sense regardless of the NPC class "issue'. I couldn't abide seeing him any other way now. The class archetypes work so nicely in fact, that it makes me wonder if NPC classes shouldn't just be redone as archetypes themselves.

The Giamarga wrote:So in 3e, would you have preferred an all Ari build for Godefroy ? In 3e too you could have covered the all the ari 13 bases too by multiclassing him as ari with a bit of fighter (maybe thug variant) and rogue or maybe going prestige with something fitting.

I never really familiarised myself with the thug, but it sounds promising. Based on what I do know, aristocrat was the best choice, followed by rogue (perhaps with a fighter dip).

However, the cad archetype just screams Godefroy at me now.

Anyway, it's all moot now. Part of the reason I did all this was so I'd never have to play 3e again.

Ryan Naylor wrote:So you can build a perfectly servicable "aristocrat" fighter who has all the skills an aristocrat should have, plus all the good stuff you get for being a fighter.

I get that, but I reject the unspoken premise that one would choose Aristocrat for its skills. There's no NPC class that doesn't have a "better choice" in a PC class. But that's building like PC, not a DM. Even in 3.5, if one really wanted a fighter with high Knowledge (Nobility), you could spend a feat on one of the many "XXXX becomes an in-class skill for you" feats and still be way ahead of the Aristocrat in nearly every other way.

Yes, it's true that a skill being cross-class in PF is not nearly as much of a barrier as it was in 3.5. But are NPC classes in 3.5 really used to min-max skill-monkey characters? I don't think so. They are used to give a bit of flavor while boosting the numbers a bit so we don't have 0-level humans everywhere with single-digit hp and who only hit things on a natural 20.

The other point is that NPC classes are dead levels: they give you no abilities beyond the basics (like racial HD do).

That's no different than in 3.5, though. And it's kind of the point. NPC's don't need to be as versatile or have as many options as PCs. 4e went a bit too far in that direction, IMHO, but they had the right idea. Most NPCs are built to be defeated in a battle or two, not to remain interesting for a whole campaign.

Mortavius is right: they are severely outclassed, and Godefroy would be of ridiculously high level to present the same challenges as before.

How so? What challenge does a 3.5 Ari Godefroy present that a PF Ari version doesn't? The ability to dominate opposed Knowledge (nobility) checks vs. PCs at the House on Gryphon Hill's "Great Houses of Mordent trivia night"?

I'm not against NPC classes per se (if they're at a realistic CR). For big name characters though, I don't see the point - why not have interesting abilities that suit the flavour as well as just feats and skills ranks?

Because I'm not convinced that a fighter's abilities (even a cad) suit Godefroy at all. IMHO, his defining characteristic is "Gentleman Ghost". Most of his challenge should come from his ghost abilities, not being a melee powerhouse. I could see a fighter ghost making perfect sense, as a different character (Morholt ApBlanc, for example). But in this case, I see Ari as just a frame to hang a cool ghost template on. (And your ghost template is about as cool as they come. I love it!)

In fact, in most cases, if you compare by builds with the 3e originals, you can see they're covering all their old bases plus more.

That's not in question. But is the "more" necessary and in-character? I haven't had a problem with any of your other conversions that I've read in-depth (admittedly, I've skimmed most of them, intending to come back later when I have more time). But if there's any character in Ravenloft that screams Aristocrat, it's this one, IMHO. Any character can become "better" with a bunch of extra feats and upping its BAB, but that doesn't mean we should always do it.

Not sure if I'm making my point... I guess I'm mostly a "simulationist" at heart. I feel like stats for NPCs are primarily to reflect who the character is, not the character that a player would build if they were playing him. No PC would willingly take any of the NPC classes, but they are still valuable tools for a DM building NPCs.

