Upgrading classes

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> 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:

Nah, you're making the mistake of assuming a skill or two is all
that's required to be good at something.
IOW, we're drawing different lines.

>>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.

BAB, Saves, HP, etc.
Serious lag.
 
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).

Bradd:
> 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.

As others have pointed out, "any" is disingenuous here. "Most" would
be more appropriate. But that aside, a +0 BAB, 1 Hit Die, and +0 base
saves allows fighting just fine. From what I've read about historical
and fictional medieval settings, commoners who fight either stay alive
through luck (survive regardless of combat capability), die, or gain
some moderate combat skill (which is best represented by giving them a
few levels of Warrior).

A peasant who takes levels in Warrior doesn't stop being a peasant;
he's just a peasant with better combat training and experience than
the average peasant... While the peasant who *isn't* combat-skilled,
but is a rural mastercraftsman (high ranks in one or two skills),
can't be represented well by a higher-level Commoner, because he'd be
better at combat than a 1st-level adventurer, who *is* explicitly
combat-trained. The middle ground has to be a way to gain higher
skills without gaining combat training: the "no HD/BAB/save increase"
Common.

*shrug* Obviously, YMV. All of the above aside, I think that,
between the DMG Commoner and the "no HD/BAB/base save increase"
Commoner, there's a pretty wide range available to achieve any desired
effectiveness of Commoner, for just about anyone. (Except it may not
work for those who think that any peasant, no matter what other
training they might have, should always be a Commoner with no levels
in other classes; they need to learn the difference between terms of
art and descriptive terms, anyway.)

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:
> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> >
> > 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.

That could be said about every aspect of the game. Higher skills are
tied in closely with Max Skill Ranks, which are a function of level.

> I'm sure I've read somewhere that characters can gain skills
> at DM disrcression without gaining the appropriate levels.

Without referring to Rule Zero, I'd like a cite of this before I
respond to it as having any validity whatsoever.

> They aren't worth the increased CR anyway even with the levels.

I've always felt Commoners should have no CR anyway, and the other NPC
classes are also already off-kilter with regards to CR. IMC, I use
HD/2 for NPC classes, HD-1 for PC classes (because I don't play them
as "all out" attackers; I play them strategically as if they're PCs
who are trying to stay alive), and CR -- for Commoners of any level.

> Thats the main reason I wouldn't want to level them.

So remove the CR from Commoners, and use their levels solely to
represent their Max Skill Ranks.

NPC CR values are seriously b0rken already, anyway.

--
Nik
- remove vermin from email address to reply.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> 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:

Ophidian wrote:
> Nah, you're making the mistake of assuming a skill or two is all
> that's required to be good at something.

How's that a mistake? Most tasks in D&D only need one good skill
(usually Craft, Profession, or Knowledge). A few, like trapspringing,
require two skills.

>>> 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.

> BAB, Saves, HP, etc. Serious lag.

So commoners aren't good at combat. They aren't supposed to be good at
combat. However, commoners have all they need to be good at what they
actually do.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
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.

How about this: create Commoner, Expert, Aristocrat, and Adept templates that
could be applied to the base monster writeups for the Dwarf, Halfling, Elf, etc.
To configure the Human, create a first-level human warrior and convert that into
a monster writeup.

monsters with templates don't gain levels but they all look alike, so you'll
need to allow for some variation of skills and feats within each class-template.

If you want to create advanced NPCs, it's just a matter of advancing the HD for
the 'monster' version of the NPC race.

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matthias wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:15:15 -0500, Ophidian <oNpEhMiOdian23@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I hate Commoners having levels above 1.
>
>
> How about this: create Commoner, Expert, Aristocrat, and Adept templates that
> could be applied to the base monster writeups for the Dwarf, Halfling, Elf, etc.
> To configure the Human, create a first-level human warrior and convert that into
> a monster writeup.
>
> monsters with templates don't gain levels but they all look alike, so you'll
> need to allow for some variation of skills and feats within each class-template.
>
> If you want to create advanced NPCs, it's just a matter of advancing the HD for
> the 'monster' version of the NPC race.

Interesting idea. Care to take a first stab at fleshing out an example?
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:57:36 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com>
wrote:

>I think the NPC classes are good enough as written, more-or-less.

Good enough compared to what?
--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:30:33 GMT, 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'.

You would need to turn attack bonuses into regular skills to fix that problem.
--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> 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.

Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> As others have pointed out, "any" is disingenuous here.

The only examples pointed out in /this/ thread were non-medieval. If
you're referring to a past thread, please refresh my memory. And kindly
stuff the accusations of dishonesty up your posterior, or learn to
choose your words more carefully.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> I think the NPC classes are good enough as written, more-or-less.

Matthias wrote:
> Good enough compared to what?

Good enough for an adventure game. If you've got something better in
mind, post it -- no, on second thought, I'm not interested in more of
your half-baked drivel.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote:
> How about this: create Commoner, Expert, Aristocrat, and Adept
> templates that could be applied to the base monster writeups for the
> Dwarf, Halfling, Elf, etc ....

You do realize that those "base monster writeups" are actually warriors
with racial adjustments applied, right?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:43:11 +1100, Hong Ooi <hong@zipworld.com.au> 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?

In that case, why even define them as having a class?

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:32:40 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com>
wrote:

>Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> How about this: create Commoner, Expert, Aristocrat, and Adept
>> templates that could be applied to the base monster writeups for the
>> Dwarf, Halfling, Elf, etc ....
>
>You do realize that those "base monster writeups" are actually warriors
>with racial adjustments applied, right?

That's why I left out Warrior.

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

>I hate Commoners having levels above 1.
>
Me too.

> Proposed solution:
>
[snip]
I don't like all the switching classes willy-nilly.

However, I do have a system I'll share with you (dug up unaltered from a
2003 post). It doesn't solve the "commoners shouldn't learn to fight as
they get more skilled" problem very well, but does provide a fairly
consistent progression from Com1 to War1 to Ftr1 (or any of the other
classes) ... which looks like it's something that you're looking for at
least.

I've used this system in small ways for a number of things and find it works
great for my purposes! Comments welcome...

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

http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=%22Brad+Prentice%22+%220+level%22&hl=en&lr=&selm=b28ijc%24a6j%241%40panther.uwo.ca&rnum=2

I worked out a system of transmogrifying [ie., transforming a Commoner to
another class rather than simply tacking on new levels of things] that
sacrifices a couple of things
but is, in the end, consistent.

1. Forget about the NPC classes (except as noted below).

2. Commoners no longer have levels -- they are just commoners with one hit
die. These are exactly like the first level commoner from the book except:
a) they have only 2 iterations of skill points (rather than the standard
four at first level), b) they have no starting feat (for level one), c) they
have 2 hp+Con bonus, d) 12 gp and 5sp worth of equipment.

3. Commoners who start "growing up" (and some never do) start gaining
levels, starting with level zero.

4. Every PC class has a level zero which is approximately equal in "power"
to a 1st level warrior. This consists of having one hit die (according to
class), hit points equal to half-maximum for that die + Con bonus, class
abilities according to the Apprentice table in the DMG, 3 iterations of
skill points (rather than the standard four at first level), still no
starting feat, and equipment valued at an average amount according to the PH
random amount by class (e.g., Ftr 0 gets 150gp).

5. Zeroes who "grow up" more become full 1st level PCs. They become like
the NPC lineups in the DMG -- max hp at first level, starting feat, 4
iterations of skill points and 900gp worth of equipment.

6. By the way, Aristocrats just become PC classes of whatever kind, warriors
just become fighters, adepts just become regular spellcasters and Experts
become a PC class of their own.

7. The Expert class -- as DMG except at each level they gain a class
ability: "add +1 to maximum rank of all Expert class skills".

I like the whole thing because it's consistent, it allows a nice
transmogrant-style progression (where you don't have to suddenly forget
skills you once knew, lose hit points, etc.), there's no NPC levels anymore
(with their odd power comparisons, etc.), there's no weirdness about
high-born commoners or low-born aristocrats, allows different bases for
Monster Manual humanoids (ie., instead of having all Goblin War1's, have
them all be Rog0's).

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

Nikolas Landauer <dacileva.flea@hotmail.com.tick> wrote:
>> They aren't worth the increased CR anyway even with the levels.
>
>I've always felt Commoners should have no CR anyway, and the other NPC
>classes are also already off-kilter with regards to CR.

Why don't you just make them Medium Vermin? Then you don't have to
worry about CR for single Commoners, just swarms of them...


(Mostly) joking,

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

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd494m8.m0e.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> 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.

Your postulate that commoners are engaging in the weapons and combat
training required to raise their BAB and damage-mitigation skills, and that
this is something they did *historically* seems more than a little ...
fictional.

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

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd4e3fl.d2c.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> So commoners aren't good at combat. They aren't supposed to be good at
> combat.

They're actually *too* good at combat, Bradd.

Arguments. Need to be consistent.

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

Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:32:40 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> How about this: create Commoner, Expert, Aristocrat, and Adept
>>> templates that could be applied to the base monster writeups for the
>>> Dwarf, Halfling, Elf, etc ....
>>
>>You do realize that those "base monster writeups" are actually warriors
>>with racial adjustments applied, right?
>
> That's why I left out Warrior.

You missed the point, as usual. Those aren't "base monster writeups."
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Spinner wrote:
> However, I do have a system I'll share with you (dug up unaltered from
> a 2003 post). It doesn't solve the "commoners shouldn't learn to
> fight as they get more skilled" problem very well ....

That isn't actually a problem, though. The usual test for skill mastery
in a craft is being able to produce an actual, saleable item. That's a
DC 10 task for typical items, DC 15 for high-quality items, and DC 20
for complex or superior items (including masterwork weapons). To
practice his trade profitably, a master craftsman should be able to
produce items reliably (i.e., by taking 10).

So for basic trades like blacksmithing, the commoner must be able to
beat DC 10 by taking 10. That's not at all difficult; even a stupid
blacksmith can do that with a rank or two in Craft. For more difficult
trades (DC 15), you'll need four ranks and either modest talent (Int 12)
or good tools. For the most difficult items, you'll need ranks, talent,
tools, and an assistant, but you can still do it at 1st level (+0 BAB).

That means that just about anybody can become a blacksmith, hooper,
carpenter, mason, etc. All you need is training. The most demanding
trades require talent or experience, but even in the latter case you can
easily get there at +1 BAB. It just doesn't take many levels to become a
world-class craftsman. (I presume the same is true for their Profession
analogues.)

That implies that high-level commoners represent something other than
great craftsmen and professionals. They're the rare people who lack the
formal training of a fighter or warrior but who have nonetheless
developed strong martial skills. And they are rare -- even in a
metropolis, there will only be a couple dozen such people. These are the
farmers who've been conscripted into a few wars, the innkeepers who brag
about their time in the militia, the woodwards who can wrassle a bear
and live to tell about it, and so on.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:32:54 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:43:11 +1100, Hong Ooi <hong@zipworld.com.au> 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?
>
>In that case, why even define them as having a class?

Why indeed?


--
Hong Ooi | "COUNTERSRTIKE IS AN REAL-TIME
hong@zipworld.com.au | STRATEGY GAME!!!"
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- RR
Sydney, Australia |
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Hong Ooi" <hong@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
news:flrf41ppi5otsmdop7ht7hpms415itad1g@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:32:54 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >In that case, why even define them as having a class?
>
> Why indeed?

What's this? WISDOM FROM HONG?

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

Seems to make sense to me, perhaps you need to reread my original post?
--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ophidian wrote:
>Interesting idea. Care to take a first stab at fleshing out an example?


Drow, 1st level Aristocrat (template alterations)

Hit Dice: 1d8 or 4 hp ("change HD to d8")
Initiative: +1 (unchanged)
Speed: 30 ft. (6 squares) (unchanged)
Armor Class: 16 (+1 Dex, +4 chain shirt, +1 light shield)
touch 11, flat-footed 15 (unchanged)

Base Attack/Grapple: +0/+1 ("change to medium base attack progression")
Attack: Rapier +2 melee (1d6+1/18-20) or hand crossbow +1 ranged (1d4/19-20)
(unchanged except for attack bonuses)
Full Attack: Rapier +2 melee (1d6+1/18-20) or hand crossbow +1 ranged
(1d4/19-20) (unchanged except for attack bonuses)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft. (unchanged)
Special Attacks: Poison, spell-like abilities (unchanged)
Special Qualities: Drow traits, spell resistance 12 (unchanged)
Saves: Fort +0, Ref +1, Will +1 ("racial base saves change to low Fort, low
Reflex, high Will. Does not affect save bonuses from standard classes.").
Abilities: Str 13, Dex 13, Con 10, Int 12, Wis 9, Cha 10 (unchanged)
Skills: Hide +0, Listen +2, Search +4, Spot +3 (unchanged)
Feats: Weapon Focus (rapier) (unchanged)
Environment: Underground (unchanged)
Organization: Squad (2-4), patrol (5-8 plus 2 2nd-level sergeants and 1 leader
of 3rd-6th level), or band (20-50 plus 10% noncombatants plus 1 2nd-level
sergeant per 5 adults, 2d4 6th-level lieutenants, and 1d4 9th-level captains)
(unchanged)
Challenge Rating: 1 (some info about whether the monster is a melee combat
creature or a magic-user or whatever, and how the Aristocrat template would
modify the original CR accordinly.)
Treasure: Standard (unchanged)
Alignment: Usually neutral evil (unchanged)
Advancement: By character class (unchanged)
Level Adjustment +2 (unchanged)

That should give some idea of what I had in mind with these templates.


--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:18:41 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 03:32:59 GMT, Chad Lubrecht <chad.lubrecht@verizon.net>
>wrote:

>>Woudln't just replacing all those numbers with 0 be even easier?
>
>No, because then there would be no point to having levels in the class, and I
>want levels in the class.

So in order to get a commoner with no combat ability, which is what
the original poster wanted, it is easier to have a commoner with
significant combat ability, just because you've applied an extra
requirement that there be meaningfull classes?
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qrbh41lfucu6a8v8g8jd89vac8j0q11g6u@4ax.com...
> > A table that goes through the absurdity of taking 20 levels to add 2
to
> >BAB is a waste of intellectual effort. 2/20 is sufficiently close to zero
> >that zero would be a more appropriate value for a well designed game.
>
> Check again. It's +5, not +2.
> +5 is not 'close to zero'.
> You should know better.

I honestly thought I only saw it go to three. Mea culpa.

-Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom