Upgrading classes

[Guest]

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

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.

 

[Guest]

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

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:3eek415tk3bbvb0dipk25ppkejcgt1180e@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:55:48 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
> > For some reason, commoners train in combat just as much as
adventuring
> > wizards.
>
> Only past 1st level.

Which is what we're arguing about. Commoner *advancement*.

> 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.

Disagree. The adventuring wizard must fight for his life on regular
basis. Ignoring such training would be criminal neglect.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

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

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>> 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).

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> Tsk. We must compare individuals of the same stats or it becomes a
> stats contest ....

That depends on whether you're comparing the classes per se or comparing
typical members of the class. All wizards use the elite array; typical
commoners do not. That means that a typical wizard does have an ability
score advantage over a typical commoner, and Rupert is correct.

If you give them the same stats, you get either an unusually tough
commoner or an unusually weak wizard. Once you've done that, you cannot
claim that the outcome is weird and use it as an absurdio attack,
because /you/ introduced the weirdness when you compared atypical
characters.

BTW, you make that mistake quite often in your arguments. You complain
that some result is weird, and that it's your opponent's fault, but it's
quite easy to trace the weirdness back to some premise that /you/
introduced.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

Anivair wrote:
> Note that survival is also useful for general foraging, tracking,
> starting a fire, and about a thousand other things that many farmers
> do regularly.

Since when do farmers regularly forage, track animals, or start a fire
without flint and steel? I think you're confusing medieval farmers with
19th-century frontiersmen, or maybe pre-agricultural hunt & gather
societies.

Survival is for getting along in the wild. Farmers do not live in the
wild. They farm so that people don't need to forage. They have woodwards
to deal with lost animals (see below). They have flint & steel so that
they don't need to know how to start a fire from scratch.

> Or do you think they just let animals go if they wander off the farm,
> Bradd?

Where is branded livestock going to wander to that it'll require a Track
check to find? Most villages should be surrounded by other villages or
by hunting preserves. If livestock wanders into a neighboring village,
the farmers there will return it to the brand owner (or maybe steal it).
If it wanders into hunting grounds, it's the village woodward's job to
track it. There's little reason for average farmers to have any tracking
ability beyond what you get for free with untrained Survival.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

Anivair wrote:
> 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.

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.

> 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.

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

 

[Guest]

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

> Anivair wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> 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.

Most farming was subsistance farming for most places before the modern
era. Most trade was barter. Quite simply, the people ate most of their
income, sold some of it, and paid the landlord in food, coin, and labor.
The exact arrangements depended on country, time period, and laws.

>
>
>>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.
>
>
> 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.

Which country? Medieval life in Poland was considerably different from
Italy, which was considerably different from England. Which part of the
middle ages? Serfdom came into popularity at different times in
different countries. In some countries, it never took hold.

Give a try reading about medieval life in Eastern Europe. That part of
Europe did things quite differently. If you have the constitution for
dry reading, try Norman Davies. Poland is its own weird place, but you
can't make up stories like that.

CH

 

[Guest]

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

David Johnston wrote:
>> 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.

Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
> All sample NPCs in the DMG (and everywhere else I've seen) get max hp
> at 1st lv.

And IIRC the Monster Manual states that anything with a PC class level
is assumed to have elite stats (ability scores & max HP at 1st level).
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

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

I'm assuming most Ogres will be encountered on the prowl, and most
commoners will be encountered being all common and unoffensive. If I
tool an Ogre up with a bit more gear he'd be tougher too.
OK, commoners /can/ be in the militia, but my _leveled_ ones tend
to be respected elders, barkeeps, minor diplomats, or most often
craftsmen and guildsmen.

Forge of weaponsmithing +5 is the usual type of equipment.

> 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.

Yep, aside from Combat monsters being fairly likely to have a
warrior level or two for the better armour and weapons: and if he's just
got combat kit ready to use, and combat feats, he's hardly likely to be
described as "untrained in combat".

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "tussock" <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:4249788c@clear.net.nz...
>
<Re: Commoners>
>> 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?

The farmer who tells the king how the grain should be priced each
year, who sailed with the grey company to find a replacement for the
blighted beans, who tells the druids where to spend their spells for
best effect, who's primarily creditied for the increase in the size of
the metropolis, who organised a good yeild after the Orcs razed the
crops and saved the kingdom from starvation?
You want him to die in one or two hits from an Ogre?

Me: I'll just assume that like the 1 in 1000 random Com1's who
survive three rounds against and Ogre, so will he.

>> 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.

