Upgrading classes

[Guest]

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

Ophidian wrote:
> 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.

I've neverminded going from a first level NPC class to a first level
regular class at the start of the game. It actually makes for a nice
chance. Maybe start a game with an XP hole of 200 or 300 and when they
hit it ask them what real class they would like to become? Granted,
this doesn't really work with some classes (such as wizard or cleric
that require lots of training) but going from warrior to fighter isn't
a bad idea and going from commoner to rogue or fighter is ok. But
really, you have to realize that most of the PHB classes receive lots
of training (or should) so this is not as easy as you're assuming.

Also, what is the difference between a first level fighter and a first
level warrior? one HP and a feat? For how long, one session? Two?
Who cares. Just give it to them.

Also, i think the case for commoners never going above level one is
bunk. It's a fine class and it leaves room for improvement in some
areas (skills, atc) without becoming very skilled iin combat for no
reason (though commoners get some skill, which is fine because, as was
stated elsewqhere, it's unlikely that a commoner will never be in a
brawl or some other rough activity ever.

It's also possible, of course, for a commoner to become quite skilled
as a combatant, doing actual training and practicing. but we call that
gaining a level of fighter.

Bear in mind that there's no floating badge that displays your class.
A fighter who owns a store and mends his own shoes is still a commoner.
He ust has a different class.

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

> > In DnD, being ludicrously good at stuff lets you kick ass. It
works
> > the other way too, kicking ass lets you be ludicrously good at
stuff.
>
> That is *so* not the model the game uses. Please don't repeat
such
> tripe.
> The game assumes that conflict increases personal power/inner
> strength/etc., which is transformed into greater capability when
filtered
> *through the training* that each hero undertakes (all of which is
> backgrounded). Capable people excel at the things in which they
train.
> This model explains why heroes gain 'new' powers they haven't
practiced
> during the experience-gaining events; experience is *not* simply "you
got
> better at the skills you used".
> And that is why giving commoners combat capability *doesn't make
any
> sense* - because there is no reason to believe they would be training
in
> combat just as much as adventuring characters do!

Wait, i'm failing to see the logic at the end there (but let me back up
for just a moment).

I agree that that isn't hte theory that the game claims to use, but the
evidence seems to contradict that. The DMG advocates commoners and
other NPC classes gaining levels as time goes on (albeit much more
slowly than PC's). And a commoner can't improve his level without
improving his combat skills. So while the game may not *say* that this
is the logic they're using the end result seems to indicate otherwise.

But here's what I dont get. Statment above. (I'll be concise). The
model demonstrates why heroes can gain abilities that they haven't been
training at durring the game and that's fine. but a commoner can't get
better at fighting because they haven't been training at it.

What did i miss?

Are you just saying that it's different for the PC's because they're
heroic and a farmer is not, or are you driving at something more
concrete?

See, I knew all this seeing what you were talking about couldn't last
forever.

 

[Guest]

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

Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Seems to make sense to me, perhaps you need to reread my original post?

What makes sense to you? Quote some context, dumbass.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1112121029.312800.256590@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > But here's what I dont get. Statment above. (I'll be concise).
The
> > model demonstrates why heroes can gain abilities that they haven't
been
> > training at durring the game and that's fine. but a commoner can't
get
> > better at fighting because they haven't been training at it.
>
> A commoner *shouldn't* be training in combat as much as an
adventuring
> wizard does. That's not what their lifestyles are all about.
Frontiersmen
> have to defend themselves and serve as local law enforcement, but
that's
> what Warrior levels are for. Medeival townsfolk, servants, merchants
....
> they're not undertaking regular arms training. Consequently it is
very
> strange to have game mechanics that give them the capabilities of a
person
> who trains in combat.

hmm . . . i don't know. i think the general idea behind your average
adventuring wizard is that they aren't trained in combat at all (the
bab progression seems to indicate that) but if you assume that the
lowest BAB progression indicates some combat training, then I'd say
you're right, it doesn't make any sense. However, bear in mind that a
commoner is almost always an inferior fighter to anyone of the same
level.

But at least I see your point now.

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:11:37 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
<bradd+news@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> 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).

It's easy at first level: 4 ranks + 3 skill focus + 2 MW tools + 2
assistant = +11. For the assistant: 4 ranks + 3 skill focus + 2 MW
tools = +9, enough that rolling a '1' on the assist chack still get
you the '10' you need to assist effectively. Thus the biggest hurdle
to creating DC20 items (MW ones, most obviously) reliably is getting
the MW tools, as 50gp per set.

> 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.)

To me the real test of craftsmanship is being able to produce a MW
item with normal tools, no assistant, in a streeful environment (ie no
'tale 10'), and that means you need a +15, so as to avoid the 'lose
the whole project by failing by five or more' degree of failure.
Another milestone is being able to make DC20 items quickly, and for
that you need a +20 (which is a +16 if you have MW tools and an
assistant). With Int 14 you need to be 7th or 8th level to get these
skill levels, and such a skilled and noteworthy craftsman could well
have magical tools, making it even easier.

> 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.

They can also be examples of the village smith with an uncanny,
ledgendary even, talent with metal.


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

 

[Guest]

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

Bradd wrote:
>> 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).

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> It's easy at first level: 4 ranks + 3 skill focus + 2 MW tools + 2
> assistant = +11 ....

Duh, somehow I forgot Skill Focus.

> Thus the biggest hurdle to creating DC20 items (MW ones, most
> obviously) reliably is getting the MW tools, as 50gp per set.

If you've got talent (at least 12 in the key ability score), you can do
without the tools or the assistant. If you've got great talent (at least
16), you can skip both.

> To me the real test of craftsmanship is being able to produce a MW
> item with normal tools, no assistant, in a streeful environment (ie no
> 'tale 10') ....

I agree with no assistant, and maybe with normal tools, but I don't buy
the stressful environment requirement. That only makes sense if you're
doing craft work in a war zone, and somebody who can do that is quite
justified in having a little extra BAB & BSB.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Spinner]

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

>> 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.
[snip reasons why]

To some it remains so. I can see your argument though -- I think it works
well enough in the model given.

Spinner

 

[Guest]

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> > I am really having a hard time understanding how you are going to
sit
> > here and argue that a level 2 commoner is a better farmer than a
level
> > 20 commoner can be.
>
> I didn't say he was better, did I? In fact, I said just the opposite.
> What's with you and straw men today?
> Perhaps this will make it clear to you: Who's better at the Heal
skill,
> a 10th-level character with 13 ranks, or a 20th-level character with
23
> ranks? Answer: Neither, because the DCs don't go that high.

Patently incorrect, Bradd. Poison and disease DCs can be
arbitrarily high depending the power of the source, and if your healer
is contending with a magical or supernatural poison ... a random flip
to Bebelith indicates DC 24 for the standard size ... a 9th level
poison spell (such as heightened Poison) cast by a talented caster with
stat-boosting gear and focus feats could push DC 30. The 20th level
character can deal with such virulent effects under stressful
conditions with high confidence of success.


> It's the
> same for the farmer, except that the DCs are even lower.
> Once you get a couple of levels, you just don't get better.

Patently incorrect *again*, Bradd. Farming is a Profession. There
is no 'max DC'; the better you do the more wealth you generate. A
well-rounded farmer would also have a smattering of Handle Animal,
Heal, Knowledge/Nature, Survival (for weather prediction), and at least
one Craft. Several of these don't need many points invested to be
useful.

> There's no such thing as a
> "20th-level farmer," because farming just doesn't have 20 levels
worth
> of advancement.

Competent Heal wants 5 skill points or 2 + skill focus.
Competent Animal Handling wants 5 skill points or 2+ skill focus
Competent Knowledge/Nature wants 5 skill points or 2 + skill focus
Competent Survival wants 5 skill points or 2 + skill focus
Competent Craft wants 5 skill points or 2 + skill focus
We just burned 25 skill points (or 10 with 15 levels of feats),
Bradd.
And we haven't even given him his Profession yet!

> Anybody with that much experience is more than just a farmer.

