Upgrading classes

[Guest]

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:e2ft5113q1mu6tk12j3dfmjh40jq90s7k3@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 06:34:18 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
> >> They were experts with skill ranks in various engineering disciplines,
not
> >> commoners.
> >
> > Bullshit. How do you know these architects were so multitalented as
to
> >require Expert levels?
>
> The idea of a civil engineer is squarely in the middle of the description
> for Experts, and Commoners do not have any pyramid design abilities within
> their skillset.

Sure they do. Even a 1st level commoner can take 2 ranks, put a skill
focus into it and be +5 coming off the blocks (plus any relevant stat
bonuses, which are likely for a talented engineerperson). Can an expert of
the same level have higher skill? Yes. Is an expert necessary? No.

> > And even if they *were* experts, HOW DID THEY GAIN
> >THE LEVELS?
>
> Start with houses, work up to pyramids. Graduate egyptian engineering
school.

Which is exactly how commoners do it. Thankyou!

Hint: you just lost the argument.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

In article <ZGx7e.6145$lP1.2085@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
>news:slrnd5qojr.nd0.bradd+news@szonye.com...
>> If you're awarding more than one level's worth of XP, then I call
>> shenanigans. If not, you'll need at least a dozen of these great works
>> in a lifetime -- and that's a dozen works so great that they're worth
>> maximum experience (+7 CR). That simply isn't believable. Even legendary
>> geniuses like Leonardo didn't accomplish that much.
>
> Now *I* call shenanigans. Your assertion that a great work isn't worth
>more than one level of XP (at an undefined level, no less) is something you
>have *utterly* invented, without any basis but your own twisted sense of
>aesthetics

I think Brad is alluding to the "can't gain more than 1 level from 1
adventure" idea, and didn't realize you're talking about a great work split
into many pieces.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

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

In article <oeft51hmb1pf5u66o9jc1adog1msj8glp8@4ax.com>,
Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
>
>Monks could have designed and overseen the construction, it's within their
>capabilities. But build it all by hand? No...there were slaves by the
>truckload.

ISTR they used peasants in the not-growing season.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

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

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd5tfc7.t47.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> > ... Hit points, like BAB, etc., are gained through TRAINING IN COMBAT.
> > Firefighting has *nothing* to do with this ....
>
> You just made that up. Once again, you've confused your personal
> rationale with what the rules actual state. Hit points "measure how hard
> you are to kill." Not just how hard you are to kill in combat.

You're making the same fallacy as before - namely, that because having
the damage reduction effect of higher-level hit points can help your
survival in situations other than combat, therefore that damage reduction
must be able to be gained from training other than combat. However, the
rules make it rather plain that out of combat, hit points are essentially
irrelevant to your abilitiy to survive deadly experiences. Firefighting is
not combat ... so why do you think your argument is relevant even if we did
get past the fallacy? Does a miner skilled at protecting himself from
rockfalls somehow have justification to greater skill avoiding harm from
swordblows? Why should a firefighter?
And let's take this a bit further, Braddie. You have now found two
justifications for commoners to gain hit points. Firefighting training and
combat training. Do you wish to argue that *all* levelled commoners are
firefighters and militiamen? Regardless of whether they live their lives as
merchants or artisans, or have pitiful Strength scores and thus would be
wholly inappropriate for service in such roles? Your rationale is simply
*not* *robust*. It's a useless model.
We have a well understood model for PC advancement and how they get
their skills - acquire grit, train in class skills in the background,
manifest higher levels of proficiency. Applying this to NPC advancement
(also character classes..) implies they train in combat, but what they
represent are people who do *not* train in combat. This disjoint cannot be
resolved with your pathetic handwaves about "some of them being
firefighters".

> Not how much combat training you have.

And yet they correlate perfectly with class and level. Hmm.... It's not
as if all the editions of D&D haven't DESCRIBED WHAT HIT POINTS ARE and how
they work or anything, much less that they represent the ability to ..'TURN
A BLOW INTO A LESS SERIOUS ONE' ... (ie; combat defenses).

> It's the John McClane stat, not the narrow thing you're misrepresenting it
as.

I assert that John McClane *has* this stat in abundance because he is a
trained combatant!

*Moron*.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news😛qft51t7n20bbd7uo7skvi9770dogajjnd@4ax.com...
> >Almost every drama on television is full of city based non-combat
> >challenges. including Murder She Wrote (which, admittedly, is rarely
> >on, but whatever). Almost every week americans watch people solve
> >problems and face challenges, many of them pretty exceptional. Solve a
> >mystery or 20 and see if you're not getting better at it. That's what
> >gaining experience is. Or at least a parge part of it. And who is
> >Columbo if not a high level expert. I'd hardley call him a rogue.
>
> But he's not a commoner, which is the issue at hand. No police/detective
> type would be.

The old lady from Murder She Wrote, not a commoner?

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

Shawn Wilson wrote:
> "Will Green" <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote in message
> news:cG%6e.1752$716.460@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>>'Burglars' are adventurers. Commoners aren't. The Commoner class
>>>represents the non-adventuring majority of humanity. Commoners aren't
>>>Bilbo.
>>
>>Don't be retarded. What fighting training did Bilbo have before he set
>>out on his adventure? In what way was he "elite?"
>
> I think he was equal to any 1st level character short of a professional
> fighter type. BAB 0 is BAB 0.

Nah. He certainly wasn't a PC class -- like I said, they're *elite*.
They're already hero-grade. Bilbo was just this guy. Total average Joe.

>>>They don't fight monsters. They dont't loot dungeons.
>>
>>They would if they fought monsters and looted dungeons.
>
> Then they wouldn't be Commoners, they'd be 'Burglars' or some such.

Unless they were Commoners.

>>>If they did they wouldn't be Commoners, they'd be Rogues or Fighters or
>>>'Burglars'.
>>
>>Bollocks.
>
> Charming argument there...

You seem to be under the impression that Commoners are physically
prevented from entering dungeons or trying to hit monsters with swords.

-Will

 

[Guest]

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

"Will Green" <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote in message
news:WZD7e.3538$716.3522@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

>>>Don't be retarded. What fighting training did Bilbo have before he set
>>>out on his adventure? In what way was he "elite?"
>>
>> I think he was equal to any 1st level character short of a professional
>> fighter type. BAB 0 is BAB 0.
>
> Nah. He certainly wasn't a PC class -- like I said, they're *elite*.
> They're already hero-grade. Bilbo was just this guy. Total average Joe.


Actually, Bilbo WAS a PC class- 'Burglar' (not exactly a Rogue, but close).
It's the adventure that makes one a PC in the first place. He was on an
adventiure, therefore he was a PC.



>>>>They don't fight monsters. They dont't loot dungeons.
>>>
>>>They would if they fought monsters and looted dungeons.
>>
>> Then they wouldn't be Commoners, they'd be 'Burglars' or some such.
>
> Unless they were Commoners.


Commoners don't fight monsters and loot dungeons.




>>>>If they did they wouldn't be Commoners, they'd be Rogues or Fighters or
>>>>'Burglars'.
>>>
>>>Bollocks.
>>
>> Charming argument there...
>
> You seem to be under the impression that Commoners are physically
> prevented from entering dungeons or trying to hit monsters with swords.


Taking up that particular occupation is what makes on an adventurer, and a
Fighter or a Rogue, or something.

 

[Guest]

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

Shawn Wilson <Ikonoqlast@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Actually, Bilbo WAS a PC class- 'Burglar' (not exactly a Rogue, but close).
> It's the adventure that makes one a PC in the first place. He was on an
> adventiure, therefore he was a PC.

Pure bullshit. Stick to what you know -- oh, sorry.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
> In article <ZGx7e.6145$lP1.2085@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrnd5qojr.nd0.bradd+news@szonye.com...
>>> If you're awarding more than one level's worth of XP, then I call
>>> shenanigans. If not, you'll need at least a dozen of these great works
>>> in a lifetime -- and that's a dozen works so great that they're worth
>>> maximum experience (+7 CR). That simply isn't believable. Even legendary
>>> geniuses like Leonardo didn't accomplish that much.
>>
>> Now *I* call shenanigans. Your assertion that a great work isn't worth
>> more than one level of XP (at an undefined level, no less) is something you
>> have *utterly* invented, without any basis but your own twisted sense of
>> aesthetics
>
> I think Brad is alluding to the "can't gain more than 1 level from 1
> adventure" idea, and didn't realize you're talking about a great work
> split into many pieces.

Bingo. And I don't think it's legitimate to split it into pieces.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

Shawn Wilson wrote:
> "Will Green" <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote in message
> news:WZD7e.3538$716.3522@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>Nah. He certainly wasn't a PC class -- like I said, they're *elite*.
>>They're already hero-grade. Bilbo was just this guy. Total average Joe.
>
> Actually, Bilbo WAS a PC class- 'Burglar' (not exactly a Rogue, but close).
> It's the adventure that makes one a PC in the first place. He was on an
> adventiure, therefore he was a PC.

