PDA

View Full Version : How hard is it in your world for a commoner to gain a PC class?



Thoughtbot360
2008-08-23, 07:04 PM
Topic says it all, really.

I mean, it can't just be "spunk" or "grit" or "heroic qualities" and BOOM! you get a level. There'd be no almost no Warriors. (not that everyone or even most people think it works like that)

This is different than asking "at what rate do NPCs change from Wizard 1 to Wizard 2" because its more like how do you change from Commoner 1 to Fighter 1.

Conceptually, what separates a Fighter from a Warrior is training. Fighters have more feats than Warriors because they train to acquire them. Warriors can't Rage because Barbarians are trained in a totally differently (and superior) style than they are. That training can be (and probably is) controlled by the local authorities, but that control isn't absolute. Retired Adventurers teaching students the basics, secret cabals keeping the tradition alive, temples which reward the truly faithful, and the seedy underbelly of civilization all have their role to play in freeing up.

Besides, someone had to invent the class before other people could learn it. Therefore self-teaching cannot be underestimated (although it might take generations to perfect the art. And thats the difference between a Fighter who is only good at low levels and a Warblade.)

The ultimate point I'm trying to make is that in even a quasi-medieval world, a crapload of the population is going to be peasants. For any dynamic world thats going to last more than roughly 20 sessions (or even just a nation that can actually fend off the CR 10+ monsters out there) you need at least a partial crapload of NPCs who aren't level 1 commoners, a number of them becoming villains and rivals.

Otherwise, you have a problem the Giant talked about in his "The New World (http://http://www.giantitp.com/articles/YPgbz2j3PckGjjviJU5.html)" articles.


There are a couple old standbys, chief among them the idea of the "Overriding Story;" in other words, an ongoing conflict that sets the tone and defines the entire world. There is one Big Evil out there that is the source of all the problems. Personally, I don't care for this method for an RPG setting. Invariably, you end up with a situation where the players either achieve victory and thus alter the entire setting, or can never achieve victory and thus are superfluous. I believe that in order to be a compelling setting for an ongoing game, the setting has to support multiple villains with varied goals and unrelated plots. If you create a setting with one villain, you are really making a campaign, not a campaign setting.

Jayngfet
2008-08-23, 07:11 PM
The seperation between warrior isn't that clear, since the PHB says that fighters can be self taught, I just make them all fighters myself, what about factoring in favored class, how much easier does that make it?

Flickerdart
2008-08-23, 07:11 PM
You can't change a Commoner 1 to Fighter 1. He'd be a Commoner 1/Fighter 1, an ECL 2 creature. You could, however, change a 1 HD Human into a Fighter 1.

Thoughtbot360
2008-08-23, 07:13 PM
You can't change a Commoner 1 to Fighter 1. He'd be a Commoner 1/Fighter 1, an ECL 2 creature. You could, however, change a 1 HD Human into a Fighter 1.

But....the 1 HD Human is actually stronger than the Commoner 1.

.....Why is anyone a commoner, again?

FMArthur
2008-08-23, 07:20 PM
Honestly, anyone with the means who wants to can be a PC class in my worlds. A commoner sounds like the lowest of the low to us, the PCs, because they don't have the powers or skills necessary to take down monsters regularly. That is not the ideal lifestyle for most people. Most people would rather be able to make an honest, reliable living through a skilled trade or even as a laborer. Anyway, my cities usually contain a few academies with fledgeling Clerics, Wizards, and other things that only require training. Think of it as the medieval version of a university education. Some classes, like Fighters and Rangers, aren't really something that people think about; it just worked out that you were conscripted into the army or you grew up in the woods. If you're a sneaky guy who's good with pulling tricks and getting away with them, you're probably a Rogue, whether you acknowledge it or not. Nobody needs a special certification to be a PC class. But most people in cities are willing to just be a carpenter or a blacksmith or a librarian. Those who unfortunately don't have access to training due to funds or location and don't want to be training-less classes (like Barbarians) are pretty much stuck as being farmers and laborers.



You can't change a Commoner 1 to Fighter 1. He'd be a Commoner 1/Fighter 1, an ECL 2 creature. You could, however, change a 1 HD Human into a Fighter 1.

The rules are half-blind and more than a little stupid in this area. There's no point in using them. For DM purposes, I've made PC class levels completely overwrite NPC class levels in the three or four cases where an NPC changed to a PC class. It makes class progress seem slow at first, but that's part of the 'learning process'. I've never made a Commoner with more than 5 levels, anyway. Between Commoners, Experts and Aristocrats, they don't lose much of anything in the transition to PC classes. I've never seen a point in making Adepts and Warriors, but problems probably do arise from overwriting them with less compatible classes.

So, a 5th level Commoner decides (or is coerced by the party, more likely) to become a Wizard. I work the NPC classes down backwards, so on his next level, his fifth Commoner level is replaced by the first level of a Wizard. The next level, his fourth Commoner level is replaced by the second level of a Wizard. When he finally loses his first Commoner level, the Wizard level that replaces it gets 4x skill points. Feat progression and Ability score progression only start on the first PC class level. I don't involve the Commoner levels with the multiclassing rules, so no exp penalties or anything.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-23, 07:21 PM
IMO the self taught classes work best based on the PHB shortest random starting ages: Sorcerer lots of things that could awaken or catalyze the power and the Rogue class although it is really penalized as a skill based class losing 24 skill points in comparison to a first level starting rogue.


You can't change a Commoner 1 to Fighter 1. He'd be a Commoner 1/Fighter 1, an ECL 2 creature. You could, however, change a 1 HD Human into a Fighter 1.

No that is incorrect he is only a CR1 encounter the first NPC level doesn't get counted.

Thexare Blademoon
2008-08-23, 07:25 PM
In mine, there's very few NPC classes at all. Soldiers are Fighters, Duskblades, Paladins, Rangers, etc, not Warriors. NPC spellcasters are Wizards, Sorcerers, Druids, Clerics, and the like. Hell, the woman cleaning your house might possibly be a level 6 Illusionist wizard - and if so, make sure she's really cleaning it. :smallamused:

I like a place where the players don't really stand out much until they do something to make themselves stand out, so if I ever actually ended up running a campaign, I'd get almost no use out of the NPC classes.

Xyk
2008-08-23, 07:50 PM
My guess would be after a few levels of commoner, they retrain to a PC class. I haven't had the need to do that, so don't know for sure.

Flickerdart
2008-08-23, 07:51 PM
IMO the self taught classes work best based on the PHB shortest random starting ages: Sorcerer lots of things that could awaken or catalyze the power and the Rogue class although it is really penalized as a skill based class losing 24 skill points in comparison to a first level starting rogue.



No that is incorrect he is only a CR1 encounter the first NPC level doesn't get counted.
CR and ECL have nothing in common. A Pun-Pun is CR bajillionty at level 1.

quillbreaker
2008-08-23, 07:52 PM
A combatant in real life in whatever arena is only as good as the best teacher they have or the best enemy they have. If you are a warrior doing barracks duty being trained by other warriors, you will probably spend your life as a warrior 1. The biggest fish in the pond tends to not get any bigger.

If you drop that warrior 1 into a party of 4th-5th level adventurers for some reason, he is going to see fighting styles he's never seen before and fight beside and against some of the strongest opponents he's ever seen. It's that experience that makes you a PC - having new foes every day from across the world and fighting with a diversely trained team.

Such a warrior in my game would be eligible for a PC class if he survives the session - Fighter 1 or maybe Fighter 2. I'd let him drop the warrior level - no sense in gimping out the character from day one because of his origin.

arguskos
2008-08-23, 07:56 PM
I use the NPC classes for total mooks, people who just do not matter. Town Guards that patrol the street are not Fighters, they don't have the discipline. However, Lieutenants or Captains are Fighters, since to reach their positions, they had to undergo some more rigorous training.

To me, NPC classes are sorta what you are assigned in life by Fate. Some people are smart/clever (Experts), some are strong and tough (Warriors), and some are just plain wealthy (Aristocrats). Most folks are none of these things, just Average Joes, and so are Commoners. (NOTE: Adepts are like Wizards, and take practice, but that's just me).

I do feel, very strongly in fact, that anyone can BECOME a member of a PC class, usually through training or fate (Sorcerers). It's a choice the NPC makes (conscious or not is a different matter).

-argus

Emperor Tippy
2008-08-23, 07:56 PM
CR and ECL have nothing in common. A Pun-Pun is CR bajillionty at ECL 1.

Fixed that for you.

Flickerdart
2008-08-23, 08:06 PM
Fixed that for you.
Right. My bad.

JupiterPaladin
2008-08-23, 08:06 PM
There is a difference between the classes. A Warrior gets no feats because his training is given by the town guard or whatever in a controlled environment. The Fighter gains feats because he trains in different and actually life-threatening situations. The feats represent the tricks he learns when fighting for survival. I would guess that Commoner is just what you become if you make no effort to become anything else. You have to train hard to be an Expert.

Considering that, I would say any 1st level Warrior should be able to observe a feat being used, go out and fight some monsters, and convert to a 1st level Fighter when he learns to use the feat in an actual fight.

Jayngfet
2008-08-23, 08:17 PM
Except you can make a self taught warrior who can still use a dozen or so different weapons.

SadisticFishing
2008-08-23, 08:21 PM
Basic difference between a fighter and warrior (imho) is that the fighter is more self.. aware, I guess.

A warrior picks up an axe and charges.

A fighter picks up an axe, things, and charges. Then tries to understand what he did wrong.

Akisa
2008-08-23, 08:32 PM
However, Lieutenants or Captains are Fighters, since to reach their positions, they had to undergo some more rigorous training.

LOL, not really. More often then not they're come from a wealthier family (for most who start out as officers) or climbed the ranks because he stayed in the garrison longer then everyone else.

There are exception where skilled individual climbed the rank but that usually means someone above him retired or died. If anything I would have the officers have higher cha with maybe an aristocrat level meanwhile the sergeant or corporal have the pc level. There are exceptions but I mostly have it because of a war where people tend to be promoted through skill not diplomacy and family lineage.

monty
2008-08-23, 08:58 PM
LOL, not really. More often then not they're come from a wealthier family (for most who start out as officers) or climbed the ranks because he stayed in the garrison longer then everyone else.

There are exception where skilled individual climbed the rank but that usually means someone above him retired or died. If anything I would have the officers have higher cha with maybe an aristocrat level meanwhile the sergeant or corporal have the pc level. There are exceptions but I mostly have it because of a war where people tend to be promoted through skill not diplomacy and family lineage.

Well, that really depends on how the military works in your world, doesn't it?

Akisa
2008-08-23, 09:09 PM
Well it holds true today (officers are mostly whom have gone and graduated college which tends to be the wealthier families) and in Medieval Europe (As the knights whom were nobles tend to be the officers with the higher ranking noble being the general). Then again experience has thought me that you're better you're better off being with the NCO then the Lieutenant and/or Captain.

Collin152
2008-08-23, 09:17 PM
So what you're saying is, officers have levels in Aristocrat.

Inhuman Bot
2008-08-23, 09:20 PM
But....the 1 HD Human is actually stronger than the Commoner 1.

.....Why is anyone a commoner, again?

Simple: Chicken infested.

Weiser_Cain
2008-08-23, 09:20 PM
There are no commoners in my setting. It's a militaristic setting so everyone has at least a level of (racial variant) fighter, rogue or whatever the race specialty is.

Akisa
2008-08-23, 09:29 PM
So what you're saying is, officers have levels in Aristocrat.

Umm have you read this in bold


If anything I would have the officers have higher cha with maybe an aristocrat level meanwhile the sergeant or corporal have the pc level.

Noticed I said maybe not a defiant, but I sure as heck put them with the higher CHA. If the world setting requires nobles to have Aristocrat then yes as they tend to come from nobility and not through army ranks. Yes people with skill and bravery are usually honored but they don't placed them as officers even in today's military. The medal of honor recipients even if they survive mostly don't gain their commission.

Recaiden
2008-08-23, 09:40 PM
Well, in Races of the Dragon, it mentions that Kobolds are all experts or PC classes, no commoners. This means that expert does not really mean that you are someone special among NPCs. I'd say that anyone really can be a PC class. I prefer for the PCs to have to make themselves something special. The idea is also that a person with NPC classes gets to trade them out if they gain a PC class.

Chronos
2008-08-23, 11:18 PM
Personally, I like the Expert, Adept, and Aristocrat NPC classes, but I think that 2nd edition handled commoners better. In 2nd edition, it was possible for a human (or humanoid) to have no class at all. Such a human was considered 0th-level, and was sometimes referred to as a commoner. So a commoner who became a fighter or wizard or whatever didn't have to retrain anything, and a 5th-level commoner was a contradiction in terms. A commoner was nobody, because he hadn't yet become somebody.