^Even the weakest person as a Ghost can become quite a nuisance as a ghost. I've done a trick against higher level PC's to have the Ghost attack them from walls only to disappear back on the other side of it. Poke ghostly needles into their feet, and all other sorts of indirect attacks. Not sure Godefroy needs to be too much of a melee, if I remember right his cane does permanent Charisma damage? That alone could kill most characters that might use it as a "dump" stat. <.< 1 your unconscious 0 your dead. xD

Gonzoron of the FoS wrote:I get that, but I reject the unspoken premise that one would choose Aristocrat for its skills. There's no NPC class that doesn't have a "better choice" in a PC class. But that's building like PC, not a DM. Even in 3.5, if one really wanted a fighter with high Knowledge (Nobility), you could spend a feat on one of the many "XXXX becomes an in-class skill for you" feats and still be way ahead of the Aristocrat in nearly every other way.

Yes, it's true that a skill being cross-class in PF is not nearly as much of a barrier as it was in 3.5. But are NPC classes in 3.5 really used to min-max skill-monkey characters? I don't think so. They are used to give a bit of flavor while boosting the numbers a bit so we don't have 0-level humans everywhere with single-digit hp and who only hit things on a natural 20.

That's no different than in 3.5, though. And it's kind of the point. NPC's don't need to be as versatile or have as many options as PCs. 4e went a bit too far in that direction, IMHO, but they had the right idea. Most NPCs are built to be defeated in a battle or two, not to remain interesting for a whole campaign.

Except that darklords *do* need to be as versatile and have as many options as PCs, and they are meant to remain interesting for a whole campaign. And indeed, I have deliberately built my darklords as though they were PCs so that darklords and PCs followed the same rules.

A darklord, as a core character (unlike a campaign specific one), needs to be versatile in order to be useful. Different DMs need to be able to use them for different jobs, or different jobs at different times.

I'm not convinced that a fighter's abilities (even a cad) suit Godefroy at all. IMHO, his defining characteristic is "Gentleman Ghost". Most of his challenge should come from his ghost abilities, not being a melee powerhouse. I could see a fighter ghost making perfect sense, as a different character (Morholt ApBlanc, for example). But in this case, I see Ari as just a frame to hang a cool ghost template on. (And your ghost template is about as cool as they come. I love it!)

Thank you.

However, as we've been discussing in the Godefroy thread, I disagree that his defining characteristic is "Gentleman Ghost". I think his defining characteristic is that he is a violent, bad tempered, snobbish, cowardly bully hiding behind a veneer of breeding. If he were a gentleman's gentleman, then aristocrat levels might be appropriate (bearing in mind what I said above about versatility). For Jules Weathermay, for example. But I see Godefroy has vengeful, petty, without honour if he thinks he's losing - which is why I made him a cad, because the abilities the archetype gave him seems to sit up and scream Godefroy.

So yes, I think the extra abilities are in character. Obviously you don't, but I think that may be because we see the character differently. And perhaps his role in the game as well.

There's no big deal if you leave hi as aristocrat though. His 3e write up would basically stay the same - the only difference would be that he gets a couple more feats. And his CR should be about 10 (12 level/2 + 4 for the ghost template) instead of 16.

Thanks for the post though, Ron.

Zilfer wrote:^Even the weakest person as a Ghost can become quite a nuisance as a ghost. I've done a trick against higher level PC's to have the Ghost attack them from walls only to disappear back on the other side of it. Poke ghostly needles into their feet, and all other sorts of indirect attacks. Not sure Godefroy needs to be too much of a melee, if I remember right his cane does permanent Charisma damage? That alone could kill most characters that might use it as a "dump" stat. <.< 1 your unconscious 0 your dead. xD

Actually, Cha 1 is fine (relatively speaking) and 0 is unconscious. And Godefroy can't drain someone to below Cha 1.

The other ideas are great; in part, that's why I gave Godefroy Flyby Attack, so he could hit and run through walls.

ah yeah your right.... 0 in anything is what i was thinking. Except for Constitution... that will kill you xD

I see the points that Gonzoron is making with his Aristocrat argument, and it got me thinking of a deeper question:

What makes an Aristocrat?

