Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (
More info?)
"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:4dic5157iqehpr0gkdgrqmgpadna35mbcb@4ax.com...
>>>> Commoner IS a perfectly valid class, indeed it is canonical.
>>>
>>> I was not attempting to invalidate the class, only your assertion that
>>> they
>>> gain levels by farming.
>>
>>Since they don't gain levels by adventuring...
>
> They tend not to gain levels at all. Glad you've caught up with 5 years
> ago
> when the 3.0 DMG first came out.
Actually they DO. Commoner NPCs will typically be higher level than
PC-class NPCs. Highest level Commoner is generated as 4d4+ community
modifier, PC classses tend to be around 1d6. If anything, it's PC class
NPCs who tend not to advance. A village with a population of around 600
will have, on average, a 9th level Commoner around. The highest level
Fighter will typically be only 3rd level. A large city with a population of
18,000 will typically have THREE 19th level Commoners. Even a Thorpe with a
population of 40 can expect to have a 7th level Commoner handy.
>>> 3.0 PHB, Page 145: Characters spend time between adventures training,
>>> studiying, or otherwise practicing their skills. This work consolidates
>>> what they learn on adventures and keeps them in top form. If, for some
>>> reason, a character can't practice or train for an extended time, the DM
>>> may reduce XP awards or even cause him or her to lose experience points.
>>
>>
>>Which is an interesting quote in that it entirely supports what *I* said
>>and
>>refutes your claim. It doesn't say training is mandatory, note the use of
>>the word "may".
>
> The "may" refers to actions on the DM's part in case the practice is not
> available. In fact, you simpering moron, it directly contradicts you
> since...
It doesn't say "if practice is unavailable". In any case, the word may
means it is NOT mandatory. (never mind that it's talking about Characters,
not NPCs)
> IF YOU DON'T DO THE PRACTICE, YOU DON'T GET THE ADDED BAB.
It doesn't say THAT anywhere at all. Learn the rules, you moron.
>>Note THIS quote from 'Classes' > 'Experience and Levels': "The DM assigns
>>XP
>>to the characters at the end of each adventure based on what they have
>>accomplished. Characters accumulate XP from one adventure to another.
>>When
>>a character accumulates enough XP he or she attains a new character
>>level."
>>
>>Nothing about training there. Nothing about what the DM may or may not
>>assign XP for.
>
> Nothing about the mechanics of leveling up in there either, and thus
> wholely irrelevant. As usual.
Ah, I get it. 'Irrelevant' in your dictionary means it specifically refutes
whatever ignorant claim you were making.
>>>>So you've never learned ANYTHING at all by mere observation? You are, I
>>>>think, unique in that.
>>>
>>> I refer you again to the simpering moron comment above. Stop being
>>> stupid
>>> in public, Shawn. Try it in private too, for added thrills.
>>
>>Answer my questiuon. Have you or have you not ever learned by watching?
>>I
>>certainly learned a large number of skills by watching the trainer. 'Do
>>this to clear a weapon jam'. 'Do that to align the sights'. 'Do the other
>>to deploy a claymore'.
>
> And simply by watching these activities, you were able to perform them
> perfectly?
Certainly better than I had been able to before watching them. better ><
perfect.
Hmm, what is this soupy brown stuff all over the floor? Oh, it's
> the bullshit leaking out of your ears.
Not MY ears.... You're boring. You've lost this argument.
>> That does not make it the only
>>> part. You can be slightly better at swordfighting for having watched
>>> someone else do it, if only because you know to grab the sword on the
>>> handle and not the blade. But since that isn't enough to defend yourself
>>> in
>>> any way, then it doesn't matter.
>>
>>
>>Is someone who knows to hold that blunt end going to defend himself better
>>or worse than someone who grabs the shiny part? Take your time...
>
> Having done nothing more than watch swordfighting, they will defend
> themselves exactly the same.
Holding the sharp end? I don't think so...
>>>>So long as commoners face and overcome challenges appropriate to their
>>>>Commoner level they will continue to advance. Killing things isn't the
>>>>only
>>>>possible challenge.
>>>
>>> By all means, Shawn...name for us a CR15 encounter that a commoner would
>>> be required to overcome that is not killing.
>>
>>
>>'Using the Rules' > 'Story Awards' > 'CRs for Noncombat Encounters'-
>
> Note that story awards are specifically listed as a variant rule. They
> aren't even standard.
They're in the Core rules, they're as standard as anything else in the game.
>>Convince the adult red Dragon not to incinerate your village.
>
> Uh huh. With diplomacy as a cross-class skill, a level 18 commoner has 9
> ranks at best, vs a adult red dragon who will have roughly a 25 in the
> same
> skill gives our commoner roughly a 20% chance of succeeding, with death
> being the result of failure. That's under optimal circumstances, of
> course...which considering a dragon's fear aura and disinclination to
> simply walk away from a free meal, they would not be.
Ah, roll playing...
'nuff said.
> On the rather wild assumption that you give XP credit equivalent to
> killing
> the dragon for a success, you are still talking about 4-5 such
> conversations to advance a level (assuming the commoner does it himself,
> thus earning XP normally divided amongst 4 people). Ignoring the rather
> staggeringly low odds of these circumstances even coming up that many
> times, the odds of living through it are laughable at best. And that's
> just
> for one level. How do you propose getting from level 7 on up this way?
Where do the 3 19th level commoners in large towns come from? They're
getting XP from somewhere. The RULES are consistent. It's your ridiculous
interpretation of them that is nonsensical.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram