Why commoners are always 1st level


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:

Level 20 commoner:

If you ever played a console RPG - where the starting town has low level random encounters, but as you progress across the map, things get tougher and tougher - but those tougher areas still have towns. Eventually you reach some area blighted by the influence of demonic forces or invading dimensions, with random encounters that could smack down early game bosses in a single hit. But there's always one last town for buying endgame equipment and resting up in this area.

The farmers that live there, in that town. They're the 20th level commoners. 1st level farmer has to deal with insects eating his crops. 20th level farmer has to deal with marauding balors and rain comprised of liquefied souls of the damned.

Like zoned monsters in MMOs like WoW or Everquest, where sparrows and hamsters in the wrong areas have 700 HP.

They happen in video games, but do 20th level commoners do this nonsense in Pathfinder? Nobody is mental enough to till the soil around the Worldwound, but even in extremely dangerous areas there are low-level NPCs doing their jobs, because the mechanic of everyone having similar power level isn't needed in PF.

For example, the Demon Lord Nocticula has her city in the Midnight Isles in the Abyss. It's clearly the sort of place only high-level PCs can get to in the first place, but once there, there are slaves and shopkeepers and innkeepers, with ordinary people like Tieflings behind the bar and selling goods. Same with the cosmopolitan City of Brass in the plane of fire. The PCs aren't meant to fight these people, so Level is irrelevant .


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm actually a huge fan of the leveling NPC classes. Back in the FR supplements of 2e era, it seemed that every innkeeper was a former adventurer with a +2 sword under his bed. That, I'm sure, was partly to make sure that not all NPCs the PCs encountered were pushover 0-level characters. NPC classes freed us up from that particular silliness and a grizzled farmer could be formidable for relatively low-leveled parties without having to have gone tomb raiding for a few levels.

And I have no trouble with a 5th level barmaid being a better thief than a 1st level rogue. Those 5 levels of hers represent years spent in a dynamic environment with frequent challenges (like carousing adventurers) while that 1st level rogue is new to the trade.

I don't generally stat any out above 10th level though, and those are pretty exceptional. I might stat Farmer Maggot out as a 10th level hobbit farmer, for example.

I do agree a bit with the OP, though. I think more NPCs could get statted out at higher levels than 1st to represent more experience in the role - but I also understand that the APs are designing challenges for the anticipated level of the PCs at that time in the AP. So there's definitely some trade off going on. When in doubt, justify it to yourself by saying that most of the recruits/NPCs are just come of age and you're dealing with the greenest possible ages of people.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:
ryric wrote:

Level 20 commoner:

If you ever played a console RPG - where the starting town has low level random encounters, but as you progress across the map, things get tougher and tougher - but those tougher areas still have towns. Eventually you reach some area blighted by the influence of demonic forces or invading dimensions, with random encounters that could smack down early game bosses in a single hit. But there's always one last town for buying endgame equipment and resting up in this area.

The farmers that live there, in that town. They're the 20th level commoners. 1st level farmer has to deal with insects eating his crops. 20th level farmer has to deal with marauding balors and rain comprised of liquefied souls of the damned.

Like zoned monsters in MMOs like WoW or Everquest, where sparrows and hamsters in the wrong areas have 700 HP.

They happen in video games, but do 20th level commoners do this nonsense in Pathfinder? Nobody is mental enough to till the soil around the Worldwound, but even in extremely dangerous areas there are low-level NPCs doing their jobs, because the mechanic of everyone having similar power level isn't needed in PF.

For example, the Demon Lord Nocticula has her city in the Midnight Isles in the Abyss. It's clearly the sort of place only high-level PCs can get to in the first place, but once there, there are slaves and shopkeepers and innkeepers, with ordinary people like Tieflings behind the bar and selling goods. Same with the cosmopolitan City of Brass in the plane of fire. The PCs aren't meant to fight these people, so Level is irrelevant .

I would amend that to "no NPC is crazy enough to farm the Worldwound." PCs can be that crazy, if not more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:
Franz Lunzer wrote:

Yeah, that NPC Gallery is great: NPC Gallery

Queen: Aristocrat 12
King: Aristocrat 16

It's an abstraction, and it rather assumes the PCs only interact socially. The new Villain Codex considers such NPCs as people one might fight, and I don't think anyone has any NPC levels. In your royal example, the ones in Villain Codex are massively more powerful, the King is a bluffing Rogue, the Queen is a mirror-scrying Witch (she is awesome btw) and the advisor/vizier is of course an evil Mesmerist.

Other NPC royalty are very powerful too if they are more than just plot tokens. Queen Iliosa from Crimson Throne and Queen Galfrey from Wrath of the Righteous are both formidable and high level.

Then there is Queen Abrogail II...

On the other hand, I would prefer if every royality was not "almost a runelord" in power.

Some royality are just normal blue bloods.

The Exchange

Who you recruit is not the same as the best for the job available.

Who you recruit is not guaranteed to be a character focused on being a soldier.

You are throwing a net out for quantity not quality.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In many cases, the local police force is often presented as being a bit better than the characters, at least at the start. For example, in Rise of the Runelords, the Sheriff at the start of the game is 4th level. That said, many locations may work on something of a 'Citadel' strategy. They want to keep the best people in-town to protect it, and the people who get sent out are basically what the town can spare from its normal defenses. By the time the PCs are done, they might indeed be stronger than the locals thanks to all their experience, at which point they're likely to move on to things more appropriate for their level of skill. XD


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Gulthor wrote:

I mean, you could see this in a Mr. Bean-esque character, right?

