NPC classes as 1/2 and Commoner as 1/4; for ECL and appropriate CR encounters

[reddir]

My thought is that as these classes are less effective they should be evaluated as such for ECL and for determining what constitutes an "appropriate encounter" by CR.

The DMG or Monster Manual already does this with the NPC class clause of the Associated and Non-Associated Class Levels adjustment to CR.

So, NPC classes counted only as 1/2 for ECL. And Commoner is considered useless even in comparison to other NPC classes, so count it as 1/4 normal.

This is outside of any shenanigans or exploits. Just in general or for non-super-OP characters.

Thoughts?

---------------

This is before looking at Tiers which I only generally grok. To apply this to Tiers, maybe 1/4 for Tier 6, 1/2 for Tier 5, 2/3 for Tier 4? (no idea, just throwing out numbers; Aristocrat and Warrior seem to offer quite a lot more than Commoner though all are at Tier 6?)


==========================================

18-July-2020:

Thank you everyone for your comments, analysis, and perspectives. You've helped me get a better handle on what I am proposing as well as how my perspective on classes differs from the norm here. I also now have a better grasp on how to present my world and its conventions.

At the end, for my perhaps anti-optimized class perspective, I am going with:
Commoner: 1/4
Other Tier 6: 1/3
Tier 5: 1/2
Tier 4: 2/3

My aim for this has been to find a way to balance class concept ECL against killer monster CR. I think this works, or at the very least gets close enough for a general rule.

In the future, I will try to be more mindful and explicit with my inherent assumptions of how classes are played as well as general gameworld conventions.

[Bucky]

Double progression Adepts are a bit OP. They basically have full BAB, all good saves with an additional large bonus to Will saves, better than d12 hit dice, and faster casting progression than a Cleric or Wizard. In exchange, they have a smaller spell list and fewer spell slots, but those matter less when the character only exists for one encounter.

[reddir]

Double progression Adepts are a bit OP. They basically have full BAB, all good saves with an additional large bonus to Will saves, better than d12 hit dice, and faster casting progression than a Cleric or Wizard. In exchange, they have a smaller spell list and fewer spell slots, but those matter less when the character only exists for one encounter.

Would that bring the Adept on par with Sorcerers, in your opinion?

-----

I wasn't thinking of double progression exactly, but I can see how that might be the effective result.

[el minster]

No the Adepts would probably be tier 1

[reddir]

No the Adepts would probably be tier 1

So Adepts might be set at 2/3 ECL?

What about the other NPC classes?

And does it makes sense to apply this to class Tiers?

[el minster]

2/3 to 3/4 would probably be ok

[liquidformat]

In general it would be better to do this based on tiers like you say at the end. Looking at commoner warrior and Aristocrat specifically none of them have any class features nor Use Magic Device skill which automatically puts them at the bottom of the barrel. And while sure the commoner is objectively worse the other two are no less horrible.

With all that said there are a lot of funky issues with doing this. For example if 4 levels of warrior (or even 2 levels) is worth one of a normal class I can easily see a player taking 4 levels of warrior to get+4 bab, 4d8 hp, and a bag of skill points at level 1 and absolutely trounce everything. At level 2 a level of barbarian then early entry prc at level 3. This does also make some other wackyness with things like hexblade who is tier 5, if being tier 5 class means ecl 1/2 at level 5 i could have 10 levels of hexblade which puts my casting at a pretty similar level as a wizard. Honestly I am not sure if these are actual issues depending on the group you are playing with. But at the same time giving players free rein with such a system can be quite problematic. If I am building a gish for example having 4 levels of warrior taking up 1 ecl is a much better investment than taking a 1 level fighter dip.

In the end, I think it is probably better to either let people gestalt tier 4 with tier 5 or 6 classes or else look at rebuilding classes. There are some pretty easy fixes out there for example just giving hexblade, spellthief, paladin, ranger, and Sohei duskblade casting progression bumps them up to tier 3. Giving ninja, rogues, and scouts full bab moves them pretty much into tier 3 as well. Combining monk with fighter should also get to tier 3 just barely, combining marshal and knight brings it up to tier 3. Other things like making swashbuckler and soulborn into 10 level prcs with early entry around 3 or 4 makes those really nice PRC choices.

[Bucky]

This is for NPCs, so "giving players free rein" is not a problem.

Incidentally, a simple Warrior 2/Commoner 4x build seems to be moderately stronger than CR 1+x Animals for x=1-4, even without taking intelligent tactics or better feats into account. Or NPC WBL and cross-class UMD, which works just fine with quadrupled hit dice and Skill Focus as an effectively-bonus feat from those extra dice.

[liquidformat]

This is for NPCs, so "giving players free rein" is not a problem.

If this is a talk purely about NPCs then ECL shouldn't even be brought up, ECL only comes into play for players, not NPCs.


Incidentally, a simple Warrior 2/Commoner 4x build seems to be moderately stronger than CR 1+x Animals for x=1-4, even without taking intelligent tactics or better feats into account. Or NPC WBL and cross-class UMD, which works just fine with quadrupled hit dice and Skill Focus as an effectively-bonus feat from those extra dice.

A Warrior 2/Commoner 4 is CR 2 so it should be better than a CR 1 animal, and by using simple math we can also come to the conclusion that a creature with 4*x hd is without a doubt stronger than a creature with 1+x hd....

[reddir]

My intention for this is a sort of "death world" setting where each settlement (city, town, village, hamlet, thorpe, even campground or cave) gets attacked once a month (probably a lunar month) with a wave of creatures of total EL equal to the total ECL of the settlement's inhabitants (including those just stopping in for the night).

It seems to me that counting Commoner levels as regular PC levels is just a slaughter waiting to happen.

Counting Warrior levels as regular PC levels might leave some survivors, but the settlement as an entity is probably doomed.

I thought Aristo would do better until I saw the Tiers list...

With regular PC classes, it is still tricky since there are issues with elderly or pregnant people. I probably won't count the children below 8 years old in the ECL count.

That all said, I still want each wave to be 'equal' to if everyone came out to defend the settlement. Think of it as Proving Your Right to Exist on the world for every person there.

----------------------

For me, this brings together a few tropes that can be fun to consider, as well as allows for some interesting character choices and social strategies.

[reddir]

Incidentally, a simple Warrior 2/Commoner 4x build seems to be moderately stronger than CR 1+x Animals for x=1-4, even without taking intelligent tactics or better feats into account. Or NPC WBL and cross-class UMD, which works just fine with quadrupled hit dice and Skill Focus as an effectively-bonus feat from those extra dice.

To fine-tune the balance, how about:
Commoner: 1/4
other Tier 6: 2/3
Tier 5: 3/4
Tier 4: 4/5

Does this seem better?

I have the general idea in my mind, but I am hoping for help on nailing down the numbers side.

[Gnaeus]

So, a commoner 12 (ECL 3)Has 12d4 hp (average 31.5+ 12xcon hp)
Monk 4 (ECL 3) has 4d8 (average 21.5 +4con hp)

Monk has 3 BAB, commoner has 6. Monk can full attack +1/+1. Commoner +6/+1.

Monk has 28 skill points. Commoner has 30. Human or 12 int monk has 35. Human or 12 int commoner has 45.

Monk has 1 stat bump, commoner has 3.

Monk has 4 feats (2 fixed). Commoner has 5.

Monk saves all +3. Commoner all +4.

Monk is subject to low HD attacks, like dragon fear or color spray or blasphemy. Commoner less so.

Monk is in better half of T5.

[reddir]

So, a commoner 12 (ECL 3)...
Monk 4 (ECL 3)...
Monk is in better half of T5.

So, Tier 5 should be at 2/3?
Or maybe Commoner should be 1/3?

