Game Idea

[tstewt1921]

So I saw an idea on here for the start of a game to where you give your party several premade characters that don't have class levels, they are basically commoners, and you give them several each and send them on the initial quest of goblin clean up or what have you. I really liked this idea but have never really rolled up a commoner before, is there a spot I would find a commoner class or guidelines or do I just give them random stats, skills and weapon proficiencies and go from there?

[Khedrac]

"Commoner" is one of the NPC classes in the DMG - along with Expert, NobleAristocrat etc.

[Nifft]

So I saw an idea on here for the start of a game to where you give your party several premade characters that don't have class levels, they are basically commoners, and you give them several each and send them on the initial quest of goblin clean up or what have you. I really liked this idea but have never really rolled up a commoner before, is there a spot I would find a commoner class or guidelines or do I just give them random stats, skills and weapon proficiencies and go from there?

Sounds more like 0-level apprentices than commoners.


But to be honest a level 1 character in 3.x is basically an apprentice already, with "genuine grown-up" stature starting around level 5 or 6.

[Thurbane]

May I present: The Commoner Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?232822)

[Crake]

Sounds more like 0-level apprentices than commoners.


But to be honest a level 1 character in 3.x is basically an apprentice already, with "genuine grown-up" stature starting around level 5 or 6.

3e doesn't have any rules for level 0 like some previous editions did. A level 1 commoner is about the best you can do there, with the first "adventure" seeing you trade in your commoner level for something else. That said, the way I've personally done level 0 before is picking an NPC class that best matches your 1st intended PC level, so warrior for full bab classes, expert for skill monkey classes, and adept for caster classes (with the adept spell list being changed to your intended class' spell list).

[Thurbane]

I think the third party module Legends are Made, not Born (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/2890/Dungeon-Crawl-Classics-0-Legends-are-Made-not-Born?it=1) may have presented some rules to cover this?

[Darrin]

The 1st-edition module N4: Treasure Hunt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Hunt_(module)) was designed on the premise that the PCs all start as 0-level characters, and they "earn" their way up to their first class level based on how things play out in the module.

I'm not sure if there was a 3rd edition version, but I would guess someone has tried something similar.

[Pleh]

But to be honest a level 1 character in 3.x is basically an apprentice already, with "genuine grown-up" stature starting around level 5 or 6.

This is highly subjective, though. In some settings, level 1 means you're actually a heroic adventurer now and you're finally "genuine grown up." 5 and 6 rather mean you've become a master among your peers. 10 or 12 becomes something of a "top of your field" place and 15 to 20 becomes legendary (as in future generations won't be sure if you were ever real after you are gone).

Just sayin that these sorts of assignments of social status by level will depend a great deal on if you're in Grit-town struggling with eldritch horrors and barely managing to stomp ROTUSes through your career or if you're in the Tippyverse industrializing 7th level spells to eradicate world hunger.

[BowStreetRunner]

...A level 1 commoner is about the best you can do there, with the first "adventure" seeing you trade in your commoner level for something else. That said, the way I've personally done level 0 before is picking an NPC class that best matches your 1st intended PC level, so warrior for full bab classes, expert for skill monkey classes, and adept for caster classes (with the adept spell list being changed to your intended class' spell list).Another option is to just use Racial HD and then swap that out for a class level. Even though Humans don't have a MM entry, you can still use the Humanoid type (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#humanoidType) rules here.

[OgresAreCute]

Another option is to just use Racial HD and then swap that out for a class level. Even though Humans don't have a MM entry, you can still use the Humanoid type (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#humanoidType) rules here.

That might get a little weird though, since any class with less than d8 hit die will lose hitpoints when they go from RHD to class levels.

[Nifft]

This is highly subjective, though. In some settings, level 1 means you're actually a heroic adventurer now and you're finally "genuine grown up." 5 and 6 rather mean you've become a master among your peers. 10 or 12 becomes something of a "top of your field" place and 15 to 20 becomes legendary (as in future generations won't be sure if you were ever real after you are gone).

Just sayin that these sorts of assignments of social status by level will depend a great deal on if you're in Grit-town struggling with eldritch horrors and barely managing to stomp ROTUSes through your career or if you're in the Tippyverse industrializing 7th level spells to eradicate world hunger.

"Subjective" seems inaccurate, and a bit provocative.

Level 1 characters feel like Apprentices because of their mechanics, not because of any specific setting.

- Level 1 Rogue can't take Weapon Finesse yet. She can take Combat Expertise but she can't use it yet.
- Level 1 Cleric of Kord can take Power Attack, but can't use it yet.
- Level 1 Wizard can't take a [Reserve] feat yet, so she's mostly a crossbow hireling in a robe.
- Any of those three characters cannot walk and draw a weapon at the same time. They could at level 2+, but at level 1 they're incapable of walking and chewing bubble gum using their hands. They are mechanically clumsy and unsuited to battle.

On the full-BAB side of the fence, you've got characters who can take Combat Expertise or Power Attack and actually use them, but only for 1 point each.

A level 1 tank can go from full health to outright dead from one crit by a single Easy opponent.

If those are the traits you associate with "actually a heroic adventurer now" then you've got a damn low opinion of them -- and that really would be subjective.

Or maybe you're pitching lore from other editions, and those editions actually did mechanically support the idea that a level 1 character was badass? Like in 4e you'd be correct, a level 1 PC in 4e could be tough and resourceful. But in 3.x that opinion is just not well supported.

[Pleh]

I'm saying it depends on the setting, because that determines what the Average would be that these characters are being compared to.

No matter how low you set the bar for level 1 characters, I can compare them to 1st level commoners and suggest that the world has a variable proportion of heroes to commoners.

Games mostly filled with NPCs, low on level, low on fantastic beasts, and low on heroes are just a Gritty Campaign Setting, which 3.5 supports just as readily as the Tippyverse.

So it's completely subjective, not to mechanics, but to power relative to the world you find yourself in.

A level 1 wizard can't take reserve feats, but a level 1 commoner can't cast magic spells. Welcome to the world of heroes, grown up caster.

[Nifft]

I'm saying it depends on the setting, because that determines what the Average would be that these characters are being compared to.

No matter how low you set the bar for level 1 characters, I can compare them to 1st level commoners and suggest that the world has a variable proportion of heroes to commoners.

Games mostly filled with NPCs, low on level, low on fantastic beasts, and low on heroes are just a Gritty Campaign Setting, which 3.5 supports just as readily as the Tippyverse.

So it's completely subjective, not to mechanics, but to power relative to the world you find yourself in.

A level 1 wizard can't take reserve feats, but a level 1 commoner can't cast magic spells. Welcome to the world of heroes, grown up caster.
Fighter 20 also can't cast spells, I guess those don't get to be heroes in your world?

Level 1 Commoners are also apprentices, just like everyone else at level 1. The grown-ups in that "profession" would be higher-level Commoners. You do know that Commoners can go all the way up to level 20, right? Trying to equate NPC with level 1 Commoner is a false dichotomy.

Games mostly filled with NPCs include default by-the-books urban games, and they're generally not full of low level NPCs -- the DMG demographics tables give a high probability for mid-to-high level NPCs in all but the smallest of settlements. Again, this is just game mechanics, not setting-specific nor anything subjective at all.

But on the topic of settings: the default setting for 3.x was Greyhawk, which did have high-level NPCs (mostly antagonists and/or former PCs).

Another popular setting for 3.x was FR, which did have a notable quantity of high-level NPCs (mostly novel cameos).

A third popular setting for 3.x was Eberron -- which did lack high-level NPCs, deliberately, but also mostly lacked Commoner 1 NPCs, and it wasn't built around feeling "gritty". Experts, Magewrights, Adepts, and lower-level PC classes were your environment.


tl;dr - The game's mechanics, and the settings sold for the game, disagree with you. In this edition, low levels really are like being an apprentice -- and that's a result of the game rules, not any particular setting's fiction.

[Pleh]

Fighter 20 also can't cast spells, I guess those don't get to be heroes in your world?

Wow. You are actually agitated by the very idea that 3.5 is more flexible than your interpretation suggests.

I was saying that suggesting a level 1 wizard is equivalent to a level 1 commoner just because they don't get reserve feats is bs. Those spells matter a good deal. A first level Fighter gets a couple more feats and weapon proficiencies than the level 1 commoner. There's reason to consider fighters and wizards heroes while the commoner really just isn't.


Level 1 Commoners are also apprentices, just like everyone else at level 1. The grown-ups in that "profession" would be higher-level Commoners. You do know that Commoners can go all the way up to level 20, right? Trying to equate NPC with level 1 Commoner is a false dichotomy.

Throwing around logic terminology doesn't make an argument. Commoner is an NPC class. How is a level 1 NPC class not fine to equate with being an NPC? And there's no dichotomy whatsoever. Commoners aren't the only NPC class.

And having 20 levels in Profession (farmer) doesn't exactly make you heroic.


Games mostly filled with NPCs include default by-the-books urban games, and they're generally not full of low level NPCs -- the DMG demographics tables give a high probability for mid-to-high level NPCs in all but the smallest of settlements. Again, this is just game mechanics, not setting-specific nor anything subjective at all.

And DMG demographic tables are just a recommendation for DMs who don't know where to start or don't want to bother building a world from scratch.

The DMG also has rules for modern firearms. Guess that's gotta be commonplace in every setting because it's in the DMG.


But on the topic of settings: the default setting for 3.x was Greyhawk, which did have high-level NPCs (mostly antagonists and/or former PCs).

Another popular setting for 3.x was FR, which did have a notable quantity of high-level NPCs (mostly novel cameos).

A third popular setting for 3.x was Eberron -- which did lack high-level NPCs, deliberately, but also mostly lacked Commoner 1 NPCs, and it wasn't built around feeling "gritty". Experts, Magewrights, Adepts, and lower-level PC classes were your environment.

And, again, the existence of non gritty campaign settings does not preclude the system supporting such settings.


tl;dr - The game's mechanics, and the settings sold for the game, disagree with you. In this edition, low levels really are like being an apprentice -- and that's a result of the game rules, not any particular setting's fiction.

You're just wrong. See? I can make meaningless assetions, too. The meaning of level 1 is up to each table's interpretation. The mechanics are only an abstraction.

[BowStreetRunner]

Wow. This thread devolved from an intelligent discussion into a bickering match pretty quickly. Not even on the second page yet. :smallfrown:

EDIT:

Apparently that's what happens when someone whose idea of a discussion is "lol u r mad" drops by. Hope he feels better soon.
Don't go playing the innocent. You both need to cut back on the bickering and incivility.

[Nifft]

Wow. You are actually agitated (...)


Wow. This thread devolved from an intelligent discussion into a bickering match pretty quickly. Not even on the second page yet. :smallfrown:

Apparently that's what happens when someone whose idea of a discussion is "lol u r mad" drops by. Hope he feels better soon.

-- -- --

Anyway, drraaaaaaaaaging the thread back on topic...

Many 3.x games start at higher level specifically because the group prefers to skip the inexperienced nobody / apprentice / pig-herder-with-pretensions stage of the game (which is usually levels 1-2, and possibly higher if the setting has higher-level threats).

You can start out as level 1 PC classes and be a good fit for a group of poorly-equipped peasants -- just start with hand-me-down gear your Pa brought back from the war, and not stuff you bought retail from the local Ambercrone & Lich. Also pick classes which fit the peasant-nobody archetype: Bard instead of Paladin; Sorcerer instead of Wizard; Rogue instead of Ninja (... and in the latter case it's also mechanically better so that's nice).


Try that, and see how many level 1 PCs die from goblin arrows and the like.

Then consider how much worse it would have been if you'd sent actual Commoner PCs at those same goblins.

Then make an informed decision about whether that's the sort of thing your group would enjoy -- it might be! High lethality can be lots of fun.

[Crake]

This is highly subjective, though. In some settings, level 1 means you're actually a heroic adventurer now and you're finally "genuine grown up." 5 and 6 rather mean you've become a master among your peers. 10 or 12 becomes something of a "top of your field" place and 15 to 20 becomes legendary (as in future generations won't be sure if you were ever real after you are gone).

Just sayin that these sorts of assignments of social status by level will depend a great deal on if you're in Grit-town struggling with eldritch horrors and barely managing to stomp ROTUSes through your career or if you're in the Tippyverse industrializing 7th level spells to eradicate world hunger.

I wanna point out, that by the rules intention, level 11+ is where "legendary" is supposed to be drawn:


As a rule of thumb, characters who are 11th level and higher are “legendary,” as are the sorts of creatures they contend with, the major magic items they wield, and the places where they perform their key deeds.

You can call it subjective if you like, but that's a pretty clear line in the sand. Interestingly enough, you actually have to be legendary yourself to cast legend lore :smalltongue:

I believe, based on how the game describes things, level 1 PC classed characters are supposed to be "elite", based on the fact that they have the elite array (something you guys didn't seem to bring up in your... *ahem*... "discussion"), characters of level 5-6 become "heroic" as they reach the peak of what "normal" people are capable of (that is to say, what people in real life are capable of), and level 11 is where you hit legendary, where you are beginning to be able to perform acts matching those of real world legends. I don't know if I'd have a word to adequately describe any tiers above that, beyond epic at 21+ as everything between 11 and 20 is still all legendary, just different levels of legendary.

[Pleh]

Apparently that's what happens when someone whose idea of a discussion is "lol u r mad" drops by. Hope he feels better soon.

Not "lol". More like, "Am disappoint."


I wanna point out, that by the rules intention, level 11+ is where "legendary" is supposed to be drawn:

You can call it subjective if you like, but that's a pretty clear line in the sand. Interestingly enough, you actually have to be legendary yourself to cast legend lore :smalltongue:

Well, that's about as canon as the DMG demographic tables, which is to say only so far as the table agrees it is. It's another place where the authors put in a loose definition to help DMs have an answer if they don't feel confident making it up.

It's nothing new that some spells are best modified for peculiar campaign settings, whether in this case Legend Lore could be raised to 15+ or just renamed according to the table's interpretation of levels 11+.

[Silly Name]

There is a third-party, Italian-only splatbook which deals entirely with playing "level-0" characters. The book is titled Manuale dei Livelli Infimi (Lesser Levels Handbook), a sort of "anti-Epic Levels Handbook". The core idea is that every great adventurer must start somewhere, as an apprentice or just a bumbling fool or an eager farm-boy, and these lesser levels serve to show their progression towards their actual, proper first PC class level.

There is a "lesser class" for each of the actual base classes in the PHB, and each of those lesser classes has four levels. When you'd get to 5th level, you actually earn your first class level (and drop the lesser levels you got so far). Through those 4 class levels, you earn little skill points, no feats, a static number of HP at every level (totalling the actual starting HP of a base class) and the lesser versions of the actual first-level class features of a real base class (including BaB and saves). Levelling up also means "earning" your racial features (you're just a budding apprentice, after all!) as you go.

The book also has equipment, monsters and adventures made specifically for this sort of character.

Sadly, it exists only in Italian, but I find the idea of playing "level-0" characters as actually slowly earning their class features until they're full-fledged, first-level PCs to be interesting and fun.

[Malphegor]

I know someone who normally DMs who seemed excited at the idea of being a player in a game where you start off as a commoner and have to gain your first ‘normal’ class at the end of your arc. I’ll have to see if he’s interested one day.