He'd have things like toughness, endurance, diehard, dodge, mobility, a legendary item.

And Mr. Bean's item is his mini ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Does the concept of Level 0 exist in Pathfinder?

No it does not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my games, I pretty much never allow NPC classes past 1 unless there's a reason for it.

Honestly, even the vast majority of trained soldiers don't see past 1, IMO. Take a level 1 Warrior from the GMG, for example. He's a grown man that's proficient in all kinds of weapons and armor, strong enough to lift 200 pounds over his head while still able to move fairly quickly, and tough enough to take blows that could fell a common man (as stated in the Foot Soldiers description.)

Even when it comes to modern weapons, you can see that a 1st level warrior is one hell of a shot; assuming that modern rifles share the same range increment as laser rifles do from the tech guide. If we give the first level Warrior Far Shot, 15 dex, and a masterwork rifle, he can hit a fine object (like a penny) from 1,500 feet away 50% of the time with just the iron sights, no scope or anything.

Skill wise, I'm not too sure, but combat wise I'm pretty sure they're much more competent than they seem. It's just the fact that they happen to be in the same game where building sized monsters and god like beings exist, so of course they're going to be seem incompetent.


Yeah, level doesn't correspond to your years of experience, nor does it correspond to whether you're an expert at what you do. The closest thing is how "epic" you are. Level 1 you're mundane- well built, you may be really good at quite a few things, but you're only human. Level 2-5 a character is still mostly mundane, but you're starting to push the upper limit of what we can expect out of real life people. Once you pass level 5, we're starting to get into the realm of legendary heroes, and then once characters pass level 10 they start to get into the realm of greek myth, superheroes, etc. This is purely based on what D&D characters can achieve compared to normal people.

This isn't perfect, but it's generally what happens, and what this means is if a Blacksmith is around level 7, he's not just really really good at his craft, he's not just super experienced- it means he's the type of blacksmith that crafts legendary weapons, that can go toe to toe with monsters (albeit the minor monsters of the bestiary) and survive. And the fun thing is, the stats reflect this. So if you do have high level commoners that's fine, just remember what they are- they are the Commoners of Legend. And that's fine, for some characters, but probably not all. Remember, if the Commoner can solo a CR 5 Grizzly Bear with relative ease, they're pretty awesome (And this can happen as early as level 8 or 9, even for the Commoner class.). So, just be aware of how awesome this guy is that you are injecting into your game.

Other thoughts:

- Many hex based games run off the idea that hexes near civilization are safer- like, to the point where just running around looking for random battles is going to be disappointing for any party above level 2. This makes a lot of sense, because most dangerous monsters have been killed off by now. As such, all the majority of commoners have to deal with are wild animals- which are pretty low CR. Your average wolf is going to be pretty lethal, but it's possible to ward off, and the stats show this. Now, say a CR 7 monster comes down out of the mountains to terrorize the countryside. What do the commoners do now? Well, chances are they either band together into a mob (and hope for crits), or they hire adventurers. There's no need, then, for most commoners to be higher than 1st level to survive.

- EXP is gained by killing monsters, or achieving quest goals in which there is some degree of danger. No one ever gets EXP for making profession rolls. In that case, it's very possible to live a long, fulfilling life without getting more than a tiny bit of exp here and there- not even enough to level to level 2.

-The only reason that you need to significantly level up a commoner, then, is if there's a reason for that character to be particularly strong (which is fine), or if you want to have the commoners scaled to be a decent challenge for higher leveled players. So uh... If the players are constantly trying to take advantage of the townspeople or murder them, then go ahead, scale them up, you have my blessing. But that's probably better solved by scaling up the guards.


Regarding the blacksmith question, suppose you have a kingdom with an order of heavily armed knights attached to its military. Those guys wear full plate, probably, and so they need someone around who can actually make full plate, and do it on a reasonable time scale (so taking 20 is out of the question).

The DC to make a set of full plate is 19, so if you've got a level 1 blacksmith with skill focus: craft armor, a intelligence of 14, and 1 rank in craft: armor as a class skill he's got a +8 armor crafting mod, which is good, but over half the time he's going to make no progress in a given week on that set of full plate they need for the new knight, and about a quarter of the time he's going to mess it up and have to buy a bunch of new materials. So just to do the job, the aforementioned smith either has to be level 2 or have an intelligence of 16 (which is getting into "exceptional, why is this guy a blacksmith" territory.)


ryric wrote:

Level 20 commoner:

If you ever played a console RPG - where the starting town has low level random encounters, but as you progress across the map, things get tougher and tougher - but those tougher areas still have towns. Eventually you reach some area blighted by the influence of demonic forces or invading dimensions, with random encounters that could smack down early game bosses in a single hit. But there's always one last town for buying endgame equipment and resting up in this area.

The farmers that live there, in that town. They're the 20th level commoners. 1st level farmer has to deal with insects eating his crops. 20th level farmer has to deal with marauding balors and rain comprised of liquefied souls of the damned.

Are you saying this is a good thing or a bad thing or makes some sense or no sense at all?

MDC


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For what it's worth, the NPC Codex has an experienced dwarven Blacksmith as Expert 6. The 'normal' tradesmen are more likely to be Expert 4.


Sorry about my level zero terminology vs youth template.
But when do you lose that template and gain the young adult template is there a JR High and a High School template for modern games?
The simple thing I am trying to point out is that there are limitations to systems by the rule decisions you make when create said system in the first place.
If you think levels represent "epicness" or something vs experience and most commoners are level 1 to 3, you have trouble modeling those normal people who excel at specific skills unless you give them ridiculously high stats (ie you are limited to ranks in a skill by level and can have only so many modifiers to a skill)
If specific classes are limited to only adventures then your world is affected accordingly and you have to define just what an adventurer is. But if anyone can take any class and it is limited by something else such as opportunity, training, money, etc then your world is dramatically different as a result.

The "Elf Age/skill problem": is a common issue that I have seen pop up over the years and most people/games I have seen describe it as you can only learn so much do to X (brain configuration, memory, etc) and as such during that time they learn some things and forget others but they are capped at just what they can know. Sort of like endless retraining as provided for in the PF rules.

MDC


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Regarding the blacksmith question, suppose you have a kingdom with an order of heavily armed knights attached to its military. Those guys wear full plate, probably, and so they need someone around who can actually make full plate, and do it on a reasonable time scale (so taking 20 is out of the question).

The DC to make a set of full plate is 19, so if you've got a level 1 blacksmith with skill focus: craft armor, a intelligence of 14, and 1 rank in craft: armor as a class skill he's got a +8 armor crafting mod, which is good, but over half the time he's going to make no progress in a given week on that set of full plate they need for the new knight, and about a quarter of the time he's going to mess it up and have to buy a bunch of new materials. So just to do the job, the aforementioned smith either has to be level 2 or have an intelligence of 16 (which is getting into "exceptional, why is this guy a blacksmith" territory.)

I would say that we shouldn't forget he's likely got apprentices, possibly journeymen, working with him to get aid another bonuses. A well-equipped shop probably counts as masterwork for another +2 and, honestly, if he's an armorer who does full plate, he has a prestige shop that probably does count as well-equipped.

All that said, I'd still kit out an average apprentice as the 1st level expert, a journeyman as 2-3rd level expert, and a master as 4-5th or so. And if it's the royal armorer, there may be multiple masters working there with their own journeymen and apprentices, all working on parts of the armor so a single suit gets done faster.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

At one point I started going through all the Campaign setting books I had to list all the NPCs by class and level. I wanted to get a sense of how it all broke down in terms of what was really "high level" in Golarion. The idea being that the Campaign Setting books provided a statistical sample - and that you could extrapolate the sample to the whole population.

Anyways, after going through a half-dozen books, I found only one level 4 commoner. I did find one L12 expert, though! Radas Menadian, from Andorra.

Also, for the record, full arcane casters made up about 9% of the total sample, whereas Fighters made up 17% and rogues 15%. And finding a L 19th character of any class in Golarion was something like a 1 in 10,000 occurrence. So a L 19 full arcane caster was something like 1 in 100,000.

I dunno if that breakdown was Paizo's intent, but it's how it worked out and it doesn't seem too unreasonable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Addendum - somewhere I worked out a rule of thumb that, all things being equal, you gained a level for each ten years past 20. So 2nd Level at 30, 3rd at 40, etc...

You can probably front-load that a bit, and don't forget to take into account aging as well.

Oh, and this only applied to humans.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Does the concept of Level 0 exist in Pathfinder?
No it does not.

Well that's a shame. I mean, a lot of GM's would probably find Level 0 stats very useful for all those baby orcs their parties might end up killing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:


If you think levels represent "epicness" or something vs experience and most commoners are level 1 to 3, you have trouble modeling those normal people who excel at specific skills unless you give them ridiculously high stats (ie you are limited to ranks in a skill by level and can have only so many modifiers to a skill)

1 rank, +3 for being a class skill equals a +4 bonus. +3 for skill focus is a +7. Combine with taking a 10. You can easily get a 17 on one particular skill, and a 14 on 5 other class skills (assuming you're an expect) at level 1, assuming attributes of 10.

Now, look at the skill section. Look at the amount of things that you can do with a 17. Heck, look at the amount of things you can do reliably with a 14 in a skill. No, you can't do everything. But you can accomplish pretty much everything a normal, non adventuring practitioner would have to deal with... unless it involves opposed checks with other people. But these are the sorts of things that are most likely to fail in real life, too, provided everything is fair.

So, Full Plate.

Full Plate is DC 19. It's also an exceptionally difficult task in real life. Most expert smiths even aren't going to have to deal with something like this, more than once in a blue moon. But it's also pretty amazing how close that 17 is! One competent person to aid him, one set of masterwork tools, actual points in INT, any one of these and suddenly he's there. And this is level 1. (There's also taking a 20, which is how I see your average smith deal with a pet project beyond their normal capabilities.) This is how a level 1 person can crank out field plate. Of course, if a level 1 expert can do it, so can a level 2 or 3, and better. Nothing wrong with that. But it's actually kind of amazing how far you can get without having to have more than the first level.


Pk the Dragon,
Thanks for the numbers and the example.

But if what you are proposing is supposed to be the norm then 1st level is very over powered and or the skill DC system is off, If you are trying to represent real life by even a little bit the system has a bug in it some where, which is not necessary a bad thing you just have to realize it is there and what its limitations are or are not.

MDC


if a level 1 is taking 20 to craft somthing they better have a +20 in crafting that thing minimum as you can only take 20 on making something as long as nothing bad happens on rolling a 1 and failing on crafting something makes bad things happen so unless they can make the thing on a roll of a 1 they can't take 20 on it. Most crafters need 4-6 levels minimum on their belt to be able to craft a dc 20 item


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Eh, depends on the build. As PK noted, there are a few things that can help to make something realistic - between MW tools, some people to help, and Skill Focus, even a Level 1 character could hit a reasonably high DC by Taking 10.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pk the Dragon,
Since we are talking about this, I might as well finish the senario (and disparge the crafting rules while Im at it)
So, a lvl 1 expert with 9 ranks in his craft skill and taking 10...
Time;
1) find the silver cost; 1,500gp=15,000sp
2) find the item DC; 19
3) pay 1/3 the cost; 500gp
4) make a craft check and multiply it by the DC; 19x19=361
4b) divide the items price in silver pieces by the result; 15,000/361=41.55 weeks.
Congrats! He can crank out one set of full plate every 10 months!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

...Which isn't that unrealistic, if we're going by real life and talking about some serious full plate stuff. XD That said, cooperative crafting is what makes most stuff practical, I think.


PK Dragon,
I would also like to point out the numbers you provided (1 rank, +3 class, skill focus +3=+7 and a master work tool (+2 IIRC) =+9) is the best without stat bonuses, where as the worst would be a 1 or 3 (1 rank, no skill focus. no class bonus and a normal tool or a master work tool).

So on a D20 system a 7 vs a 1 or a 9 vs a 3 is a fairly wide range for starting PC's and NPC's.
Looking at the system from a strait numbers point of view it shows that in the design "they the all powerful" decided that a class skill is worth 3 level of buying a skill +3 and skill focus is worth 3 levels and then 6 levels (but IIRC the 1st edition of PF it was only 3 all the time but I could be wrong) if you have 10 ranks or more for a further boost, is what "they the all powerful" used as a guide to decide on what DC's tasks should require to be successful.
The main problem is that D&D 1-3, 3.0-3.5, as a general design note thought more about adventurers than normal people trying to accomplish tasks so the DC's are generally shifted for adventures.

MDC


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In times of war, those who actually see a good deal of battle and survive, either gained a good deal of experience, or just had really really good luck. So if there has been a recent war, and the common man was conscripted to fight, it is quite possible a large percentage of the surviving males in the land between say 15 and 40 years of age, all gained 1 to 4 levels, if the war lasted a while. But these fighters are generally not interested in adventuring, and return home to go back to their common professions, be that farmer, baker, black smith, city guard, rich man's son, shop keeper, bar tender, etc. And in a highly magic world, where there may have been numerous clerics to support the war effort, it is quite possible that young men in the service of their gods would have been conscripted to help make healing potions, tend the wounded, cast blessings and other spells, and even learn offensive spells. Likewise, young adepts may have been sought out and conscripted to serve as apprentices to higher level wizards or sorcerers. Again, those clerical and mage apprentices who survived long enough to see the end of the war might have earned enough experience to be 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd level spell casters. The clerical ones might return to their home towns to serve their local temple, while the mages might return to their previous professions, or be satisfied with starting their own magic shop ... just the ability to cast detect magic and identify would be powerful boons to a magical shop owner in determining how valuable any so called magic items that adventurers bought into the shop might be. So there need not be a huge all consuming desire on a person's part to be an adventurer in order to have a few levels in a PC class as opposed to the strictly NPC classes from the core rule book. How many young men and women today go off to college to study something and change their minds, or get a degree or two in something and discover they just don't really enjoy it like they thought they would and go off and do something else? The same could be said for some NPCs who go to study magic at a local wizard's tower. Maybe they only got so far and just couldn't keep at it. Maybe they could never quite master the fireball, or maybe they did, but set it off in the magical library and got expelled! They would be 5th to 6th level to master fireball. So where do they go now if they aren't brave enough to go adventuring out in the wilds?
I have been running campaigns for over thirty years now, and my players know to never assume everyone around them in my towns are 1st level or lower, even if they look like commoners.
Many retired NPC adventurers in my worlds own bars, inns, taverns, stables, smithies, magic shops, and the like, and that goes for PCs as well. Some of my highest level players retired their characters and invested their fortunes in helping others. A high level priestess built a new temple in a major city and took on lower level priests and trains them and sends them out to spread the word of her god. A high level paladin reclaimed a ruined castle and hired workers to refurbish it, and started his own fighter's guild, with a training center for would-be fighters and a training center for horses and horsemanship. A high level sorceress started her own mage town in the heart of a major city and have dozens of high level teachers and scores of lower level acolytes learning magic, and hires PC parties to search for rare magical ingredients or lost magical tombs, while she researches new spells and creates potions and magic items.
The answer to the question of why these people aren't out fighting the fights for the city, country, etc. is that they already have, and they are enjoying the fruits of their labor and retirement.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

If your NPCs are fairly high level, you're just telling your PCs "The Story of Why You Suck."

If a Barmaid is level 5, then she's quite a bit more competent than the starting PCs. She knows a good deal more than the Bard and is a better thief than the Rogue.

Save the town from goblins? The local Carpenter can save the town. He can also hand the Fighter his tail if he gets uppity.

Find a random Hermit in the wild? He'll trap you in a Web and burn you to a crisp with a 5d4 Burning Hands!

Shopkeeper? He'll attack you with his broom... USING FURIOUS FOCUS!!!!

Think you know something? This Elven Sage has +19 to ALL KNOWLEDGES!!!

If your NPCs are high level, exactly why does anyone need the PCs?

The 35 year old Level 5 Barmaid whose 'seen some things' SHOULD have an upper hand on the 16 year old level 1 fighter who just learned how to swing his daddy's longsword around.

And I have run campaigns where the 'heroes' start out as that level 3 local carpenter, instead of the level 1 fighter, because it simply makes more sense that that is the person who will be stepping up and taking care of business.

Spoiler:
I've run campaigns where all players created a level 3 NPC classed character, who had some role in the local village. The adventure begins, and they are the ones who took up arms/saved the day. Then, as they gain experience in non-NPC things, they advanced into PC levels.
Started at level 3 (NPC 3)
At level 3.5, retrain to appropriate PC class. (NPC 2, PC 1)
At level 4, they gain a PC class. (NPC 2, PC 2)
At level 4.5, retrain to a PC class. (NPC 1, PC 3)
At level 5, they gain a PC class. (NPC 1, PC 4)
At level 5.5, retrain the last NPC class to a PC class. (PC 5)

This creates much more 'believable' characters/scenarios, and allows for much less cliched characters.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:
GM Ryan wrote:
I actually just started a Campaign with my group, they started off as Level 0 commoners, with -500 XP, it was truly exciting, they managed to make it to Level 1 and then were allowed to train into their classes. I am still amazed no one died, some how they managed to survive, through tactics and sheer luck.
I like this idea for roleplay and getting into character. The PCs really are useless. Is everything retrained? To be a PC you still need to specialise in stats. The party Elf Commoner has an unheard of Int 20, the party Half-Orc Commoner has Str 18, Con 16. We know where those PCs are going, the GM does - do you roleplay that the PCs themselves do?

It was epic, they stopped at a Tavern for the evening, and that is when an undead ambush was launched (3 skeletons at first, then 2 zombies) the party did everything they could to fend for themselves, one of our PC's failed a will test and fled hiding under a table (which ended up saving her because the skeleton attacked her and ended up getting the table instead). Good times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Keep in mind what commoners are. Commoners are unskilled laborers; they are not blacksmiths, merchants or soldiers. They are serf, slaves and peasants. By gaining levels you become more skilled at what you do. The idea of a high level commoner is kind of absurd. I really can’t see a commoner going much above 3rd level and even that would be unusual.

The other NPC classes on the other hand I can see gaining a few levels. Most of the NPC that players are going to interact with are probably experts. These are the blacksmiths, merchants and even many of the farmers. The person who owns and runs the farm is probably an expert not a commoner. The town guard or members of the military are going to be warriors. I can see either of these classes being up to 5th level without much trouble, with the occasional 6th or 7th level character.

Most NPC’s with any kind of authority are probably aristocrats. Even in a society without nobility aristocrats will be what the ruling class ends up. Of all the classes they will probably be the ones with more higher level characters.

One of the reasons that you don’t see many high level commoners is they have a tendency to die a lot younger. Poor nutrition and harsh living conditions take their toll on commoners. Then factor in poor or nonexistent health care and your life span ends up pretty short. By the time a commoner reaches 30 they are probably in about the same shape as another class in their 60’s.


Commoners are always first level because players need to feel special?


CraziFuzzy,
I like what you did there with the retraining as it provides a range of skills (possibly depending on how the player's spent their points) and path that can explain character growth.
MDC


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

Pk the Dragon,

Thanks for the numbers and the example.

But if what you are proposing is supposed to be the norm then 1st level is very over powered and or the skill DC system is off, If you are trying to represent real life by even a little bit the system has a bug in it some where, which is not necessary a bad thing you just have to realize it is there and what its limitations are or are not.

MDC

Well, no one ever said Pathfinder was a perfect simulation... ever. Indeed, it's meant to simulate Heroes, so a requirement of the game is to have all those mundane things be possible at level 1, to represent all the stuff potential PCs could do before they become Heroes. It's realistic so long as we assume the goal is to have as much of the population be able to be considered "level 1" as possible. And that does seem to be the goal. Level is an artificial construction, so if we take level 1 to mean "most ordinary people", then it's not overpowered at all, it's not off at all- it means exactly what it's supposed to mean. It's only a problem if you feel like Level 1 should cover a smaller piece of the population than it does, but that's your own assumptions of what levels mean.

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:


So on a D20 system a 7 vs a 1 or a 9 vs a 3 is a fairly wide range for starting PC's and NPC's.
Looking at the system from a strait numbers point of view it shows that in the design "they the all powerful" decided that a class skill is worth 3 level of buying a skill +3 and skill focus is worth 3 levels and then 6 levels (but IIRC the 1st edition of PF it was only 3 all the time but I could be wrong) if you have 10 ranks or more for a further boost, is what "they the all powerful" used as a guide to decide on what DC's tasks should require to be successful.
The main problem is that D&D 1-3, 3.0-3.5, as a general design note thought more about adventurers than normal people trying to accomplish tasks so the DC's are generally shifted for adventures.

I feel the massive gulf between the best level one character at a task and the worst level one character is a feature, not a bug. It shows the massive range that a level one character can simulate. A character that didn't take skill focus and is working on something that isn't a class skill, is likely uneducated and untrained at that skill. This is just as fine as an Expert who is top of his craft. Both are real types of people, and level 1 applies to both.

So level 1 covers a ton of ground. And I'm absolutely happy it does, because the more potential ideas the mechanics support at level 1, the more characters I can create at level 1 that make sense. (We're talking about NPC characters, but if NPC characters can support a wide range of skills, PC classes are even better) Until I looked at the mechanics, I never felt I could play older, experienced characters at level 1. But as it turns out, they're fairly well supported- as long as they aren't an experienced *adventurer*.

I agree with Shonn that dramatic events like a war can and should raise the general levels of the population. Same for frontier towns, and other dangerous places. My argument isn't so much that high level NPC classes can't exist, it's more that level 1-5, level 1 specifically, provides all the tools one needs to create functional NPCs to do pretty much everything an NPC class would need to do. If you have a reason for raising those levels higher, that's always fine, but it's rarely a mechanical requirement.

(I did goof on taking a 20 due to the failure chance. But it was just an aside, so the point still stands. Also, yeah, crafting rules kinda suck.)


PK Dragon,
I think we can agree to disagree as there a quite a few "jobs" that would require more than one skill to be the best at at 1st level and you can only have skill focus on one of them.

Very few games scale well from commoners to super heroic and the games that try to do so are rarely as simple as the PF rule set.

As I think I said above and if not many times over the years the two most common ideas about world building are the everyone/most are level 1 or level 1-3 vs the idea that people acquire exp and levels as life goes on and exceptional events often produce heroic people or the possibility for people to be heroic if they want to.
Often going from one world type to the other can be jarring if you are not prepared for it or are expecting the other when it is the opposite. Just like playing a 1st level PC again after playing a high level game for a long time you often forget just how easy it is to fail at some tasks or die from a few bad rolls.

IMHO, the bug is that you have to take said skill focus to get to the point vs a unusual circumstance like feat chose. Now if your GM allows retraining or it is a feature in their game world then taking skill focus as a normal person is huge (depending on the time it takes to retrain it and if the GM rules that it takes the same amount of time for the 3rd retraining vs the 25th retraining.)

MDC


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rage of the Archpeasant...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

PK Dragon,

I would also like to point out the numbers you provided (1 rank, +3 class, skill focus +3=+7 and a master work tool (+2 IIRC) =+9) is the best without stat bonuses, where as the worst would be a 1 or 3 (1 rank, no skill focus. no class bonus and a normal tool or a master work tool).

So on a D20 system a 7 vs a 1 or a 9 vs a 3 is a fairly wide range for starting PC's and NPC's.
Looking at the system from a strait numbers point of view it shows that in the design "they the all powerful" decided that a class skill is worth 3 level of buying a skill +3 and skill focus is worth 3 levels and then 6 levels (but IIRC the 1st edition of PF it was only 3 all the time but I could be wrong) if you have 10 ranks or more for a further boost, is what "they the all powerful" used as a guide to decide on what DC's tasks should require to be successful.
The main problem is that D&D 1-3, 3.0-3.5, as a general design note thought more about adventurers than normal people trying to accomplish tasks so the DC's are generally shifted for adventures.

MDC

Personally, I think that's less of an issue than you do. And I'm not alone. D&D: Calibrating Your Expectations


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

PK Dragon,

I think we can agree to disagree as there a quite a few "jobs" that would require more than one skill to be the best at at 1st level and you can only have skill focus on one of them.

If a commoner is human they get a bonus feat, so it's actually 2. I'm pretty sure there's a trait that allows someone to have 2 skill focuses instead of the bonus feat, but I'm not sure if NPCs qualify for this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Sauce987654321 wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

PK Dragon,

I think we can agree to disagree as there a quite a few "jobs" that would require more than one skill to be the best at at 1st level and you can only have skill focus on one of them.
If a commoner is human they get a bonus feat, so it's actually 2. I'm pretty sure there's a trait that allows someone to have 2 skill focuses instead of the bonus feat, but I'm not sure if NPCs qualify for this.

There is an alternate racial trait that lets you trade in the human bonus feat for THREE Skill Focus feats, but that does not help most Commoners because the 2nd and 3rd Skill Focus feats are received at 8th and 16th levels, respectively.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

PK Dragon,

I would also like to point out the numbers you provided (1 rank, +3 class, skill focus +3=+7 and a master work tool (+2 IIRC) =+9) is the best without stat bonuses, where as the worst would be a 1 or 3 (1 rank, no skill focus. no class bonus and a normal tool or a master work tool).