[liquidformat]

In a lot of my games I have used commoner as a representation for children and used humanoid hd (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#humanoidType) as the 'commoner' class. So commoner are only a single place holder hd that is replaced by something else once that person is of age. Doing that should allow your numbers to work a bit better as now commoner hd play nicely with warrior and aristocrat... I also put caps on how many commoner, warrior, aristocrat and expert levels are possible for an npc.

[reddir]

In a lot of my games I have used commoner as a representation for children and used humanoid hd (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#humanoidType) as the 'commoner' class. So commoner are only a single place holder hd that is replaced by something else once that person is of age. Doing that should allow your numbers to work a bit better as now commoner hd play nicely with warrior and aristocrat... I also put caps on how many commoner, warrior, aristocrat and expert levels are possible for an npc.

That is a good way to do it... but I am too fond of Templates and mechanical stuff for that!

For child, what do you think of this particular version of a template?:
Child (3.5e Template) (https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Child_(3.5e_Template)&oldid=628671)

[NigelWalmsley]

This doesn't work because things don't scale linearly. A 4th level Commoner is better than the majority of 1st level PCs. An 80th level Commoner would be essentially irrelevant in even a 10th level party as anything more than a vehicle for magic items. Giving someone bigger numbers only matters as long as raw numbers represent the bulk of character power, and that stops being true at a fairly low level in 3e.

The double-progression Adept specifically is basically a Mystic Ranger. They get Wizard-ish progression until 5th level spells (faster, but less spells per day) up to 5th level spells, then they stop getting new toys. As such, it has the same basic issues with power rankings as the Mystic Ranger. It's T1 at low and mid levels, but T3 at high levels. Unless you want to procedurally extend the Adept table somehow.

[Bucky]

My intention for this is a sort of "death world" setting where each settlement (city, town, village, hamlet, thorpe, even campground or cave) gets attacked once a month (probably a lunar month) with a wave of creatures of total EL equal to the total ECL of the settlement's inhabitants (including those just stopping in for the night).

It seems to me that counting Commoner levels as regular PC levels is just a slaughter waiting to happen.

Counting Warrior levels as regular PC levels might leave some survivors, but the settlement as an entity is probably doomed.

I thought Aristo would do better until I saw the Tiers list...

So the easy solution here is... since this has been going on for a while, there aren't many of the less combat-oriented NPC classes left. Maybe a few Aristocrats who don't fight and people who take Expert levels but multiclass out. Maybe some Commoner 1s that are rounding errors in the EL calculation; they'll retrain the Commoner level when they finish the training period for another class.

Warriors do better. They can grab bows and/or polearms and platoon with a buff-dispensing character or two, and although their performance won't be up to PC standards, buffs and coordination mean they can fight effectively enough as a group to make it through the encounter, while also accomplishing important tactical objectives like focus-firing soft targets or keeping melee monsters out of reach of the casters.

NPCs that aren't properly equipped for combat are -1 CR, and a Commoner's lack of proficiencies means she's inherently underequipped barring magic items. So it's fair to apply a -1 modifier to anyone that can't significantly contribute at all.

Finally, keep in mind that the CR system's balanced such that the party is supposed to win an appropriately challenging encounter almost all the time. So even if the settlement underperforms, it usually means they lose people, rather than a total slaughter.

[Troacctid]

What exactly is the goal here? Like, I'm sure you could balance it, but I have to confess I don't get what you want to accomplish. Do you want to encourage players to play NPC classes? It doesn't seem like that would be a particularly fun place to go.

[Maat Mons]

I don't think total ECL vs total CR is a functional comparison.

For example, 20 1st-level Wizards working together are not comparable in power to 1 20th-level Wizard working on his own. So why would you count them as being the same for deciding how strong the enemy forces should be?

Similarly, a group of 20 Lemures (CR 1 devils) are not as threatening as a Pit Fiend (CR 20 devil). So why would you count them as being the same for deciding which towns can stand up to them?

[Madsamurai]

Similarly, a group of 20 Lemures (CR 1 devils) are not as threatening as a Pit Fiend (CR 20 devil). So why would you count them as being the same for deciding which towns can stand up to them?

To be fair, that's not how you add CRs. You are supposed to add their XP values, but the rule of thumb is that is you double the number of CR x creatures in an encounter your new encounter is CR x+2. So 16 Lemures is CR 9 and 32 is CR 10.

[Gnaeus]

This doesn't work because things don't scale linearly. A 4th level Commoner is better than the majority of 1st level PCs. An 80th level Commoner would be essentially irrelevant in even a 10th level party as anything more than a vehicle for magic items. Giving someone bigger numbers only matters as long as raw numbers represent the bulk of character power, and that stops being true at a fairly low level in 3e..

That’s not true either.

1. Some of the classes it is comparing with are pile of numbers classes. An 80 level commoner (or in this case a 40 level commoner) floorstomps a 10th level barbarian. Even a 10th level warblade.

2. Don’t underestimate the power of higher skill caps + 1 any feat/3 levels. At ECL 10 the commoner could have any 2 cross class skills with 20 ranks in (although often he would take a feat like martial study to add the skill in class). 14 feats of choice, 7 epic. He could have a companion that could destroy a 10th level party (say a 27HD dire tiger which can take epic feats and has improved evasion). Or a 25th level cohort and 12000 followers. He could be spellcasting via heritage feats. He can certainly run a better chargepounce/kill game than any 10th level muggle. Epic skill focus intimidate should let us have more than +53 for intimidate lockdown tricks. Epic toughness.

He could have Vow of poverty, 18 bonus exalted feats (not sure there are 18 bonus exalted feats he can take. Let’s just say all legal exalted feats), his weapons are all +5, permanent freedom of movement, true sight. +22 AC. DR 10/evil, mind shielding. Resist 15 to all elements. And regeneration all at ECL 10.

Or take a pile of vile feats and turn into a 40 HD mutant drider.

[Sutr]

Gnaeus forgot shape soulmeld for the 40th level commoner his essentia capacity is equivalent to a 20th level incarnate so is his meldshaper level, but that commoner might be a match for a CR 10?


Also commoner mockup with standard array for NPC's. I'm sure it could be stronger 13 intellegence raised to 16 over next three levels. Needs Wild cohort and charging feats and fine tuning. https://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=2256844

[Gnaeus]

Gnaeus forgot shape soulmeld for the 40th level commoner his essentia capacity is equivalent to a 20th level incarnate so is his meldshaper level, but that commoner might be a match for a CR 10?

Yeah, we never had an incarna user til PF so my brain doesn’t go there. It’s probably easier than some of the things that occurred to me. I’ve only looked at soulmelds in context of analyzing gestalts with soulborns. But it’s hardly an exhaustive list.

[reddir]

There seems to be a severe disconnect between what I am looking at and what many of you are presenting.

I should clarify some points, and I entirely understand that this is very very different than the norm on this forum.

---------------

I like to play in story-mode, tailoring everything to work from narrative thoughts, and only after than try to find mechanics that can offer a solid skeleton for what I am trying to present.

In this case, I want to figure out an 'equal' challenge for any size group of characters, mostly NPCs, that I can whip up on demand without going through an analysis of strengths each time. I am hoping to use the CR system to do this in a relatively simple way.

For me, when I think of these things in story-format, a Commoner is just that - a farmer, waiter, gardner, handyman. He doesn't take combat feats because they are not the focus of his life. If or when it becomes necessary, he would start working toward Warrior class levels and take approprate feats from training and drill or Fighter class levels and take appropriate feats from mortal combat.