It's not the model of how PCs improve, but it is a universal truth
of the world DnD is played in.

<snip>
> 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!

Might I suggest that the reason to assume they are training (in
their own narrow little way), is that they get better at it?

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

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

Bradd W. Szonye 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.

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

More than any other single class, yes, but high-level commoners are
still a small fraction of all high-level characters, despite the fact
that about 90% of all NPCs are commoners.

For example, in a metropolis, you'll find about 1,500 characters with PC
class levels or more than one NPC-class level.[1] Of those, about 8 will
be high-level commoners and another 16 will be medium-level. Each other
class should have about 4 high-level NPCs and 8 medium-level NPCs
(except for experts, who should have about 6 and 12, respectively). That
makes for a total of 70 high-level and 140 medium-level NPCs, if my
estimates are correct. That makes commoners a little less than 12% of
the high-level population, despite the fact that they're more than 90%
of the general population. Relatively few commoners make it to high
level. (Relatively few of them make it to 2nd level, for that matter.)

Here's another useful comparison. Divide the population into three
groups: warriors, spellcasters, and workers (much like the three
medieval social classes). The warrior group includes aristocrats,
barbarians, fighters, monks, paladins, rangers, rogues, and warriors.
The spellcasting group includes adepts, bards, clerics, druids,
sorcerers, and wizards. The worker group includes commoners and experts.

A metropolis will have, on average, about 32 high-level warriors, 24
high-level spellcasters, and 10 high-level workers. Contrast that with
the general population (all levels), which will comprise about 22,500
workers, 2,000 warriors, and 500 spellcasters:

high-
level general
Workers 15% 90%
Warriors 48% 8%
Spellcasters 36% 2%

Given more representative groupings, the working classes have far fewer
high-level NPCs than anything else, even if you include experts.

These figures are for metropolises, where you'll find most of the
high-level characters. It's not so lopsided for smaller communities,
where workers tend to make up a larger fraction of the high-level
community, but high-level commoners are still pretty rare.

[1] I don't have my DMG handy, so I'm relying on memory for some figures
and http://www.3rdedition.org/articles/viewer.asp?ID=72 for others.
[2] I'm counting 5th-10th level as "medium" and 11th-20th as "high."
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

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

It's one of his favorite argument tactics: Attempt a reductio argument
by inventing an absurd premise. Sometimes he insists that his silly
premise follows from the originals, and sometimes it looks like he's
just hoping that nobody will notice the trickery.

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> Please explain how any craftsman can get better at their craft if you
> believe doing so requires martial conflict!

A craftsman does not need 20 levels to "get better at their craft." In
fact, most of the getting better takes place before 1st level, during
the apprentice years that D&D doesn't even attempt to model.

Also, explain how a craftsman advances beyond medium levels /without/
getting into some kind of martial conflict. Yes, D&D characters can earn
XP without combat, but it's increasingly difficult once the low-end CRs
fall off the XP chart.

Frankly, your assumption that 20th-level commoners are "farmers" is
silly; it directly contradicts the D&D demographics rules. 20th-level
commoners only appear in urban areas. Rural commoners top out at 16th
level, and most rural settlements never see a commoner above 10th level.
But it wouldn't be an argument with MSB without some ridiculous
hyperbole, would it?

Looking at the /actual/ demographics rules, you'll find that a typical
village only has one mid- to high-level commoner, and even metropolises
only have about 25. High-level commoners are about as rare as mid-level
aristocrats, warriors, or fighters.

Given that high-level commoners have decent combat ability, that
commoners don't need high levels to get decent non-combat ability, and
that commoners are roughly comparable to the "warrior" classes in
numbers, it seems obvious that high-level commoners are the few working-
class people with significant military experience. Well, not obvious to
you, but then you think that 20th-level farmers are possible in D&D.

> 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.

Go ahead and name a few high-level challenges that don't involve the
threat of combat, then.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

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

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.

> And while the idea of a feudal system is still valid, using earth's as
> a basis is kind of off point.

WTF?

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

 

[Guest]

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

In article <slrnd4m1a8.nrj.bradd+news@szonye.com>,
Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:
>Go ahead and name a few high-level challenges that don't involve the
>threat of combat, then.

Hmm. Well, solving the riddle of the Sphinx involves the threat of being
eaten if you fail, so that "involves the threat of combat". Similarly
negotiating peace with the nearby barbarian horde also "involves the threat of
combat". But there ought to be some leeway in viewing these as non-combat
encounters (in that the presumption is you die if you fail, if you don't have
significant combat skills).

What about nasty (high-damage) traps? IIRC CR is based on the damage range.
--
"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...)

 

[Matthias]

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

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:01:08 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com>
wrote:

>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?

Too apathatic to return any common courtesy, Brad. Fair is fair, I 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?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 02:20:04 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com>
scribed into the ether:

>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.

If the farmer isn't having all of his income taxed away in various land
taxes (assuming he even owns the land in the first place), then yes,
farmers would be a lot richer than other manual laborers.

That's not just game-true, it is historical-true as well. It is easy to pay
some unskilled hump a pittance to nail a few boards together, or collect
night soil, or some other shitty job (pun intended)...getting someone to
put in the effort and time of proper farming (which is a lot more than
plant-seed, water, wait) is more difficult. To say nothing of the fact that
food is a resource of no small value.

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:58:02 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:

>"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>news:3eek415tk3bbvb0dipk25ppkejcgt1180e@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:55:48 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>> > For some reason, commoners train in combat just as much as
>adventuring
>> > wizards.
>>
>> Only past 1st level.
>
> Which is what we're arguing about. Commoner *advancement*.
>
>> 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.
>
> Disagree. The adventuring wizard must fight for his life on regular
>basis. Ignoring such training would be criminal neglect.

Not so. A wizard gets involved in fights on a regular basis, but that's not
the same thing as fighting himself. No reason you should get better with
your dagger when you stand in the back row hurling spells.

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:40:02 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> scribed into the ether:

>"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!

Story and RP rewards. Winning barroom brawls for defeated opponent XP. A
farmer won't get many, but he also doesn't need many to get to 3rd level or
so.

A 20th level farmer is going to have to have endured some real fighting to
get there, so having decent combat abilities is not out of line..if he
couldn't fight well, then he'd be dead. Of course, it is relevant to note
that 20th level farmers are going to be *REALLY* rare.

 

[Matthias]

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

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:48:28 GMT, Chad Lubrecht <chad.lubrecht@verizon.net>
wrote:

>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?

Would you consider a 20th level commoner with +5 BAB and +3 F/R/W to have
"significant combat ability"? Consider how he would fare against 20th level PCs.
He'll be a speedbump.

--

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

 

[Matthias]

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

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 03:42:20 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

>"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.

The saves do go to +3 though. That may have been what you saw. USENET doesn't
make tablemaking easy.

--

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

 

[Matthias]

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

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:00:52 +0000 (UTC), tsang@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Donald
Tsang) wrote:

>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,

Funny. How about swarms ... ?

--

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?)

Bradd wrote:
>> 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?

Matthias wrote:
> Too apathatic to return any common courtesy, Brad. Fair is fair, I think.

I see that you're stupid /and/ rude.
--
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:slrnd4grdt.g97.bradd+news@szonye.com...

> You should also know, from past discussions in this newsgroup, that some
> medieval kingdoms trained all able-bodied men in combat. For example,
> England required ubiquitous training and practice in the longbow.

I am tempted to make a joke.

--
^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?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:04:02 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> scribed
into the ether:

>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.

Ok, Matthias, comprehend the following:

I think that he shouldn't do it.

I've provided exactly as much context as you did, all you have to do is be
willing to think.

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:35:55 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David
Johnston) carved upon a tablet of ether:

> 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.

The assumption is that they are. While the DMG might mention that they
need not be, I've never seen one that wasn't.


--
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:
>> 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.

Clawhound wrote:
> Most farming was subsistance farming for most places before the modern
> era ....

That simply isn't true. With subsistence farming, you can't have
civilization, because urban areas live off the agricultural margin.
Europe, Asia, and northern Africa have had sufficient surplus to support
civilization for at least two thousand years. If you're talking about
the whole world, and not just the parts that D&D players usually care
about, then "most places" have done better than subsistence for at least
four hundred years.

>> 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.

> Which country? Medieval life in Poland was considerably different from
> Italy, which was considerably different from England. Which part of
> the middle ages? Serfdom came into popularity at different times in
> different countries. In some countries, it never took hold.
>
> Give a try reading about medieval life in Eastern Europe. That part of
> Europe did things quite differently. If you have the constitution for
> dry reading, try Norman Davies. Poland is its own weird place, but you
> can't make up stories like that.

I'll concede that my knowledge of the medieval period focuses mainly on
western Europe, and that I know the 1066-1348 period better than the
early half of the era. On the other hand, I'm not going to take your
word for it, especially not after claims like the one about subsistence
farming.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd