How hard is it in your world for a commoner to gain a PC class?

[Thoughtbot360]

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" 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

CR and ECL have nothing in common. A Pun-Pun is CR bajillionty at ECL 1.

Fixed that for you.

[Flickerdart]

Fixed that for you.

Right. My bad.

[JupiterPaladin]

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]

Except you can make a self taught warrior who can still use a dozen or so different weapons.

[SadisticFishing]

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]

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]

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]

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]

So what you're saying is, officers have levels in Aristocrat.

[Inhuman Bot]

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

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

Simple: Chicken infested.

[Weiser_Cain]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).