From the demographics in the DMG I am left with the impression that there are just some poeple, most of the population, that prefer to stick to NPC lifestyles and so end up with NPC classes - even in a world filled with wilderness and monsters and bandits. Those rare individuals who have the spark or genius or will to pursue greater capability end up with PC classes; I guess it could also be based on what training is available.

But the upshot is that no Commoner in my world will specialize in combat abilities...as soon as they start to do so they will get auto-sorted into Warrior or Fighter or such. Each class level comes from a story-based determination of what they are pursuing.

---------------

I appreciate the breakdowns some of you offered to compare characters under fractional ECL/level with each other. This helps me understand just what my proposal might result in. It is espcially helpful in comparing BAB, HP, and saves.

I understand the drive to optimize and see just how far one can push the mechanics without breaking things. It is a lovely art and a joy to see applied. But in this case it is not applied in the right direction, given the story-first aspect. For my world, a Commoner is optimized by giving mechanical backbone to their Commoner lifestyle - to be the best farmer, to learn to tell stories to get free drinks, maybe a few skill ranks in dancing to win the neighbor girl's affection before marriage.

And for the monster waves, I am planning to start with equal numbers of CR equivilent monsters. So a settlement with 5 ECL 4, 10 ECL 3, and 20 ECL 2 characters would be confronted by a monster wave of 5 CR 4, 10 CR 3, and 20 CR 2 monsters. If this somehow becomes relatively safe, I might start combining come, maybe 6 or 7 or 8 CR 4 monsters and only 18 or 16 or 14 CR 2 monsters (using the EL formula).

---------------

For my version of how classes/levels work, where everything is taken according to the 'narative feel' of the class, I think I am going with this (ECL / class levels):
Commoner: 1/4
Other Tier 6: 1/3
Tier 5: 1/2
Tier 4: 2/3

Please let me know if any of these formulas seem ridiculous for narrative-optimized rather than combat-optimized characters. I am mainly worried about all settlements getting wiped out in a few cycles if I make the waves too tough, but I don't want to make it too easy and rob the situation of the dread and joy of overcoming legitimate challenges.

---------------------

EDIT -- had the numbers for Tier 6 and Tier 5 switched.

[Maat Mons]

Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose a town is attacked by a force truly equal to itself. We'll take the most equal example possible, evil duplicates of the inhabitants of the town.

If a man fights an evil duplicate of himself, there's a 50% chance he'll die. He and his enemy have exactly the same stats, it can't be any other way. So if everyone in town fights his own evil duplicate, half the townspeople will die, and half the duplicates will die.

And then the survivors square off for round 2. And the survivors of that square off for round 3. And on, and on, until one side is obliterated. So when the sun rises the morning after the full moon, either the town has been wiped out, or the monsters have been. Since they were equally matched, it's even odds of either outcome.

So you'd lose half the towns in the world every month. That's going to lead to extinction very quickly.

[Bucky]

It looks like you're using a "coin flip" difficulty, where the settlement is just as likely to be utterly annihilated as to hold the field. Per the DMG, this would be an "overpowering" encounter.

By "overcoming legitimate challenges", though, it looks like you're referencing the "challenging" encounter difficulty, which IIRC is 3 CR easier. At that difficulty, the town is expected to win but individuals, except perhaps the strongest one or two, are risking death.

Regardless, though, I think your demographics will differ from the DMG's. The regular threat of total annihilation should lead a larger fraction of NPCs to pursue some form of combat training.

[reddir]

Let's do a thought experiment. ...
So you'd lose half the towns in the world every month. That's going to lead to extinction very quickly.

Yes, definitely a potential problem with my setup. I was hoping that sapient ingenuity might make the difference with things like defensive walls, traps, etc.


It looks like you're using a "coin flip" difficulty, where the settlement is just as likely to be utterly annihilated as to hold the field. Per the DMG, this would be an "overpowering" encounter.

By "overcoming legitimate challenges", though, it looks like you're referencing the "challenging" encounter difficulty, which IIRC is 3 CR easier. At that difficulty, the town is expected to win but individuals, except perhaps the strongest one or two, are risking death.

I might start with this (or the party of 4 meet an monster with CR of their average level), but I need a base ECL from which to make this adjustment.


Regardless, though, I think your demographics will differ from the DMG's. The regular threat of total annihilation should lead a larger fraction of NPCs to pursue some form of combat training.

With the system I am trying to use (fractional ECLs for some classes) this would just lead to tougher encounters.

I like to think the constant threats are what incentivize some to give up the 'normal, safe' life for combat-based professions.

[Godskook]

A Warrior at 1/2 ECL progression gets 4/6ths a feat every ECL. A fighter after level 2 gets 3/6ths a feat per class level and 2/6ths a feat per HD, or 5/6ths a feat every ECL total. So for the low-low cost of 1/6th a feat per ECL, you get:

- x2 the Con to HP
- 2d8 HD instead of 1d10
- x2 BAB
- x2 Save progression, by ECL 6, that's +3/+2/+2 saves
- x2 skills per-level, and a higher cap
- Iteratives at ECLs 3, 6, and -8-
- Epic Feat access by ECL 11.

Compare at ECL 8:

Fighter 2/Warrior 12 v. Fighter 8:

HP: 2d10+12d8(avg 65) v 8d10(avg 34)
Saves: +9/+4/+4 v +6/+2/+2
BAB: 14/9/4 v 8/3
Feats: 7 v 8

1 feat lost isn't really going to hurt most Figher-type builds compared to those raw stats.

[reddir]

A Warrior at 1/2 ECL progression gets 4/6ths a feat every ECL. A fighter after level 2 gets 3/6ths a feat per class level and 2/6ths a feat per HD, or 5/6ths a feat every ECL total. So for the low-low cost of 1/6th a feat per ECL, you get:

- x2 the Con to HP
- 2d8 HD instead of 1d10
- x2 BAB
- x2 Save progression, by ECL 6, that's +3/+2/+2 saves
- x2 skills per-level, and a higher cap
- Iteratives at ECLs 3, 6, and -8-
- Epic Feat access by ECL 11.

Compare at ECL 8:

Fighter 2/Warrior 12 v. Fighter 8:

HP: 2d10+12d8(avg 65) v 8d10(avg 34)
Saves: +9/+4/+4 v +6/+2/+2
BAB: 14/9/4 v 8/3
Feats: 7 v 8

1 feat lost isn't really going to hurt most Figher-type builds compared to those raw stats.

I am proposing that Fighter, being at Tier 4, would be counted at 2/3 ECL/level. I am also proposing that Warrior levels would mean taking feats related to endurance, drills, and line formation fighting whereas a Fighter could take more specific individual or party combat feats.

Does that substantially shift your comparison?

[Godskook]

I am proposing that Fighter, being at Tier 4, would be counted at 2/3 ECL/level. I am also proposing that Warrior levels would mean taking feats related to endurance, drills, and line formation fighting whereas a Fighter could take more specific individual or party combat feats.

Does that substantially shift your comparison?

Yes, but it pushes it int the realm of being impossible to judge. The feat limitations are too vague a restriction to evaluate as a simple houserule, and we'd need you to finish brewing this homebrew before it could be talked about.

[reddir]

Yes, but it pushes it int the realm of being impossible to judge. The feat limitations are too vague a restriction to evaluate as a simple houserule, and we'd need you to finish brewing this homebrew before it could be talked about.

It is mostly concept-based right now, no specific lists or such.

For me, it is drawing a difference between what a Warrior is and what a Fighter is narratively. A character who pursues things appropriate to a NPC settlement guard or army grunt gets a Warrior level; a character who pursues things appropriate to a solo or small party combatant gets a Fighter level.

But it is fair to say that it can't be evaluated with precision without detailed rules.

For now, I am just trying to ballpark things, so that I have some basis for moving forward.