So on a D20 system a 7 vs a 1 or a 9 vs a 3 is a fairly wide range for starting PC's and NPC's.
Looking at the system from a strait numbers point of view it shows that in the design "they the all powerful" decided that a class skill is worth 3 level of buying a skill +3 and skill focus is worth 3 levels and then 6 levels (but IIRC the 1st edition of PF it was only 3 all the time but I could be wrong) if you have 10 ranks or more for a further boost, is what "they the all powerful" used as a guide to decide on what DC's tasks should require to be successful.
The main problem is that D&D 1-3, 3.0-3.5, as a general design note thought more about adventurers than normal people trying to accomplish tasks so the DC's are generally shifted for adventures.

MDC

Personally, I think that's less of an issue than you do. And I'm not alone. D&D: Calibrating Your Expectations

Are you sure that is not one of those fake new articles I have been hearing so much about lately.

I enjoyed the article but I did disagree with a lot of the nuts and bolts conclusions.
I do agree with the ending statements in most part about the basic analysis of the various game systems. But that is mainly going on memory as I have not played GURP's since the late 80's early 90's and Hero I played as Champions in 81-82 and I think it has changed a lot since then as I picked up HERO 5th (IIRC) for a read but got side tracked and have not gone back to it.

MDC


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And if the commoner isn't human, they often get +2 to specific skills their race is stereotypically good at (which is something I *don't* particularly like, but it's another factor to consider)

PS: Thank you for linking that, Bill Dunn. I'd forgotten the name of the article or else I would have directed people there much earlier!

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:


As I think I said above and if not many times over the years the two most common ideas about world building are the everyone/most are level 1 or level 1-3 vs the idea that people acquire exp and levels as life goes on and exceptional events often produce heroic people or the possibility for people to be heroic if they want to.

I agree, this is tricky to reconcile those two ideas, but I'd argue Pathfinder doesn't try. By default, experience is gained for killing monsters or other NPCs. Alternatively, it's recommended to hand out experience for overcoming challenges equal to monsters (or, we might as well call it, Quest Objectives). So, experience is NOT a function of "life going on", it's pretty much specifically only tied to exceptional events, or living a life that puts you in combat often. This is 100% compatible with most people being level 1, unless they get involved in something exceptional, like a war.

^I do feel like here things start to slightly break down- there's definitely a conceit where killing Monsters and Questing makes you so much, much stronger than anything else you could do, at a remarkably rapid pace, even using slow XP. So here it's absolutely 100% not a proper simulation, but it is internally consistent- the more likely characters are to fight (or quest) on a daily basis, the more likely they are to get levels. As it turns out, NPCs that fight or quest on a daily basis are the ones that are most useful as allies, and also more likely to have the life experiences to justify being higher level.

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
IMHO, the bug is that you have to take said skill focus to get to the point vs a unusual circumstance like feat chose. Now if your GM allows retraining or it is a feature in their game world then taking skill focus as a normal person is huge (depending on the time it takes to retrain it and if the GM rules that it takes the same amount of time for the 3rd retraining vs the 25th retraining.)

I think your point is that feats are a hefty investment? You're absolutely right. But I'd hope an expert in a craft would have made that investment, and as an NPC it isn't a big deal if their build is weaker for it. I'd imagine among normal people it's one of the most common feats taken, as it represents focus, in a skill. We all do it. I have a degree that says I have Skill Focus (History). As a PC, there's optimization considerations, but it's always an option. I've taken skill focus myself, though usually on a better skill than craft or profession, and usually with Eldritch Heritage as a payoff down the line. Retraining is nice,and I usually assume it's present in some form or another, but it's not required to make it work.

Anyway- I'm fully willing to agree to disagree. I just actually find this discussion pretty interesting. Pathfinder isn't perfect, by ANY means, but it does have a pretty fascinating internal consistency to it (that leads to some weird conclusions sometimes).


Delightful wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Does the concept of Level 0 exist in Pathfinder?
No it does not.
Well that's a shame. I mean, a lot of GM's would probably find Level 0 stats very useful for all those baby orcs their parties might end up killing.

AC: You hit

HP: It dies if hit
Saves: None
Attacks: "Mommy?" 1d6 Morale damage to the party. Except for the rogue who's fishing his knife out of the mother.

Special Abilities:
"You Monster"- Shift the alignment of killer one step towards CE. Paladins fall.


I have always been baffled when I see things like the level 17 aristocrat. I just sit there, staring, and wondering how the hell that happened. When that happens, what is their excuse for not curb stomping whatever enemy strolls into town?

Oh and if things like DCs were built around adventurers and not normal people, then poisons wouldn't be complete trash. If it isn't a low level commoner, and the save is Fort or Will on anything, odds are it will pass. Low level NPCs tend to be the only things that fail those.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
I have always been baffled when I see things like the level 17 aristocrat. I just sit there, staring, and wondering how the hell that happened. When that happens, what is their excuse for not curb stomping whatever enemy strolls into town?

They got to be level 17 by being a *very good* example of an Aristocrat, so that they, more than other, lesser, aristocrats, have people to handle that sort of thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Keep in mind what commoners are. Commoners are unskilled laborers; they are not blacksmiths, merchants or soldiers. They are serf, slaves and peasants.

You are conflating "commoner" with "uneducated/unskilled/incompetent" (or, to get pejorative, "bum/slacker"). Historically, "serfs, slaves, and peasants" were often quite skilled craftspeople and professionals; the commoner NPC class reflects that by having Craft and Profession as class skills. However, almost all of their time and effort was spent in supplying themselves (and their families) with necessities such as food, shelter, etc.; similar to today's "wage slave." They couldn't "afford" to acquire a "well-rounded" education or "waste" time on "liberal arts" (which is why they only get 2 + Int mod skills).

The expert NPC is no more competent than an equal-level commoner in that commoner's "trade," but they are competent in more disciplines. The commoner is the car mechanic that's good at fixing cars, and maybe one or two other things (like a sport), but that's about it; the expert is the car mechanic that's also good with computers, works as a CPA during tax season, coaches their child's sports team, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonchess Player wrote:


The expert NPC is no more competent than an equal-level commoner in that commoner's "trade," but they are competent in more disciplines. The commoner is the car mechanic that's good at fixing cars, and maybe one or two other things (like a sport), but that's about it; the expert is the car mechanic that's also good with computers, works as a CPA during tax season, coaches their child's sports team, etc.

Let's not knock Skill Focus. NPC classes still get feats, and humans get an extra one. Slapping Skill Focus on something like their trade or profession, can make quite the competent baker, blacksmith, weaponsmith...

AND make them still need adventures to save them from the goblin attack.


A little side question:
Does anyone know if that article linked about was the first of its kind?
The reason I ask is that I seem to have two others or possibly 1 from 2003 and another like it from 2005 from my old computer that had a thrashing HDD and unfortunately the files are corrupted but from my filing system and brief notes it seems as if they would have fit very closely to the article linked above in 2007.

Thanks
MDC


Dragonchess Player wrote:
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Keep in mind what commoners are. Commoners are unskilled laborers; they are not blacksmiths, merchants or soldiers. They are serf, slaves and peasants.

You are conflating "commoner" with "uneducated/unskilled/incompetent" (or, to get pejorative, "bum/slacker"). Historically, "serfs, slaves, and peasants" were often quite skilled craftspeople and professionals; the commoner NPC class reflects that by having Craft and Profession as class skills. However, almost all of their time and effort was spent in supplying themselves (and their families) with necessities such as food, shelter, etc.; similar to today's "wage slave." They couldn't "afford" to acquire a "well-rounded" education or "waste" time on "liberal arts" (which is why they only get 2 + Int mod skills).

The expert NPC is no more competent than an equal-level commoner in that commoner's "trade," but they are competent in more disciplines. The commoner is the car mechanic that's good at fixing cars, and maybe one or two other things (like a sport), but that's about it; the expert is the car mechanic that's also good with computers, works as a CPA during tax season, coaches their child's sports team, etc.

The commoner has only 2 skill points per level and the only real class skills are craft and professional skills. One of those skill points is going to go to either craft or profession, but what they will not have is any supporting skills. Using your example they will have mechanics but they don’t have things like sense motive to figure out when they are being cheated, diplomacy to allow them to get better deals, appraise to tell them the value of goods. So they can fix cars but not really run a business. They can put their other skill point to those skills, but since they are not class skills it really does not matter that much they still don’t have a high enough roll to make it matter. Chances are their other skill point is going to be in things like ride, handle animal.

The expert on the other hand has 6 skill points per level and can choose any 10 skills as class skills. They also have good will saves and can use light armor and simple weapons. So the expert mechanic will have things like appraise, sense motive, diplomacy, knowledge local, linguist and the other skill that actually allow them to do more than just fix cars.

The commoner trying to run a business is going to be a failure at it even if they have the main skill required for the business. The commoner is the worker with minimal skills who works for someone else. In the mediaeval times they did not have things like target and other chains. Each business was pretty much run by its owners.


Do most people subscribe to the theory that having everyone around you be lesser makes you greater and more heroic?

Also, your commoner effectiveness discussions ignore the effects of people working together. Your master craftsman will have journeymen and apprentices all assisting him. The idea that there isn't at least an alternate experience system to allow skill advancement for non player characters is kind of ludicrous when you get out of the rigid war-game mindset.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Daw wrote:
Do most people subscribe to the theory that having everyone around you be lesser makes you greater and more heroic?

Yes.

Or, wait...did you mean in the game world?


Alzrius, since emotions and feelings don't really make a distinction here, I mean both. The distinctions are our logic contextualizing the emotional content.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:
Do most people subscribe to the theory that having everyone around you be lesser makes you greater and more heroic?

I don't.

Adventure Paths:
The Sheriff in Sandpoint is 4th Level - this does not undercut the PCs' heroics in driving off the goblins and raiding Thistletop.

Queen Galfrey of Mendev is a 15th level Paladin in Wrath of the Righteous, but this does not undercut the PCs' heroics when they beat the demons' plan in Kenabres, nor when they go after the Sword of Valor while the main armies are fighting big battles against demons elsewhere.

It's true that PCs tend to be the most 'special' characters around, but I try to be consistent with my world. Things don't scale to the level of the PCs. If you pick a fight above your weight class, it's not going to be dialed down just to give you "a fair chance". If you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

Of course, this is almost never a problem for me to begin with, since I tend to prefer playing (and running) reasonably good people - those who are nice to NPCs and aren't looking down on others to make themselves feel bigger. XD And I have other ways of making the PCs feel special, like my habit of making many of them a customized scaling item. I see no need to suggest the rest of the world is weak and/or incompetent.

51 to 100 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why commoners are always 1st level All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.