Apparently anyone who wants to be a great farmer in D&D *needs* that
much experience - or great stats.

> Should I use smaller words, or are you getting it yet?

See previous commentary about making very bad arguments.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

Bradd wrote:
>> Nice smokescreen, weasel.

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> Says the boy who snips all the arguments and runs ....

Those weren't arguments. Those were pathetic attempts to cover up the
fact that you're out of your league again. I'd love to see one of the
serious history buffs like JB or Rupert take on your "arguments"; I
don't have the patience to rip them to shreds.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

Anivair wrote:
> I've neverminded going from a first level NPC class to a first level
> regular class at the start of the game ....

FWIW, I also think it's reasonable to "trade up" an NPC class when you
go from 1st to 2nd level. I'm also in favor of similar PC-class trades
based on the paladin->blackguard precent. I just don't see a need to
"fix" the commoner class. (Why RGFDers bother fooling around with NPC
classes all the time is beyond me. They just aren't that important for
the kinds of campaigns D&D is well-suited for.)
--
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:slrnd4j7l5.jg1.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Bradd wrote:
> >> Nice smokescreen, weasel.
>
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > Says the boy who snips all the arguments and runs ....
>
> Those weren't arguments. Those were pathetic attempts to cover up the
> fact that you're out of your league again. I'd love to see one of the
> serious history buffs like JB or Rupert take on your "arguments"; I
> don't have the patience to rip them to shreds.

All I hear is hot air, buckwheat. Man up! Show us why farmers should
increase in their all around defensive combat capability (hp, saves) just
from practicing with a bow. Show us why, if the training is far more
intensive than that, we shouldn't call such fully-capable militiamen Warrior
class characters instead. If able-bodied man-commoners warrant their combat
skills because they are, in fact, trained regularly in self defense, several
times a week, then what do you do with the women, who *did not*, but who
conceivably must be able to gain in skills over their lives all the same?

Like it or not, either the commoner's capability is "right", in which
case there is no appropriate NPC class for women with less combat
capability, or the Warrior is representative of these trained persons and
the commoner's capability is *too good* for those who are not receiving
training.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112121029.312800.256590@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> But here's what I dont get. Statment above. (I'll be concise). The
> model demonstrates why heroes can gain abilities that they haven't been
> training at durring the game and that's fine. but a commoner can't get
> better at fighting because they haven't been training at it.

A commoner *shouldn't* be training in combat as much as an adventuring
wizard does. That's not what their lifestyles are all about. Frontiersmen
have to defend themselves and serve as local law enforcement, but that's
what Warrior levels are for. Medeival townsfolk, servants, merchants ...
they're not undertaking regular arms training. Consequently it is very
strange to have game mechanics that give them the capabilities of a person
who trains in combat.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

Bradd wrote:
>> Those weren't arguments. Those were pathetic attempts to cover up the
>> fact that you're out of your league again. I'd love to see one of the
>> serious history buffs like JB or Rupert take on your "arguments"; I
>> don't have the patience to rip them to shreds.

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> All I hear is hot air, buckwheat. Man up! Show us why farmers should
> increase in their all around defensive combat capability (hp, saves)
> just from practicing with a bow ....

That's a blatant straw man: As I've already mentioned, the commoners
with significant BAB (more than +1 or so) typically are not mere
farmers. C'mon, even you can do better than this.
--
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
news:slrnd4jgnq.jg1.bradd+news@szonye.com:

> Bradd wrote:
>>> Those weren't arguments. Those were pathetic attempts to cover up the
>>> fact that you're out of your league again. I'd love to see one of the
>>> serious history buffs like JB or Rupert take on your "arguments"; I
>>> don't have the patience to rip them to shreds.
>
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>> All I hear is hot air, buckwheat. Man up! Show us why farmers should
>> increase in their all around defensive combat capability (hp, saves)
>> just from practicing with a bow ....
>
> That's a blatant straw man: As I've already mentioned, the commoners
> with significant BAB (more than +1 or so) typically are not mere
> farmers. C'mon, even you can do better than this.

If they're not mere farmers, why are they represented by the Commoner
class?

This game is fun!

 

[Guest]

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

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

Take a pill.

> Proposed solution:

Yes, see above.

> Comments?
> Suggestions?
> Corrections?

Get over it.

90%+ of the population /are/ 1st level commoners: obviously most of
them never advance. Those that do have done a good few "challenging"
things in life, but never gained more than a very basic ability to
defend themselves, nor broadened their skill base.
What exactly is wrong with narrowly focused highly skilled people
having a little bit of script immunity in a world were such high skill
comes from repeatedly overcoming great challenge?

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

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

"tussock" <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:424922f1$1@clear.net.nz...
> Ophidian wrote:
> What exactly is wrong with narrowly focused highly skilled people
> having a little bit of script immunity in a world were such high skill
> comes from repeatedly overcoming great challenge?

Hypocrisy.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

> "tussock" <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>> What exactly is wrong with narrowly focused highly skilled people
>> having a little bit of script immunity in a world were such high skill
>> comes from repeatedly overcoming great challenge?

Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Hypocrisy.

WTF?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

In article <slrnd4iimn.iit.bradd+news@szonye.com>,
Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:
>> "tussock" <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>>> What exactly is wrong with narrowly focused highly skilled people
>>> having a little bit of script immunity in a world were such high skill
>>> comes from repeatedly overcoming great challenge?
>
>Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Hypocrisy.
>
>WTF?

Perhaps he finds "script immunity" incompatible with "overcoming great
challenge"?
--
"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 wrote:
>> As I've already mentioned, the commoners with significant BAB (more
>> than +1 or so) typically are not mere farmers.

Chipacabra wrote:
> If they're not mere farmers, why are they represented by the Commoner
> class?

The commoner class is well-suited for any character with a narrow range
of primarily non-combat skills. In a medieval European setting, that
includes the vast majority of the working class, especially in rural
communities. As a rule of thumb, you can assume that urban skilled
workers tend to practice multiple trades (expert class), while all other
medieval workers specialize in a single craft or profession (commoner
class). For example, most village blacksmiths will be commoners, not
experts.

You'll find something similar in medieval warfare. The elite warriors --
barons and knights -- had extensive training in multiple weapons and
mounted combat. However, for every fully-trained and -equipped knight,
armies required multiple lesser warriors: light cavalrymen, archers, and
lots of infantry. Of those, light cavalry was by far the most demanding,
yet a D&D commoner could do it -- all you need is spear proficiency and
some ranks in Ride. The cost of equipment is a much greater barrier than
the class features are.

At the very least, I'd expect to find some commoners among the lesser
levies. Those who survive -- most of them -- become higher-level
commoners. Those with experience in several campaigns could rack up some
serious combat ability, and might even transition to the warrior
(social) class on merit. However, they need not take levels in the D&D
warrior class; a high-level commoner is good enough to represent a
mounted sergeant who "came up through the ranks."

I wouldn't expect to find a lot of those folks in the world -- most
members of the medieval warrior class are also members of the D&D
warrior class. That's not a problem, because there /aren't/ many
high-level commoners in D&D, and the warriors do generally surpass them
in both combat ability and numbers.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

Bradd wrote:
>> Once you get a couple of levels, you just don't get better [as a
>> farmer].

MisterMichael wrote:
> Patently incorrect *again*, Bradd. Farming is a Profession.

FWIW, the Profession rules are seriously botched with respect to
farmers. With just one rank in the skill, a farmer's income jumps about
tenfold. That suggests either that few farmers actually have ranks in
the profession (which is weird, since you need the skill to "perform the
profession's daily tasks") or that D&D farmers are a lot richer than
other manual laborers.

> There is no 'max DC'; the better you do the more wealth you generate.
> A well-rounded farmer would also have a smattering of Handle Animal,
> Heal, Knowledge/Nature, Survival (for weather prediction), and at
> least one Craft.

Over half of that list is bogus. Heal, Knowledge, and Survival are all
cross-class for the commoner, and for good reason. Knowledge is book-
learning, something that few commoners have the luxury to waste time on.
And I don't know where you got the idea that Survival is useful at all
for a village-dweller; it's purely for keeping "yourself and others safe
and fed in the wild." Commoners have little contact with wilderness. Of
those three, only Heal is even /useful/ to a typical commoner, and it's
out of character.

You've clearly made the common mistake of picking a long list of skills
because they sound vaguely useful, without actually reading TFM to see
that they're useless, out of character, or both.

>> Should I use smaller words, or are you getting it yet?

> See previous commentary about making very bad arguments.

Such as relying on an obviously broken rule and making foolish remarks
about several skills?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Matthias]

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

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:14:53 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com>
wrote:

>Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Seems to make sense to me, perhaps you need to reread my original post?
>
>What makes sense to you? Quote some context, dumbass.

I can't help you if you're not willing to think.

--

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

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "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.

Bullshit. An Ogre is a whole lot scarier than the best non-epic
Commoner in the game, and they're only CR 3.

Ogre : 39 hps, AC 16, +8 attack, 2d8+7 damage, 10' reach.
Com20: 50 hps, AC 10, +10/+5 attack, 1d6 damage.

And that presumes the Commoner has his preferred weapon to hand,
otherwise it's 1d3 subdual damage and drawing AoOs from armed opponents.
CR 2 armed, maybe CR 1 unarmed.

> Arguments. Need to be consistent.

In DnD, being ludicrously good at stuff lets you kick ass. It works
the other way too, kicking ass lets you be ludicrously good at stuff.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

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

"tussock" <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:4249788c@clear.net.nz...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > "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.
>
> Bullshit. An Ogre is a whole lot scarier than the best non-epic
> Commoner in the game, and they're only CR 3.

The fact that the best farmer on earth can actually *handle* three hits
from that ogre doesn't give you pause?

> In DnD, being ludicrously good at stuff lets you kick ass. It works
> the other way too, kicking ass lets you be ludicrously good at stuff.

That is *so* not the model the game uses. Please don't repeat such
tripe.
The game assumes that conflict increases personal power/inner
strength/etc., which is transformed into greater capability when filtered
*through the training* that each hero undertakes (all of which is
backgrounded). Capable people excel at the things in which they train.
This model explains why heroes gain 'new' powers they haven't practiced
during the experience-gaining events; experience is *not* simply "you got
better at the skills you used".
And that is why giving commoners combat capability *doesn't make any
sense* - because there is no reason to believe they would be training in
combat just as much as adventuring characters do!

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"tussock" wrote:
>> Bullshit. An Ogre is a whole lot scarier than the best non-epic
>> Commoner in the game, and they're only CR 3.

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> The fact that the best farmer on earth can actually *handle* three
> hits from that ogre doesn't give you pause?

"The best farmer on earth" only requires a level or two of commoner.
Somebody with 20 levels is significantly more than that. Note that a
20th-level commoner is quite wealthy and is unlikely to be grubbing
around in fields. It's much more likely that he's a minor member of the
warrior (social) class, with significant martial and political
responsibilities.

Face it, you've got blinders on -- you're ignoring both historical fact
and the game's demographic & wealth rules. I suspect your usual mix of
willful ignorance, arrogance, and laziness.
--
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:slrnd4j82o.jg1.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> "tussock" wrote:
> >> Bullshit. An Ogre is a whole lot scarier than the best non-epic
> >> Commoner in the game, and they're only CR 3.
>
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > The fact that the best farmer on earth can actually *handle* three
> > hits from that ogre doesn't give you pause?
>
> "The best farmer on earth" only requires a level or two of commoner.
> Somebody with 20 levels is significantly more than that.

I am really having a hard time understanding how you are going to sit
here and argue that a level 2 commoner is a better farmer than a level 20
commoner can be. Please stop being a fool in public, Bradd.

> Face it, you've got blinders on -- you're ignoring both historical fact
> and the game's demographic & wealth rules. I suspect your usual mix of
> willful ignorance, arrogance, and laziness.

The game's wealth rules apply to *commoners*?

-Michael