Expert, though, was a great idea, since it lets you stat out a very skilled and experienced (and therefore higher-level) blacksmith or scholar or whatever, without having to make them fighters and wizards.

nagora
2008-08-24, 05:05 AM
1 or 2% chance depending on situation, either triggered by crisis or nurtured by upbringing at pre-teen age.

PC classes are for (anti)heroes; most people are not heroes. Most soldiers are just grunts/cannon fodder too, so 98% of them are 0-level nobodies with a weapon.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-24, 05:55 AM
CR and ECL have nothing in common. A Pun-Pun is CR bajillionty at level 1.

I disagree reread pages 37-38 in the DMG regarding NPCs with NPC class levels instead of PC class levels.

Starshade
2008-08-24, 06:31 AM
Well, it depent on one thing:

- Do a commoner in the setting, fight at all, or know how to fight?


Several old societies on stoneage level up to iron age, practiced war duties before being allowed to marry, other as Vikings, simply had compulsory duty in case of attacks, some medival and later periods more or less dis armed the population and technology advance made their craftsman tools not fit to work as weaponry, making the population helpless in war.

Both ideas work, depending on the world.

xPANCAKEx
2008-08-24, 07:56 AM
i look on it as an issue of dedication (with the exception of sorcerers... those lazy gits are just born into it). Althou some of the traditional NPC classes can have various skills/abilities, a PC class character has spent real time and effort honing their skills, not just a 9-5 job to bring in the wine and cheese for the family back at the hut

Piedmon_Sama
2008-08-24, 12:50 PM
In my campaigns, PC classes form a very small percentage of the population. Namely, the Antagonist, his most effective henchmen, possibly a few NPCs who are meant to be very powerful or plot-important, and the Players themselves (plus, I guess, any mentors/evil-twins/whatevers they have lurking in their backstories).

That bandit warlord who's the terror of the whole province? Probably a mid-level Warrior. The guildmaster who's traveled across three continents, outbargained potentates and bought the safety or ruin of cities with a penstroke? He could easily be a 12th-level Expert. And the King? Once he puts down the sword and takes up politics, he's got no reason to take any class but Aristocrat.

In my mind, a PC Class represents a certain combination of elite-level training, natural ability (represented in the better-than-95%-of-the-population ability scores PCs need) and moxie not to be found in anyone but a relative handful of individuals per generation. I don't try to deal in specific numbers, mind, I'll just decide during NPC generation whether the NPC "needs" to be an adventuring class, or if an NPC class would be "sufficient" for that character's role. You don't really need the backstabbing ability to hit it big in the political arena, after all.

That said, I've never really liked the way the NPC classes are set up. If a commoner is meant to represent, say, your typical Feudal Serf, how come his HD is worse than the Expert, who could very well represent some bookworm scholar or sage? I can't see Johann the Yam Tiller, even if he's not on the best diet, really being more frail than Thaddeus the Anemic Clerk. Or the Expert having a Cleric/Rogue's BAB--but then, not all Clerics should have the same BAB when you think about it. (For that matter, in my settings spell-casting Clerics are always a tiny minority of the actual clergy, who would mostly consist of aforementioned anemic bookworm experts).

Devils_Advocate
2008-08-24, 07:32 PM
.....Why is anyone a commoner, again?
Because they just barely even get enough to eat, much less training in a skilled profession. (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/feedback/alpha1/general/highLevelEconomics4h9h7)

One may find it counterintuitive that the actual farmers who actually grow a civilization's food could exist on the edge of starvation, but it can work out that way. I understand that a growing number of people think that adopting agriculture was a big mistake, and hunter-gatherers had it better off. Those guys sure didn't have levels in Commoner, at any rate.

By the way, the sort of society where a massive population of peasant chumps supports a relatively small upper class is going to be far more common among humans than it is with dwarves, elves, gnomes, and the like. The reason for this is that training someone as an elite warrior is much more cost-effective if they'll be putting their skills to use for 400 years instead of, say, 50. Yeah, I know, elves take longer to learn things. But the reason that they can take such a lackadaisical approach to learning is that their civilization is affluent enough to allow for a lot of leisure time. And guess how it got that way in the first place?

Humans may have a larger population, but that doesn't mean that they have more heroes and adventurers or even skilled laborers than their demihuman peers. More likely they have about as many PC-classed individuals as the other races, but a huge underclass in addition to that. And believe it or not, that can actually make human nations a significant threat. If a human king can throw waves of peasant conscripts in padded armor with simple weapons at the enemy, in addtion to having other resources on par with what the dwarven king has available, then the human king has an advantage. Needless to say, this is not fun for the peasant conscripts, who probably only accepted likely death in battle over certain execution for defying the king's orders. But, well, peasants' live pretty much suck in general.

bosssmiley
2008-08-24, 07:36 PM
IMG: there is no Commoner class. It was a dumb idea for a class, and especially dumb as a 20-level class. Obviously there was a mass gas-huffing party going on at WOTC Command the day that someone suggested "commoner = class". :smallannoyed:

Being a commoner = having a racial HD, a farming implement, a stoneware jug of vile moonshine, and some kind of amusing/disgusting ailment. D&D commoners make Baldrick (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Baldrick) look like Doc Savage, Man of Bronze (http://www.davidszondy.com/future/man/doc_savage.htm).

If you are a commoner your purpose in life is to be even more pitifully weak and helpless than the mooks. You will be beaten up, bullied, exploited, thrashed, trampled and oppressed by your betters (http://patches67.deviantart.com/art/Pippi-Captain-s-the-Titanic-87583369) (ie: everyone else). You will endure this living purgatory right up until your inevitable untimely (but oft-hilarious) demise when your pathetic village is destroyed by orcs, gnolls, bulettes, manticores, Gojira the Tarrasque, Gnomish Mating Frenzy, or whatever.

Commoner advancement (hah!):
If the heroes whip your sadsack commoner ass into line and run you through yokel boot camp you might graduate to warrior1 (if you survive the initial "7 Samurai" bloodbath due any time soon). Being a hard-ass warrior1 entitles you to lord it over the other commoners in good ole 'ignorant redneck sheriff'-style.
If you are lucky enough to become the apprentice of a craftsman (by virtue of being marginally less inbred and moronic than the other commoners in your squalid hamlet) you may make expert1 after 7 years of lowly scutwork to a foul-tempered master who begrudges every stale crust you eat.
If you mumble to yourself, predict things like weather or cow murrain accurately, and have a cat you will probably be thrown out of the village by your superstitious, stupendously ignorant kinfolk. Should you survive the trial-by-fire of living on toxic mushrooms, berries and roadkill you might make adept1.
Becoming an aristocrat? Get lost peasant! Aristocrat is for the family members of people with real (PC) classes who are just too dumb or lazy to follow in daddy's footsteps.
This rant after K & Frank's "Economicon".

Thoughtbot360
2008-08-24, 09:15 PM
Gnomish Mating Frenzy, or whatever.

Have-have you made that joke before on another of my threads? I seem to remember someone demanding of you a new keyboard and can of soda for some reason...


Oh well. At least said Gnomish mating Frenzy wasn't planned by some Ruthless ultimate warlord like the only ones probably were.

Parson Gotti, armed with the sword: You don't know me very well, do you?

Morty
2008-08-25, 07:17 AM
Having a PC class is in my view a mix of talent, determination, luck and desire. Most people don't have all those, so they stay as Commoners, Experts, Warriors, Aristocrats and Adepts. Some, however, manage to get appropriate training, thus getting a level in a PC class. Many of them, however, are content with keeping low profile, so they don't gain much more levels- those are minor mercenaries(Fighter), local wizards(Wizard, duh), thieves(Rogue), local priests(cleric) and the like. Some though, are ambitious enough to put effort and/or risk untimely demise to excel in their chosen profession, thus becoming high level. Those are high level adventurers or powerful NPCs(who might be adventurers themselves). That said, I prefer PC class levels to be something relatively normal, rather than superextraordinary.

arguskos
2008-08-25, 09:27 AM
LOL, not really. More often then not they're come from a wealthier family (for most who start out as officers) or climbed the ranks because he stayed in the garrison longer then everyone else.

There are exception where skilled individual climbed the rank but that usually means someone above him retired or died. If anything I would have the officers have higher cha with maybe an aristocrat level meanwhile the sergeant or corporal have the pc level. There are exceptions but I mostly have it because of a war where people tend to be promoted through skill not diplomacy and family lineage.
I would normally debate this, but...

Well, that really depends on how the military works in your world, doesn't it?
^^This says what I was going to say anyway.

-argus