Average Joes are not PCs.

>>>>>They don't fight monsters. They dont't loot dungeons.
>>>>
>>>>They would if they fought monsters and looted dungeons.
>>>
>>>Then they wouldn't be Commoners, they'd be 'Burglars' or some such.
>>
>>Unless they were Commoners.
>
> Commoners don't fight monsters and loot dungeons.

Unless, of course, they fight monsters and loot dungeons. You seem to
be rather stuck on this.

>>You seem to be under the impression that Commoners are physically
>>prevented from entering dungeons or trying to hit monsters with swords.
>
> Taking up that particular occupation is what makes on an adventurer, and a
> Fighter or a Rogue, or something.

Ye flipping gods. What of the Commoner who fights monsters because
they're attacking his village? He's *still a Commoner.*

-Will

 

[Guest]

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

"Will Green" <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote in message
news😛LE7e.3556$716.3525@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

>> Actually, Bilbo WAS a PC class- 'Burglar' (not exactly a Rogue, but
>> close). It's the adventure that makes one a PC in the first place. He
>> was on an adventiure, therefore he was a PC.
>
> Average Joes are not PCs.


Bilbo obviously wasn't an average Joe, and he obviously WAS a PC.




>> Commoners don't fight monsters and loot dungeons.
>
> Unless, of course, they fight monsters and loot dungeons.


When they start doiung that they stop being Commoners.




>>>You seem to be under the impression that Commoners are physically
>>>prevented from entering dungeons or trying to hit monsters with swords.
>>
>> Taking up that particular occupation is what makes on an adventurer, and
>> a Fighter or a Rogue, or something.
>
> Ye flipping gods. What of the Commoner who fights monsters because
> they're attacking his village? He's *still a Commoner.*


That's an incident. One incident doesn't make one a PC.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:48:28 -0700, Shawn Wilson wrote:

>
> "Will Green" <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote in message
> news:WZD7e.3538$716.3522@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

>> Shawn Wilson wrote:

>>> "Will Green" <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote in message
>>> news:cG%6e.1752$716.460@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

>>>>Don't be retarded. What fighting training did Bilbo have before he
>>>>set out on his adventure? In what way was he "elite?"
>>>
>>> I think he was equal to any 1st level character short of a
>>> professional fighter type. BAB 0 is BAB 0.
>>
>> Nah. He certainly wasn't a PC class -- like I said, they're *elite*.
>> They're already hero-grade. Bilbo was just this guy. Total average
>> Joe.
>
>
> Actually, Bilbo WAS a PC class- 'Burglar' (not exactly a Rogue, but
> close). It's the adventure that makes one a PC in the first place. He
> was on an adventiure, therefore he was a PC.

Go check out his introduction again:

"This hobbit was a very well-to-do hobbit, and his name was Baggins. The
Bagginses had lived in the neighbourhood of The Hill for time out of mind,
and people considered them very respectable, not only because most of them
were rich, but also because they never had any adventures or did anything
unexpected...."

It was Gandalf that named him a burgler, and Gandalf was lying. Bilbo
waa the first Baggins to do something like that, and he wasn't given much
choice in the matter.

>>> Then they wouldn't be Commoners, they'd be 'Burglars' or some such.
>>
>> Unless they were Commoners.
>
>
> Commoners don't fight monsters and loot dungeons.

What was Bilbo at the start of _The Hobbit_ if not a commoner?

--
Phoenix

 

[Guest]

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

Shawn Wilson wrote:
> "Will Green" <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote in message
> news😛LE7e.3556$716.3525@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>>Commoners don't fight monsters and loot dungeons.
>>
>>Unless, of course, they fight monsters and loot dungeons.
>
> When they start doiung that they stop being Commoners.

Or they start advancing in Commoner levels.

>>Ye flipping gods. What of the Commoner who fights monsters because
>>they're attacking his village? He's *still a Commoner.*
>
> That's an incident. One incident doesn't make one a PC.

How many incidents constitute an adventure, then?

Is there something in the game rules that prevents Commoners from
killing things (just like adventurers do), gaining experience points for
it, and thus gaining levels in the Commoner class?

-Will

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 02:23:42 GMT, Will Green
<will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote:

>Shawn Wilson wrote:
>> "Will Green" <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote in message
>> news😛LE7e.3556$716.3525@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>>Commoners don't fight monsters and loot dungeons.
>>>
>>>Unless, of course, they fight monsters and loot dungeons.
>>
>> When they start doiung that they stop being Commoners.
>
>Or they start advancing in Commoner levels.

Why would they do that, fighting monsters and looting dungeons isn't
commoner work. It's adventurer work, they should be taking the PC
classes.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 04:41:56 GMT, Keith Davies
<keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:

>Chad Lubrecht <chad.lubrecht@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Why would they do that, fighting monsters and looting dungeons isn't
>> commoner work. It's adventurer work, they should be taking the PC
>> classes.
>
>If they make a career of it it's certainly advisable. OTOH, if they are
>farmers and never receive combat training, it makes more sense (from a
>modeling perspective) to give them Commoner levels.

If fighting monsters and looting dungeons is the primary source of
experience, then I would say that yes they have made a career of it.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:11:33 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:e2ft5113q1mu6tk12j3dfmjh40jq90s7k3@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 06:34:18 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>> >> They were experts with skill ranks in various engineering disciplines,
>not
>> >> commoners.
>> >
>> > Bullshit. How do you know these architects were so multitalented as
>to
>> >require Expert levels?
>>
>> The idea of a civil engineer is squarely in the middle of the description
>> for Experts, and Commoners do not have any pyramid design abilities within
>> their skillset.
>
> Sure they do. Even a 1st level commoner can take 2 ranks, put a skill
>focus into it and be +5 coming off the blocks (plus any relevant stat
>bonuses, which are likely for a talented engineerperson). Can an expert of
>the same level have higher skill? Yes. Is an expert necessary? No.
>
>> > And even if they *were* experts, HOW DID THEY GAIN
>> >THE LEVELS?
>>
>> Start with houses, work up to pyramids. Graduate egyptian engineering
>school.
>
> Which is exactly how commoners do it. Thankyou!
>
> Hint: you just lost the argument.

Except that by receving such training, they cease being commoners and
become experts.

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:24:22 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news😛qft51t7n20bbd7uo7skvi9770dogajjnd@4ax.com...
>> >Almost every drama on television is full of city based non-combat
>> >challenges. including Murder She Wrote (which, admittedly, is rarely
>> >on, but whatever). Almost every week americans watch people solve
>> >problems and face challenges, many of them pretty exceptional. Solve a
>> >mystery or 20 and see if you're not getting better at it. That's what
>> >gaining experience is. Or at least a parge part of it. And who is
>> >Columbo if not a high level expert. I'd hardley call him a rogue.
>>
>> But he's not a commoner, which is the issue at hand. No police/detective
>> type would be.
>
> The old lady from Murder She Wrote, not a commoner?

I never watched the show, so I can't really begin to guess at her skillset,
but likely not.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:52:31 -0700, "Shawn Wilson" <Ikonoqlast@yahoo.com>
scribed into the ether:

>
>"Will Green" <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com> wrote in message
>news😛LE7e.3556$716.3525@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>> Actually, Bilbo WAS a PC class- 'Burglar' (not exactly a Rogue, but
>>> close). It's the adventure that makes one a PC in the first place. He
>>> was on an adventiure, therefore he was a PC.
>>
>> Average Joes are not PCs.
>
>
>Bilbo obviously wasn't an average Joe, and he obviously WAS a PC.

Still nursing at the teat of the stupid cow, I see, Shawn.

In what way was Bilbo not average prior to Gandalf dragging him out of his
hobbit-hole by his foothair?

Have you actually bothered to *read* the book?

>>> Commoners don't fight monsters and loot dungeons.
>>
>> Unless, of course, they fight monsters and loot dungeons.
>
>
>When they start doiung that they stop being Commoners.

Commoner is a class choice, it doesn't prevent you from looting dungeons
any more than being a Fighter prevents you from planting crops.

 

[Guest]

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

MSB asked:
>> The old lady from Murder She Wrote, not a commoner?

Matt Frisch wrote:
> I never watched the show, so I can't really begin to guess at her
> skillset, but likely not.

She was a novelist and a busybody: Profession (writer) and Gather
Information. While she might be an expert, I think commoner is more
likely.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd5u4k8.u90.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> David Alex Lamb <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
>> In article <ZGx7e.6145$lP1.2085@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnd5qojr.nd0.bradd+news@szonye.com...
>>>> If you're awarding more than one level's worth of XP, then I call
>>>> shenanigans. If not, you'll need at least a dozen of these great works
>>>> in a lifetime -- and that's a dozen works so great that they're worth
>>>> maximum experience (+7 CR). That simply isn't believable. Even
>>>> legendary
>>>> geniuses like Leonardo didn't accomplish that much.
>>>
>>> Now *I* call shenanigans. Your assertion that a great work isn't worth
>>> more than one level of XP (at an undefined level, no less) is something
>>> you
>>> have *utterly* invented, without any basis but your own twisted sense of
>>> aesthetics
>>
>> I think Brad is alluding to the "can't gain more than 1 level from 1
>> adventure" idea, and didn't realize you're talking about a great work
>> split into many pieces.
>
> Bingo. And I don't think it's legitimate to split it into pieces.

Why not?

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:VED7e.6405$yq6.2334@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
> news:e2ft5113q1mu6tk12j3dfmjh40jq90s7k3@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 06:34:18 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>> >> They were experts with skill ranks in various engineering disciplines,
> not
>> >> commoners.
>> >
>> > Bullshit. How do you know these architects were so multitalented as
> to
>> >require Expert levels?
>>
>> The idea of a civil engineer is squarely in the middle of the description
>> for Experts, and Commoners do not have any pyramid design abilities
>> within
>> their skillset.
>
> Sure they do. Even a 1st level commoner can take 2 ranks, put a skill
> focus into it and be +5 coming off the blocks (plus any relevant stat
> bonuses, which are likely for a talented engineerperson). Can an expert
> of
> the same level have higher skill? Yes. Is an expert necessary? No.

Still, I do not think that is a particularly good way to build an engineer.
An easier way would be to redesign the Commoner in such a way that allows
them a particular professional skill as a class skill, even if it were
normally cross-class. That eliminates the limited nature of the Commoner,
without going into inappropriate breadth via Expert levels.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

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

Rick Pikul wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:48:28 -0700, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>>Actually, Bilbo WAS a PC class- 'Burglar' (not exactly a Rogue, but
>>close). It's the adventure that makes one a PC in the first place. He
>>was on an adventiure, therefore he was a PC.
> Go check out his introduction again:
> "This hobbit was a very well-to-do hobbit, and his name was Baggins. The
> Bagginses had lived in the neighbourhood of The Hill for time out of mind,
> and people considered them very respectable, not only because most of them
> were rich, but also because they never had any adventures or did anything
> unexpected...."

Unlike those troublesome Tooks and Brandybucks!

> It was Gandalf that named him a burgler, and Gandalf was lying. Bilbo
> waa the first Baggins to do something like that, and he wasn't given much
> choice in the matter.

Did they ever say in another book why he choose Bilbo?
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

 

[Guest]

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

Matt Frisch wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:24:22 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>> The old lady from Murder She Wrote, not a commoner?
> I never watched the show, so I can't really begin to guess at her skillset,
> but likely not.

Expert. Profession: Writer, well published and well-known. She was
well-respected and advised a whole lot of folks on matters. She had to study not
just writing, but a smattering of chemistry, engineering, biology etc., for her
books. I sort of remember her as the unathletic and pudgy Macguyver.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

 

[Guest]

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

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:2tou511uh0fsr55rqb7eolsf3dt39443g9@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:11:33 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
> >> Start with houses, work up to pyramids. Graduate egyptian engineering
> >school.
> >
> > Which is exactly how commoners do it. Thankyou!
> >
> > Hint: you just lost the argument.
>
> Except that by receving such training, they cease being commoners and
> become experts.

<falls on the floor laughing>

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:8i9v519f1o2md6abj9gna7vsj2e5kebdf8@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 07:20:27 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
> > <bradd+news@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
> >
> >> She was a novelist and a busybody: Profession (writer) and Gather
> >> Information. While she might be an expert, I think commoner is
more
> >> likely.
> >
> > Commoner and a decent Int (plus being human) will provide all the
> > skill points and feats she needs.
>
> You guys *do* realize how silly this argument has become, right?
First of
> all, she would be a combination of Dedicated Hero and Smart Hero (D20

> Modern). Secondly, play GURPS already; D&D was not designed for this
level
> of detail when it comes to NPC classes.
>

You're right, of course (about the second part, i'm not budging on the
Angela Landsbury as a commoner bit) but that wasn't the point being
made.

I wasn't trying to say that television characters are commoners (I
don't know where that idea came from) but that almost every TV show we
see gives us good examples of city based noncombat encounters that
certainly are worth experience. So allowing for a high level NPC of
any class isn't really impossible without combat at all. Most TV shows
never have combat. And they certainly have lots of problem solving. (at
least the dramas do).