Mechanically speaking, it's a class, but if you go deeper than that, it's really just a name. There are no mechanical effects that make an Aristocrat such that can't be duplicated by another class (better) and still be an aristocrat.

In 3E it was a bit more defined with the choice of class skills. But not so in PF.

Perhaps such a thing should be more of a feat or, even better, a background choice now?

or a class archetype...

Ryan Naylor wrote:Except that darklords *do* need to be as versatile and have as many options as PCs, and they are meant to remain interesting for a whole campaign. And indeed, I have deliberately built my darklords as though they were PCs so that darklords and PCs followed the same rules. ... Different DMs need to be able to use them for different jobs, or different jobs at different times.

OK, I can accept both of these lines of argument. Darklords should be more versatile than your average NPC. But even so: A PC is in (nearly) every scene of a campaign. A villain (even a Darklord) is in far, far less. More than "random badguy #3", but still, how many times does a given darklord actually make an appearance in a campaign that requires stats? Even if he's the main antagonist of the campaign, it's going to be a small handful of times. I'm a big proponent of NPCs and PCs following the same rules, too. But they don't have to use the same rules in the same ways. A PC will (usually) be built a level at a time, an NPC all at once. A PC will be more focused on choosing abilities for their own needs and the party's needs. An NPC will be choosing abilities based on the setting's needs or story's needs.

However, as we've been discussing in the Godefroy thread, I disagree that his defining characteristic is "Gentleman Ghost". I think his defining characteristic is that he is a violent, bad tempered, snobbish, cowardly bully hiding behind a veneer of breeding. If he were a gentleman's gentleman, then aristocrat levels might be appropriate (bearing in mind what I said above about versatility). For Jules Weathermay, for example. But I see Godefroy has vengeful, petty, without honour if he thinks he's losing - which is why I made him a cad, because the abilities the archetype gave him seems to sit up and scream Godefroy.

I agree with you 100% on his temperament. I was probably too brief in calling him "Gentleman Ghost". At least that should have been "'Gentleman' Ghost". He's no true gentleman. Nor is he in any way "noble," though he's 100% "Noble". (If I may quote from such an unlikely source as Guillotine, he's an "Ignoble Noble".) A gentleman, but not a gentle man. A nobleman, but not a noble man. He's a complete hypocrite in that respect, but the veneer is all-important to him. As I mentioned in the Godefroy thread, the way I see him, he is totally committed to the outdated notion that the aristocracy deserves all their power and respect and that they are truly better than the peasantry. And that extends to his bullying as well. Who did he kill? a woman, a girl, and a horse. Those he saw as weaker, lesser, or unimportant. And none were a physical threat to him. Now, he beats his servant ghosts into submission with his cane, draining them of the will to fight back. He's a bully, alright, but only when he has the upper hand. If faced with a real threat, I don't see him dirty fighting to get advantage. He'd flee in cowardice.

Bottom line, the way I see it:
A fighter solves conflict by hitting it with a sword.
A cad solves conflict by throwing sand in its eyes and smacking it with a nearby candlestick
Godefroy solves conflict by demanding that it obey him. He strikes by telling you how much better he is than you and what a lowly worthless waste you are. If that fails, he'll beat your face in, unless you can fight back. Then he'll puff out his chest and declare you to not be worth his time while he runs and hides in fear.

So yes, I think the extra abilities are in character. Obviously you don't, but I think that may be because we see the character differently. And perhaps his role in the game as well.

Perhaps. And if this version works for you, by all means, use it. Though, I think we see the character at least 90% the same... The same core, but perhaps a different execution.

But you're right: I don't see dirty tricks, disarm, steal, sneak attack, and improvised weapons as part of his repertoire. Bravado's Blade, maybe as a source of Intimidate checks (which I see him making regularly), but it's strange tied to sneak attack. The only times we've "seen" him in combat, he used: a mattock, a gun, and a cane. You could be a stickler and call the mattock an improvised weapon (as per miner's pick), but it's a pretty deadly item in it's own right, and not far from a mace, pick, or handaxe. You don't need any special training to make a mattock deadly. I don't recall how the cane was statted, but I'd call it a club. It's mainly used to deliver his touch attack anyway.

If I were to build him, I'd probably try to rely more on the ghost side to play up this "better than thou" idea. I'd leave him an Ari, but bump him up to rank 5, and maybe give him a few more HD (since Ari levels don't change the CR much) to give him more salient abilities. I'd choose salient abilities that focus on him enforcing this view on others. He thinks he's better than you, so maybe he is. Maybe you doubt yourself in his presence. His will forces you to believe you truly are worthless as he shouts insults on you. You view him as better, his grandeur becoming what he thinks it should be. But of course, if you see through this all and shake it off, you see him for the petty tyrant he is and the hold is broken. Stuff like Greater Mind Games (crushing despair) or Death's Calling, or maybe even apostate. Anything that robs the victim of power...

Though one fun idea might be to reflect this idea of his foul temper by giving him.... a few Barbarian levels. Is that too perverse? A Brb/Ari? Or does it completely sum up his character? Brb4/Ari11? with Intimidating Glare and Powerful Blow Rage powers? Maybe even Savage Barbarian archetype?

Thanks for the post though, Ron.

Thanks for taking it in the spirit in which it was meant. Again, if it works for you, use it. It's just that NPC classes are one of my favorite parts of 3.x, especially for Ravenloft, and I like to use them wherever I think they fit.

The other ideas are great; in part, that's why I gave Godefroy Flyby Attack, so he could hit and run through walls.

Yup, a classic. Though in the Tales story, he reserved that for emergencies, thinking that it was "proper" to go through walls. (but resorting to it at need. Again, emphasizing both our views of him.)

Mortavius wrote:Mechanically speaking, it's a class, but if you go deeper than that, it's really just a name. There are no mechanical effects that make an Aristocrat such that can't be duplicated by another class (better) and still be an aristocrat.

In 3E it was a bit more defined with the choice of class skills. But not so in PF.

Exactly. I'm not sure what the answer is. My gut says it's either:

1) That's OK. They exist for flavor and are defined as much or more by what they aren't as what they are. (i.e. You choose expert over rogue not because you want Fly, Handle Animal, Heal, Ride, Spellcraft, Survival and assorted Knowledges as class skills, but because you don't want sneak attack, evasion, trap finding, etc. on your Apothecaries, Librarians, and Blacksmiths)

or

2) Maybe there should be some (small) benefit added to each NPC class that no PC class can get, and that is not really useful for adventuring, but is useful for hanging around town pursuing your boring NPC life.

Gonzoron of the FoS wrote:If I were to build him, I'd probably try to rely more on the ghost side to play up this "better than thou" idea. I'd leave him an Ari, but bump him up to rank 5, and maybe give him a few more HD (since Ari levels don't change the CR much) to give him more salient abilities. I'd choose salient abilities that focus on him enforcing this view on others. He thinks he's better than you, so maybe he is. Maybe you doubt yourself in his presence. His will forces you to believe you truly are worthless as he shouts insults on you. You view him as better, his grandeur becoming what he thinks it should be. But of course, if you see through this all and shake it off, you see him for the petty tyrant he is and the hold is broken. Stuff like Greater Mind Games (crushing despair) or Death's Calling, or maybe even apostate. Anything that robs the victim of power...

Though one fun idea might be to reflect this idea of his foul temper by giving him.... a few Barbarian levels. Is that too perverse? A Brb/Ari? Or does it completely sum up his character? Brb4/Ari11? with Intimidating Glare and Powerful Blow Rage powers? Maybe even Savage Barbarian archetype?

I was deliberately keeping as close as I could (bar the obvious exception) to his 2e and 3e powers block - rank 4, malevolence, etc. But it might be interesting to see what you come up with for that build. Good luck!