Upgrading classes

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I hate Commoners having levels above 1.

Proposed solution:

When gaining a level you may switch a previous class to a new one.
You keep all skill points bought from that class/level and gain skill
points equal to the difference in that class and the new one.
(Ie, Commoner to Expert gains 16 skill points.)
Class features, HP, BAB, and Saves change from the old one to the new.
To do this you must switch the highest level of the old class and pay XP
equal to 1000 x that level.

First version:
Commoners MUST do this on attaining 2nd level.

Second version:
NPC classes may do this.(?)

Third version:
Allow PC's classes to do this?

Example:
Rogue 2/Fighter 3 gains 6th level.
Before leveling up deciding to become Rogue 3/Fighter 2.
Cost 3000 XP.
Remaining XP 10,000+, likely to low to become 6th yet.
Result:
Loses 1d10 HP gains 1d6 HP, difference not less than 1.
Gains 6 Skill Points to spend as Rogue
Fort Save +1, Ref -1
Loses a bonus feat, gains +1d6 sneak attack, trap sense +1

Comments?
Suggestions?
Corrections?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ophidian wrote:
> I hate Commoners having levels above 1.
>
> Proposed solution:
>
> When gaining a level you may switch a previous class to a new one.
> You keep all skill points bought from that class/level and gain skill

> points equal to the difference in that class and the new one.
> (Ie, Commoner to Expert gains 16 skill points.)
> Class features, HP, BAB, and Saves change from the old one to the
new.
> To do this you must switch the highest level of the old class and pay
XP
> equal to 1000 x that level.
>

Proposed solution: When you want a commoner to level you trade out for
a real class, like you do with monsters with 1 HD.

- justisaur.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ophidian <oNpEhMiOdian23@cox.net> wrote:
>Loses 1d10 HP gains 1d6 HP, difference not less than 1.

I would hate to roll a "10" and a "1" on those dice... suggest
using averages? (so, in this case, would lose 2 hp; a first level
Fighter turning into a Rogue would lose 4 hp)

If you were a Druid and aren't any longer, do you lose your access to
the Druidic language?

Donald
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:
> Ophidian wrote:
> >
> > I hate Commoners having levels above 1.
> >
> > Proposed solution:
<snip switching levels out>
>
> Proposed solution: When you want a commoner to level you
> trade out for a real class, like you do with monsters
> with 1 HD.

Nitpick: that only works for humanoid monsters. Other monsters with 1
HD retain that Hit Die (pixies, for instance, or any 1 HD monstrous
humanoid that might exist, unless otherwise mentioned in the monster's
description).

To the original point, just use what MSB or Bradd suggested (I forget
which, originally), and that I use: Commoners gain levels like anyone
else, but Commoner levels beyond the first never grant Hit Dice
increases, BAB increases, or base save increases. Skill points and
feats (not sure about ability score increases, it hasn't come up yet)
are gained as normal.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> Justisaur wrote:
>
>>Ophidian wrote:
>>
>>>I hate Commoners having levels above 1.
>>>
>>>Proposed solution:
>
> <snip switching levels out>
>
>>Proposed solution: When you want a commoner to level you
>>trade out for a real class, like you do with monsters
>>with 1 HD.
>
> Nitpick: that only works for humanoid monsters. Other monsters with 1
> HD retain that Hit Die (pixies, for instance, or any 1 HD monstrous
> humanoid that might exist, unless otherwise mentioned in the monster's
> description).

Counter nit: That changed in 3.5.

> To the original point, just use what MSB or Bradd suggested (I forget
> which, originally), and that I use: Commoners gain levels like anyone
> else, but Commoner levels beyond the first never grant Hit Dice
> increases, BAB increases, or base save increases. Skill points and
> feats (not sure about ability score increases, it hasn't come up yet)
> are gained as normal.

No offense, but ick.
With that levelled commoners lag even further behind levelled PC's
or other levelled NPC's.
My system causes a lag, but not as badly.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> Ophidian wrote:
> > Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> > >
> > > Nitpick: that only works for humanoid monsters. Other
> > > monsters with 1 HD retain that Hit Die (pixies, for
> > > instance, or any 1 HD monstrous humanoid that might exist,
> > > unless otherwise mentioned in the monster's description).
> >
> > Counter nit: That changed in 3.5.
>
> It was always true; they just clarified it for 3.5. It is most
> definitely true for 3.5.
>
> > > Commoners gain levels like anyone else, but Commoner
> > > levels beyond the first never grant Hit Dice increases,
> > > BAB increases, or base save increases. Skill points and
> > > feats (not sure about ability score increases, it hasn't
> > > come up yet) are gained as normal.
> >
> > No offense, but ick.
> > With that levelled commoners lag even further behind levelled
> > PC's or other levelled NPC's.
>
> I think that's quite appropriate. They're Commoners. NPC classes
are
> specifically intended to be significantly weaker than PC classes, and
> the Commoner is intended to be significantly weaker than the other
NPC
> classes. MSB's point that the Commoner represents the rural
craftsman
> is well taken, so the class should remain; the combat capability of
> the class is what should be removed, since they should have none, or
> very little.
>

Why bother leveling them then? Just give them higher skills. I'm sure
I've read somewhere that characters can gain skills at DM disrcression
without gaining the appropriate levels.

They aren't worth the increased CR anyway even with the levels. Thats
the main reason I wouldn't want to level them.

- Justisaur.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ophidian wrote:
> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> >
> > Nitpick: that only works for humanoid monsters. Other
> > monsters with 1 HD retain that Hit Die (pixies, for
> > instance, or any 1 HD monstrous humanoid that might exist,
> > unless otherwise mentioned in the monster's description).
>
> Counter nit: That changed in 3.5.

It was always true; they just clarified it for 3.5. It is most
definitely true for 3.5.

> > Commoners gain levels like anyone else, but Commoner
> > levels beyond the first never grant Hit Dice increases,
> > BAB increases, or base save increases. Skill points and
> > feats (not sure about ability score increases, it hasn't
> > come up yet) are gained as normal.
>
> No offense, but ick.
> With that levelled commoners lag even further behind levelled
> PC's or other levelled NPC's.

I think that's quite appropriate. They're Commoners. NPC classes are
specifically intended to be significantly weaker than PC classes, and
the Commoner is intended to be significantly weaker than the other NPC
classes. MSB's point that the Commoner represents the rural craftsman
is well taken, so the class should remain; the combat capability of
the class is what should be removed, since they should have none, or
very little.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:15:15 -0500, Ophidian <oNpEhMiOdian23@cox.net>
wrote:

>I hate Commoners having levels above 1.
>
>Proposed solution:
>
>When gaining a level you may switch a previous class to a new one.
>You keep all skill points bought from that class/level and gain skill
>points equal to the difference in that class and the new one.
>(Ie, Commoner to Expert gains 16 skill points.)
>Class features, HP, BAB, and Saves change from the old one to the new.
>To do this you must switch the highest level of the old class and pay XP
>equal to 1000 x that level.
>
>First version:
>Commoners MUST do this on attaining 2nd level.

Wouldn't it be easier just to say all commoners are 1st level?


--
Hong Ooi | "COUNTERSRTIKE IS AN REAL-TIME
hong@zipworld.com.au | STRATEGY GAME!!!"
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- RR
Sydney, Australia |
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Hong Ooi wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:15:15 -0500, Ophidian <oNpEhMiOdian23@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I hate Commoners having levels above 1.
>>
>>Proposed solution:
>>
>>When gaining a level you may switch a previous class to a new one.
>>You keep all skill points bought from that class/level and gain skill
>>points equal to the difference in that class and the new one.
>>(Ie, Commoner to Expert gains 16 skill points.)
>>Class features, HP, BAB, and Saves change from the old one to the new.
>>To do this you must switch the highest level of the old class and pay XP
>>equal to 1000 x that level.
>>
>>First version:
>>Commoners MUST do this on attaining 2nd level.
>
> Wouldn't it be easier just to say all commoners are 1st level?

Yes, but not what I'm going for.
In my version all commoners ARE 1st level, just because they cease
being "common" once they are experienced enough.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ophidian wrote:
>> I hate Commoners having levels above 1.

Why? Commoners learn from experience like anyone else. They just have a
very narrow range of adventuring-useful skills. They mostly focus on
stuff that doesn't matter to the game.

Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> To the original point, just use what MSB or Bradd suggested (I forget
> which, originally), and that I use: Commoners gain levels like anyone
> else, but Commoner levels beyond the first never grant Hit Dice
> increases, BAB increases, or base save increases.

I didn't suggest that. I think the NPC classes are good enough as
written, more-or-less.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

> Ophidian wrote:
>
>>>I hate Commoners having levels above 1.
>
> Why? Commoners learn from experience like anyone else. They just have a
> very narrow range of adventuring-useful skills. They mostly focus on
> stuff that doesn't matter to the game.

That thread's been done. ;)
I'm just looking at a possible solution for those on one side of the
arguement.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Ophidian wrote:
> > > I hate Commoners having levels above 1.
>
> Why? Commoners learn from experience like anyone else.
> They just have a very narrow range of adventuring-useful
> skills. They mostly focus on stuff that doesn't matter
> to the game.

The usual objection, and it's mine as well, is that they gain combat
skills (HD, BAB, base saves).

> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> > To the original point, just use what MSB or Bradd
> > suggested (I forget which, originally), and that I use:
> > Commoners gain levels like anyone else, but Commoner
> > levels beyond the first never grant Hit Dice increases,
> > BAB increases, or base save increases.
>
> I didn't suggest that. I think the NPC classes are
> good enough as written, more-or-less.

MSB, then. It's still a good suggestion that handles both your point
about Commoners (learning from experience) and the usual objection
(shouldn't gain significant combat skill).

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ophidian wrote:
>>>> I hate Commoners having levels above 1.

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> Why? Commoners learn from experience like anyone else. They just have a
>> very narrow range of adventuring-useful skills. They mostly focus on
>> stuff that doesn't matter to the game.

> That thread's been done. ;)
> I'm just looking at a possible solution for those on one side of the
> arguement.

But why take that side of the argument? It's irrational.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ophidian wrote:
>>> I hate Commoners having levels above 1.

Bradd wrote:
>> Why? Commoners learn from experience like anyone else.
>> They just have a very narrow range of adventuring-useful
>> skills. They mostly focus on stuff that doesn't matter
>> to the game.

Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> The usual objection, and it's mine as well, is that they gain combat
> skills (HD, BAB, base saves).

I'd take that objection more seriously if it weren't for the fact that
just about everyone in a medieval setting (historical or fictional)
fights sooner or later, even commoners. That's inevitable when you don't
have a standing army or police force, which is the case in any vaguely
authentic medieval setting.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
>
>>The usual objection, and it's mine as well, is that they gain combat
>>skills (HD, BAB, base saves).
>
> I'd take that objection more seriously if it weren't for the fact that
> just about everyone in a medieval setting (historical or fictional)
> fights sooner or later, even commoners. That's inevitable when you don't
> have a standing army or police force, which is the case in any vaguely
> authentic medieval setting.

Sure. The objection most people have is that there's no way for
Commoners to advance in skill without advancing in combat prowess. A
Commoner can't get better at what he does without getting better at
ass-whoopin'.

-Will
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Will Green <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXo.com> wrote:
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
>>
>>>The usual objection, and it's mine as well, is that they gain combat
>>>skills (HD, BAB, base saves).
>>
>> I'd take that objection more seriously if it weren't for the fact that
>> just about everyone in a medieval setting (historical or fictional)
>> fights sooner or later, even commoners. That's inevitable when you don't
>> have a standing army or police force, which is the case in any vaguely
>> authentic medieval setting.
>
> Sure. The objection most people have is that there's no way for
> Commoners to advance in skill without advancing in combat prowess. A
> Commoner can't get better at what he does without getting better at
> ass-whoopin'.

At the rate they progress, it's not a big deal, and easily explainable
by occasional participation in posses or levied armies. Or even as a
form of script immunity for supporting characters.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:15:15 -0500, Ophidian <oNpEhMiOdian23@cox.net>
wrote:

>I hate Commoners having levels above 1.
>
>Proposed solution:
>
>When gaining a level you may switch a previous class to a new one.
>You keep all skill points bought from that class/level and gain skill
>points equal to the difference in that class and the new one.
>(Ie, Commoner to Expert gains 16 skill points.)
>Class features, HP, BAB, and Saves change from the old one to the new.
>To do this you must switch the highest level of the old class and pay XP
>equal to 1000 x that level.
>
>First version:
>Commoners MUST do this on attaining 2nd level.
>

Problem. There are really smokin' scholars and craftsmen who never
become deadly killing machines.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:38:01 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
<bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:

>Ophidian wrote:
>>>> I hate Commoners having levels above 1.
>
>Bradd wrote:
>>> Why? Commoners learn from experience like anyone else.
>>> They just have a very narrow range of adventuring-useful
>>> skills. They mostly focus on stuff that doesn't matter
>>> to the game.
>
>Nikolas Landauer wrote:
>> The usual objection, and it's mine as well, is that they gain combat
>> skills (HD, BAB, base saves).
>
>I'd take that objection more seriously if it weren't for the fact that
>just about everyone in a medieval setting (historical or fictional)
>fights sooner or later, even commoners. That's inevitable when you don't
>have a standing army or police force, which is the case in any vaguely
>authentic medieval setting.

The Chinese Empire had a standing military. So did the Roman Empire.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Johnston wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:15:15 -0500, Ophidian <oNpEhMiOdian23@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I hate Commoners having levels above 1.
>>
>>Proposed solution:
>>
>>When gaining a level you may switch a previous class to a new one.
>>You keep all skill points bought from that class/level and gain skill
>>points equal to the difference in that class and the new one.
>>(Ie, Commoner to Expert gains 16 skill points.)
>>Class features, HP, BAB, and Saves change from the old one to the new.
>>To do this you must switch the highest level of the old class and pay XP
>>equal to 1000 x that level.
>>
>>First version:
>>Commoners MUST do this on attaining 2nd level.
>
> Problem. There are really smokin' scholars and craftsmen who never
> become deadly killing machines.

Thus the Expert class.
With a 1000 XP I felt a character should be good at _something_,
just not nescessarily combat.
A Commoner 2 lags far behind anything else at Level 2 and many things
at Level 1.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Donald Tsang wrote:

> If you were a Druid and aren't any longer, do you lose your access to
> the Druidic language?
>

I don't see why you would. Isn't Druidic a language one learns but is
secret to non-Druids? If so, an ex-Druid can probably retain it.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111840108.733273.50900@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Donald Tsang wrote:
>
>> If you were a Druid and aren't any longer, do you lose your access to
>> the Druidic language?
>>
>
> I don't see why you would. Isn't Druidic a language one learns but is
> secret to non-Druids? If so, an ex-Druid can probably retain it.
>

I can understand some abilities dissappearing when leaving a class. For
example paladin abilities if you turn your back on the cause, (change
alignment). Monk abilities if you cannot maintain some level of Lawfulness.
I can't see you losing a spoken, written, or sign language just because you
change classes. Unless Druidic is a supernatural ability. Which as far as I
can tell doesn't apply.

So your ex-druid shouldn't have any problem speaking druidic, but the
role-playing implications might be intersting. What is said character
decided to share the knowledge with someone else. Of course the local druids
would get pissed.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Decaying Atheist wrote:
> "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1111840108.733273.50900@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Donald Tsang wrote:
>>
>>>If you were a Druid and aren't any longer, do you lose your access to
>>>the Druidic language?
>>
>>I don't see why you would. Isn't Druidic a language one learns but is
>>secret to non-Druids? If so, an ex-Druid can probably retain it.
>
> I can understand some abilities dissappearing when leaving a class. For
> example paladin abilities if you turn your back on the cause, (change
> alignment). Monk abilities if you cannot maintain some level of Lawfulness.
> I can't see you losing a spoken, written, or sign language just because you
> change classes.

I'm looking at it as losing proficiency in a language you no longer use.
Like whatever we took in high school but didn't stay with after.
Yeah, in RL this takes longer than "leveling up", but...

I forget, does an ex-Druid (say now CE), by the rules, lose
the language?

> Unless Druidic is a supernatural ability. Which as far as I
> can tell doesn't apply.

Well, sneak attack isn't either, but I see no problem losing a die
of that.

But since speaking Druidish <g> is analogous to a skill I can see
an arguemnet for retaining it, since I allowed retentions of
skills (mainly for simplicity) and since skills aren't lost in
the standard rules when one "abandons" a class.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:12:40 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David
Johnston) carved upon a tablet of ether:

> >I'd take that objection more seriously if it weren't for the fact that
> >just about everyone in a medieval setting (historical or fictional)
> >fights sooner or later, even commoners. That's inevitable when you don't
> >have a standing army or police force, which is the case in any vaguely
> >authentic medieval setting.
>
> The Chinese Empire had a standing military. So did the Roman Empire.

Do you consider the Chinese empires or the Roman Empire to have been
medieval? If so, why?


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ophidian <oNpEhMiOdian23@cox.net> wrote:
>
> I'm looking at it as losing proficiency in a language you no longer
> use. Like whatever we took in high school but didn't stay with after.
> Yeah, in RL this takes longer than "leveling up", but...

I wrote an article a while ago on Skill Atrophy and Retraining.
Applying these rules was strictly optional -- you didn't have to play
out keeping your training up -- but gave an opportunity to change a
character's skills slightly over time.

http://www.kjdavies.org/rpg/articles/rules/skill-atrophy.html


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ophidian <oNpEhMiOdian23@cox.net> wrote:
> Thus the Expert class.
> With a 1000 XP I felt a character should be good at _something_,
> just not nescessarily combat.

A commoner /is/ good at something. At least two or three things, in
fact, unless he has below-average Intelligence. You're making the common
mistake of thinking that low skill points means low skill ranks:

> A Commoner 2 lags far behind anything else at Level 2 and many things
> at Level 1.

The commoner doesn't lag at all. He won't have /as many/ good skills as
other characters, but they'll be just as good at what they do know.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom