Upgrading classes

[Guest]

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

Matthias wrote:
> Seems to make sense to me, perhaps you need to reread my original post?

Bradd's point, I think, is merely that it's inaccurate to say that
you're applying a Commoner template, for example, to the "base monster
writeup" for an elf, since there is no base monster writeup for an elf.
Just a writeup for an Elf War1. You're really just creating an
archetypical Elf Com1, Elf Exp1, and so forth instead.

-Will

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

> For some reason, commoners train in combat just as much as
adventuring
> wizards.

I believe that's because the ammount that we are meant to assume that
adventuring wizards (and commoners) train in combat is "not at all".
Any improvement at combat that either of them receives is incidental to
general improvement. An adventuring wizard who actually trains in
combat is a fighter/wizard (or any other class with a better BAB and/or
better HP).

I'm not sure I personally like that logic, but that seems to be the
intent, since they (commoners and wizards) have the worst BAB and HP
possible.

 

[Guest]

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

> 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.

You're ignoring the reality of it. Being a farmer brings in a goodly
ammount of money. But a lot of it goes to feeding your farmhands, your
four children, your wife, your cows, purchasing new land and new
animals, new seed, etc, paying land tax on all that land you have, and
constant repairs and upgrades.

What youi mean is that they have a lot of money flowing in, but
remember that they also have a lot flowing out. they don't make as
much as you think. Take a look at what a horse costs.

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

> And that postulate is wrong. Stat bonuses allow each commoner to
work
> to his strengths. You don't have to be so good that you can take 10
on
> everything and automatically succeed; that's the measure of mastery
of a
> topic, IMO. The 8 skill points they start with are more than enough
to take
> 4 ranks in their main capability and a rank each in the relevant
> trained-onlies .
>
> With stat bonuses, they can get by. They just have to work harder
at
> some things

True enough. With stat bonuses all things become possible (a personal
gripe, but it's the system, so I'll let it go for simplicity). And a
lot of the relevant skills for living life on a farm (survival, several
crafts, several professions, heal, handle animal, really as many as you
want to throw in there) can be used untrained. So you don't really
have to be trained in roof patching to patch your roof in hte rain.
But then again, how many times do you do it before it constitutes a
rank?

obviously that's an abstract answer. It seems to me that a first level
commoner can get by but will likely neither be successful nor
particularly comfortable. And I think that's just perfect for the
class. I think most commoners are barely scraping by and that's as it
should be. My point was that there are a ton of skills that can be
applied to being a commoner (esspecially a farmer) and I don't think a
level one commoner has enough skill pooints to be a *good* farmer. but
then again, that's why he's level one.

Really, i think a lot of this level fear comes from second edition days
when commoners were some fictional zero level and were really not much
more than walking 2 hp bags of flesh with some NWP. I think that
mentality has really crept back in this regard. That's the feel I get
anyway.

Realistically, i don't think the commoner class was ever intended to go
to 20 levels in a reasonable setting. I think the idea was that a
commoner with a few levels on him was the head of large household or a
really skilled craftsman or something. The reason the class goes to
level 20 is that that's how classes work. D&D seems to have
established "class" as a series of 20 predefines levels. I don't think
it's more mysterious than that.

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:

> > I believe that's because the ammount that we are meant to assume
that
> > adventuring wizards (and commoners) train in combat is "not at
all".
>
> Such an assumption is idiotic. Someone can eventually gain the
physical
> combat skills of a ~10th level warrior *without training*?
> Bullshit.
> Remember, claims of "training on the fly" are *wrong* in D&D; the
model
> breaks down the moment a wizard anywhere in any campaign never
engages in
> melee for a level. The skills a character gets are the result of a
> training regiment.

Which of course breaks down when the character has no training regiment
either. A lazy fat wizard who never walks without the aid of magic and
never so much as looks in the general direction of a weapon and uses
magic for all his encounters still advances the same.

In retrospect, i'm not sure "it is assumed" is a phrase that applies
well in this respect, because all characters are different. A wizard
with no training regimen who "overcomes signifigant challenges" as you
say and who has never seen combat ever will still eventually level and
gain combat ebility. The fact of the matter is this is a flaw of a
level based system. I don't think we have much option but to live with
it.

 

[Guest]

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Bradd wrote:

> 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.

According to the class/level distributions in creating cities in the
DMG there are *more* high level commoners than anything else.

- Justisaur

 

[Guest]

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

David Johnston wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:33:14 +1200, Rupert Boleyn
> <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:55:48 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
> ><mistermichael@earthlink.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:
> >
> >> Each can lay into each other with a staff. Each has the *same*
hit
> >> points. Each has the same armor. Each has the same BAB. Each has
the same
> >> damage potential.
> >>
> >> For some reason, commoners train in combat just as much as
adventuring
> >> wizards.
> >
> >Only past 1st level. Wizards have more weapon proficiencies and more
> >hit points (being a PC class wizards are automatically assumed to be
> >'elite', and thus get max HP at 1st level).
>
> Hold on. I knew that PCs get max HP at 1st level, but does that also
> apply to NPC wizards? Surely not all of them are elite.

All sample NPCs in the DMG (and everywhere else I've seen) get max hp
at 1st lv.

- Justisaur

 

[Guest]

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

"MisterMichael" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1112152413.396394.249460@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

> > Over half of that list is bogus. Heal, Knowledge, and Survival are
> all
> > cross-class for the commoner, and for good reason.
>
> Irrelevant. Best. Farmer. In. The. World.

The best farmer in the world is the highest level Druid.

 

[Guest]

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

> Again, you're clearly thinking of industrial-age farming, not
medieval
> farming. A medieval farmer is more like a modern farmhand; the local
> lord is the "farmer" who collects the vast majority of the income.
> Speaking of which, the income rules for Profession make a lot more
sense
> if the landlord takes ranks in Profession (Farmer) instead of the
> peasants.

> Medieval farmers didn't own horses; the landlords did. The important
> peasants did own oxen (15 gp), which they shared with the whole
village
> to plow the fields.

you're making the classic blunder of assuming that games are set in
feudal england. They're not. Way back at the inception of gaming this
may have been the idea, but I think most of us have moved past that.
And while the idea of a feudal system is still valid, using earth's as
a basis is kind of off point.

That aside, a farmer (read guy who operates a large farm on which he
and his family do the vast majority of the work) Still has a huge
ammount of overhead. Even if he doesn't have to buy horses (and if
he's a horse farmer who actually owns his farm he certainly does) he
still has to buy a great deal. Assuming he has anyhhting ot do with
normal city economics. Deep in hte country that may not apply, of
course, YMMV.

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:R2i2e.7198$H06.4922@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "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.

They wouldn't. They'd have the appropriate martial weapon feat. The
commoners with levels (and therefore experience) would be the people with
the better HP and saves. The DMG states (and I'm paraphrasing from memory)
that most commoners will never advance beyond 2nd level and the ones who
do will likely have lived in a dangerous border area etc.

English longbowmen weren't warriours. On extended campaign they might gain
warriour levels and a broader familiarity with other equipment but it
would be inappropriate to model the combat experienced levies from among
the Northumbrians or those who lived on the Welsh borders as warriours.
Medieval armies were rare, medieval raids were not.

> 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.

That's a result of D&D not being sexist. Why not assume that its only the
men who ever advance in levels because they are the only ones who gain
experience if you want to model things appropriately? You might care to
notice that men dominated the upper echelons of all the professions and
trades too.

 

[Matthias]

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

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:33:42 GMT, Will Green <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXoX.com>
wrote:

>Matthias wrote:
>> Seems to make sense to me, perhaps you need to reread my original post?
>
>Bradd's point, I think, is merely that it's inaccurate to say that
>you're applying a Commoner template, for example, to the "base monster
>writeup" for an elf, since there is no base monster writeup for an elf.
> Just a writeup for an Elf War1. You're really just creating an
>archetypical Elf Com1, Elf Exp1, and so forth instead.

I understood that from the beginning; it says quite plainly under such monsters
as Drow that it's a warrior. Extracting the 'warrior' bits gives you the basic
monster writeup, a 0-HD creature (such as the basic racial writeups in the Races
section of the PHB). Then you tack on the 'commoner 1' or whatever to get a
playable monster. Just because I don't phrase things in language Brad
understands doesn't make me wrong, it makes Brad less intelligent.

--

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?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:39:57 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
<bradd+news@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> 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.)

I don't know either. I've never yet had a commoner's level matter for
more than how big their Craft bonus was, and that only a couple of
times. Combat prowess has come up for a couple of experts and a few
aristocrats, but by and large the only NPC classes which level matters
for are adepts ("what spells can they cast?"), and warriors. As a
result it's just not worth the bother fiddling with them.


--
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?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:46:19 +1200, tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> 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.

Or he attacks at -4 with some other weapon. Also, even with no armour
proficiencies if he invests a few hundred GP he can have MW studded
Leather and a MW light shield, take no penalties and have AC14.

Thus he's likely actually: AC14, +11/+6, 1d8/x3 (morningstar). Or
AC13, +11/+6, 1d8/x3, 10' reach (longspear). Still not very
impressive, though having 7-8 feats can help a bit. A 'combat monster'
Com20 would have a decent weapon, better armour, an some combat-useful
feats. I doubt he'd be better than about CR5, though - aside from
having lots of cool kit, and the right choices there will up his CR a
bit.


--
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?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:11:27 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> > 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?

Not at all. This is D&D, and it's about heroic adventure. Of course
the best farmer in the world is tough. Being a Farmer is about
Eenduring (and so are most things peasants do). A Com20 is an almost
mythic being, so of course they are tougher than is realistic.

> 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!

Read those two sentences again. Think about it.


--
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?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:gktj41530b1t11qjlnd6i20o5jqqrffh7l@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:11:27 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
> <mistermichael@earthlink.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:
> > > 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?
>
> Not at all. This is D&D, and it's about heroic adventure.

*FARMER*.

> > 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!
>
> Read those two sentences again. Think about it.

I'm well aware of the argument some make that "D&D commoners all train
in combat, too!". However, this fantasy world where literally *every*
*single* *person* on the ENTIRE PLANET is in fact a regularly training
combatant doesn't sound very much like any of the fantasies I've ever read.
There are noncombatants, and there are combatants. Being broadly talented
(or particularly expert at a commercial skill) DOES NOT CORRELATE WITH
COMBAT SKILL in reality, yet it does - decisively - in D&D. This is silly.


-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fmq2e.577$EE2.515@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:gktj41530b1t11qjlnd6i20o5jqqrffh7l@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:11:27 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
> > <mistermichael@earthlink.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:
> > > > 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?
> >
> > Not at all. This is D&D, and it's about heroic adventure.
>
> *FARMER*.

Please explain how he gained 20 levels if he is just a farmer. Why are you
having such a problem with the idea that modelling a concept
inappropriately produces absurd results?

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:34:36 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> 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.

But a commoner is worse than a wizard at mundane combat - they have
fewer proficiencies, and lower hit points (unless they're an elite
commoner, but then they're not normal anyway).


--
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?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:iqtj411jb5c69f2rgd5ilthkf36hri5690@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:34:36 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
> But a commoner is worse than a wizard at mundane combat - they have
> fewer proficiencies, and lower hit points (unless they're an elite
> commoner, but then they're not normal anyway).

Tsk. We must compare individuals of the same stats or it becomes a stats
contest. All we have to do is pick a dumb, tough, and strong commoner and
he'll mop the floor with a same levelled wizard in a straight slugfest due
to the +4 to hit & +6 damage he gets with his staff. What do we learn about
commoner & wizard training from that? Nothing.

Each can lay into each other with a staff. Each has the *same* hit
points. Each has the same armor. Each has the same BAB. Each has the same
damage potential.

For some reason, commoners train in combat just as much as adventuring
wizards.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> Anivair wrote:
> > you're making the classic blunder of assuming that games are set in
> > feudal england. They're not. Way back at the inception of gaming
> > this may have been the idea, but I think most of us have moved past
> > that ....
>
> Unless you've moved on to industrial-age farming, which is not even
> remotely appropriate for a swords & sorcery fantasy game, you're
talking
> bollocks.

Of course I'm not. You're saying that in order to so simply farming
with the technology level of the feudal era we need to assume the
feudal system. Assuming that there's some lord who owns your
commoner's farm and leveys him out as labor for his profit is a) a
faulty assumption and b) not relevant to the fact that the archtype of
a household leader who's family runs a functional farm is perfect as a
commoner. You are, in effect, confusing the class comoner with the
commoners of the feudal era.

> > That aside, a farmer (read guy who operates a large farm on which
he
> > and his family do the vast majority of the work) ....
>
> ... does not belong in a swords & sorcery game, especially not one
with
> a more-or-less feudal setting.

Again with teh feudal setting. Leave my in game economics out of a
discussion about class.

 

[Guest]

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

Anivair wrote:

> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>
>
>>Again, you're clearly thinking of industrial-age farming, not
>
> medieval
>
>>farming. A medieval farmer is more like a modern farmhand; the local
>>lord is the "farmer" who collects the vast majority of the income.
>>Speaking of which, the income rules for Profession make a lot more
>
> sense
>
>>if the landlord takes ranks in Profession (Farmer) instead of the
>>peasants.
>
>
>>Medieval farmers didn't own horses; the landlords did. The important
>>peasants did own oxen (15 gp), which they shared with the whole
>
> village
>
>>to plow the fields.
>
>
> you're making the classic blunder of assuming that games are set in
> feudal england. They're not. Way back at the inception of gaming this
> may have been the idea, but I think most of us have moved past that.
> And while the idea of a feudal system is still valid, using earth's as
> a basis is kind of off point.
>
> That aside, a farmer (read guy who operates a large farm on which he
> and his family do the vast majority of the work) Still has a huge
> ammount of overhead. Even if he doesn't have to buy horses (and if
> he's a horse farmer who actually owns his farm he certainly does) he
> still has to buy a great deal. Assuming he has anyhhting ot do with
> normal city economics. Deep in hte country that may not apply, of
> course, YMMV.
>

To add a few things:

Barter System. That's where wealth really is.

Food = wealth in a sustinence farming system.

Finally, don't forget extended families. Your father might give you a
colt or a ox, or a pair of sheep to start a herd. Families actively
looked after each other.

CH

 

[Guest]

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

"Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:424a822b$0$371$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > Not at all. This is D&D, and it's about heroic adventure.
> >
> > *FARMER*.
>
> Please explain how he gained 20 levels if he is just a farmer. Why are you
> having such a problem with the idea that modelling a concept
> inappropriately produces absurd results?

Please explain how any craftsman can get better at their craft if you
believe doing so requires martial conflict!
Like it or not, there are mechanisms for the mundane to improve their
skills (ie; *time* and *overcoming significant challenges*) that don't
involve heroic adventure.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112189544.985910.60870@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > For some reason, commoners train in combat just as much as
adventuring
> > wizards.
>
> I believe that's because the ammount that we are meant to assume that
> adventuring wizards (and commoners) train in combat is "not at all".

Such an assumption is idiotic. Someone can eventually gain the physical
combat skills of a ~10th level warrior *without training*?
Bullshit.
Remember, claims of "training on the fly" are *wrong* in D&D; the model
breaks down the moment a wizard anywhere in any campaign never engages in
melee for a level. The skills a character gets are the result of a
training regiment.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

"Anivair" <anivair@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112190297.299788.248790@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> MisterMichael wrote:
> I'm with MSB here. For a farmer to be even competant there are about a
> dozen skills that he ought to have. Everything from tending crops to
> birthing calves (heal again? Maybe handle animal, though it's a
> stretch) to mending his own clothes and shoes and repairing his
> thatched roof when it rains. I remember a thread like this n ot long
> ago (that I agreed with) that postulated that commoners don't have
> nearly enough skills to be as competant as most commoners should be.

And that postulate is wrong. Stat bonuses allow each commoner to work
to his strengths. You don't have to be so good that you can take 10 on
everything and automatically succeed; that's the measure of mastery of a
topic, IMO. The 8 skill points they start with are more than enough to take
4 ranks in their main capability and a rank each in the relevant
trained-onlies .

With stat bonuses, they can get by. They just have to work harder at
some things

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

Will Green wrote:
>> Bradd's point, I think, is merely that it's inaccurate to say that
>> you're applying a Commoner template, for example, to the "base
>> monster writeup" for an elf, since there is no base monster writeup
>> for an elf ....

Exactly.

Matthias wrote:
> I understood that from the beginning; it says quite plainly under such
> monsters as Drow that it's a warrior. Extracting the 'warrior' bits
> gives you the basic monster writeup, a 0-HD creature ....

Actually, that gives you the "Drow as Characters" section of the entry,
which you can use just like the race descriptions in the PHB. There is
no such thing as a "0-HD creature." More to the point, there is no
"basic monster writeup" for the humanoid races, only a sample warrior --
which Will already noted above.

What you've described is, in fact, exactly the same as limiting the
commoner class to only one level. Except that your method is more
complicated and uses nonstandard terminology. You've reinvented the
wheel, only stupider.

> Just because I don't phrase things in language Brad understands
> doesn't make me wrong, it makes Brad less intelligent.

I don't normally make fun of people for misspelling my name. However,
the irony here is too great. My name is spelled correctly in the article
you're replying to. Were you too stupid to copy it accurately, or just
too lazy?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:55:48 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Each can lay into each other with a staff. Each has the *same* hit
> points. Each has the same armor. Each has the same BAB. Each has the same
> damage potential.
>
> For some reason, commoners train in combat just as much as adventuring
> wizards.

Only past 1st level. Wizards have more weapon proficiencies and more
hit points (being a PC class wizards are automatically assumed to be
'elite', and thus get max HP at 1st level). What's wierd about this is
that it's the wrong way round - an adventuring wizard should start the
same, or worse, than the commoner, and improve faster.


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