Why commoners are always 1st level


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

GM Rednall:
Your approach matches mine.

Not everyone agrees, I had one friend ****hurt and passive aggressive for years because I allowed his beginners party, who insisted on going after "a monster that no one else has ever been able to defeat." (The party specifically and insistently asked for the quote, against many advisements that they were suiciding.)

Those that ran away survived, I was not going after a TPK on a beginner party, though they earned it. Those who chose to fight to the end, were Ended.


2 people 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?

Nope. I don't at least. All of my arguments up to this point have simply been that there's no real mechanical need to have high level NPCs for them to be competent at their jobs, and (to a lesser degree), that having high level NPCs has some side effects that probably don't fit well for your average commoner. In my games, though, I generally do have quite a few high level NPCs running around (including legendary smiths!)- I just try to be aware of what that means, and have an idea of how they got to that point.

Daw wrote:
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.

I think we covered cooperative crafting and aiding another earlier.It's actually one of the elements that allow level 1 experts to go above and beyond what you'd expect.

As far as alternative experience systems... I've been simply analyzing the rules and general guidelines up until now. Nothing is stopping you from awarding xp for mundane activities for NPCs (or just arbitrarily assigning levels), but my point has simply been that if we go with normal XP guidelines, most commoners wouldn't level much if at all. So obviously, that changes if you introduce an alternative experience system. And in most cases it's a nonissue outside of theoretical considerations, because one isn't actually assigning experience for NPCs.

On the subject of alternative exp systems, I do think some kind of E6 spinoff for npc classes would be interesting, allowing them to progress in skills without becoming stronger in combat. For that rare case where you need an NPC with advanced skill use that can't hold their own in combat.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

What doesn't make sense isn't that commoners rarely reach more than a few levels, it's that some reach lvl 20.

I have always held that no world can incorporate high level characters without requiring considerable suspense of disbelief. If you want to talk about armies, for example, there's literally zero reason to field them. Most armies were conscripted men/teens with little to no military training, thus few class levels. A handful of lvl 20 characters can pretty much decimate entire armies on their own. Who would waste gold and lives on a mobile army?

Anyways, experts can be farmers too, you know, they just don't really benefit much from it. A lvl 20 commoner is just absurd.

From the bestiary, "thug farmer" is the only level 1 commoner, standard farmer is commoner 1/expert 1, and pig ffarmer is commoner 2.

A lvl 20 farmer... let's give him 36 wisdom, because of 18 base, +6 headband, +5 enhancement (books/wish), +2 for being 150 years old and +5 from levels. +13 wis modifier. 20 ranks in profession (farmer). Skill focus for +6. Prodigy for +2. Breadth of Experience for +2. Obsessive gnome trait for +2. And trained bonus for +3. Add a +2 for masterwork tools.

Congratulations, your bonus on profession (farmer) checks is +50! And that's without even looking for random magic items that might give a dedicated boost.

So on average, you'll roll a 10.5, for 60.5, for 52 weeks in a year. So, 30.25gp per week, for a 1573gp per year income. Farming. Alone. Without even getting untrained laborers to help you out yet.

But wait... skills unchained! Just costs 1 feat, Signature Skill. You now automatically make double, plus you roll twice for the better result, and automatically have at least 10. So if we now average it at 15 instead on the roll, you've got a yearly income of 3900 gp.

What does this represent? Well, if he's a pig farmer, that means he's selling 390 pigs per year.

Alone.


I like the proposals of capping commoners combat advancements, while allowing skill advancements to continue.

Barring Druids possibly, the Gaffer is going to know much more about farming...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Notably, disabling locks and traps usually offers XP - so thieves would tend to level at a rate completely disproportionate to the rest of the non-adventuring population. XD If you go strictly by that, of course.

I actually don't use XP in most of my games anymore, but as I see it, XP is something earned for "overcoming challenges". Basically, doing something that genuinely tests your skills and doesn't have an obvious alternative reward - for example, Crafting's reward is the item you're making, Perform's reward is the money you earn, and so on. On a related note, things that aren't challenges generally don't reward XP - killing helpless enemies or those way below your level, for example, or skill checks you literally can't fail. Working in the fields all day probably won't give you XP, but saving up your money and intensely studying might be enough to get you a level in Expert. Basically, no risk and no effort means no reward.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Rednal wrote:

Notably, disabling locks and traps usually offers XP - so thieves would tend to level at a rate completely disproportionate to the rest of the non-adventuring population. XD If you go strictly by that, of course.

I actually don't use XP in most of my games anymore, but as I see it, XP is something earned for "overcoming challenges". Basically, doing something that genuinely tests your skills and doesn't have an obvious alternative reward - for example, Crafting's reward is the item you're making, Perform's reward is the money you earn, and so on. On a related note, things that aren't challenges generally don't reward XP - killing helpless enemies or those way below your level, for example, or skill checks you literally can't fail. Working in the fields all day probably won't give you XP, but saving up your money and intensely studying might be enough to get you a level in Expert. Basically, no risk and no effort means no reward.

That's actually a kinda fun side effect- you're more likely to meet high level thieves than many other non-adventuring jobs, because they're something that players may actually have to deal with as a threat. So the fact that disabling locks and traps gives XP would actually make sense here- only to a degree, of course. This does give birth to an odd world where thieves and bandits dramatically outscale normal citizens, leaving them completely helpless unless they turn to adventurers for help. Which... sums up many an adventure hook for D&D, so I'd argue it's still internally consistent, just not quite realistic.

I generally do agree with the way you see XP, actually - and I'd say that's why you absolutely CAN see NPCs at higher levels without requiring them to be adventurers. I'm not going to elaborate more than that though, because I'd rather not derail the thread any further with a discussion on what XP is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Sideromancer wrote:
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.

...actually, there a couple villages in the Worldwound doing just that. Most are protected by some powerful creature or magic but it still counts.


This thread brought back some good old memories of fighters in AD&D in which they got 1 attack per level against level 0 or fractional HD creatures. This was one rule that really made you happy to play a fighter to to have mutli-classed fighter to get some other benefit.

The past discussion's on this topic have generally veered into the area of just what generates experience (in terms of gaining levels) after the initial dust settles. And depending on how a GM decides what gives exp and what does not it influences what levels average people tend to be in their game unless they just chose to ignore the non-adventures for the most part (which is also a valid gaming style).
MDC


5 people 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 think most people subscribe to the theory that having everyone around you be greater makes you lesser and less heroic.

I mean, if you're not saving anyone, aren't helping the helpless, and aren't performing tasks that normal folks can't, then what are you really doing as a hero? That's perfectly fine if everyone understands that you're playing a game of Incompetent Hero, but ruins character concepts if those concepts include Be Good at Something as a central theme.


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.)

This is why kingdoms employ teams of blacksmiths, not rely on single man shops. Also elite knights like this aren't recruited every month, but as part of a long process, so if there an up and coming candidate, most likely the process of his armor would be started long before his investiture.


Kitty,

Suggesting that having any NPCs being of competently high levels equates to every NPC being superior to the PCs is fit for political discussion, not for a forum. If it is important to you that PCs are are always giants walking among Munchkins, that's OK. It isn't my game, but it is a valid choice, just say that that that is your preference.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Daw,

Likewise, if your world is full of NPCs who are perfectly capable of completing a task, but just want the PCs to do it for *reasons* then that's your prerogative.

I don't necessarily believe that the PCs should be good at *everything* but that they should at least be good at *something* (and eventually vying for *best* at something). There has to be something keeping the PCs from nodding at the town blacksmith and saying, "You've got it handled; we'll just be moving on," when the town is faced with a goblin attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Goblin_Priest wrote:

What doesn't make sense isn't that commoners rarely reach more than a few levels, it's that some reach lvl 20.

I have always held that no world can incorporate high level characters without requiring considerable suspense of disbelief. If you want to talk about armies, for example, there's literally zero reason to field them. Most armies were conscripted men/teens with little to no military training, thus few class levels. A handful of lvl 20 characters can pretty much decimate entire armies on their own. Who would waste gold and lives on a mobile army?

Anyways, experts can be farmers too, you know, they just don't really benefit much from it. A lvl 20 commoner is just absurd.

From the bestiary, "thug farmer" is the only level 1 commoner, standard farmer is commoner 1/expert 1, and pig ffarmer is commoner 2.

A lvl 20 farmer... let's give him 36 wisdom, because of 18 base, +6 headband, +5 enhancement (books/wish), +2 for being 150 years old and +5 from levels. +13 wis modifier. 20 ranks in profession (farmer). Skill focus for +6. Prodigy for +2. Breadth of Experience for +2. Obsessive gnome trait for +2. And trained bonus for +3. Add a +2 for masterwork tools.

Congratulations, your bonus on profession (farmer) checks is +50! And that's without even looking for random magic items that might give a dedicated boost.

So on average, you'll roll a 10.5, for 60.5, for 52 weeks in a year. So, 30.25gp per week, for a 1573gp per year income. Farming. Alone. Without even getting untrained laborers to help you out yet.

But wait... skills unchained! Just costs 1 feat, Signature Skill. You now automatically make double, plus you roll twice for the better result, and automatically have at least 10. So if we now average it at 15 instead on the roll, you've got a yearly income of 3900 gp.

What does this represent? Well, if he's a pig farmer, that means he's selling 390 pigs per year.

Alone.

Drop the Gnome Obsessive bonus (+2) and Breadth of Experience (+2) for the Human Heart of the Fields (+10), and you can boost your check higher. Maybe Inexplicable Luck (+8, 1/day) would be useful as well, since Unchained lets you make a Profession check every day. Master of the Ledger (+2) and Master Craftsman (+2) would be a handy boost. This is a net +18 (or +10?) over the other boost, which is... not insignificant.

Unchained Skills gives you the choice of rolling twice, or rolling once but always getting at least 10. These average out to 13.825 and 12.75, respectively. Let's say 13.5 is our average roll. So with a +68, with an average roll of 13.5, we get a total of 81.5gp per week, or 4238 per year. So almost 424 pigs per year, although you'd probably be selling more pigs if you're keeping up your stock.

More pigs!

On a more serious note, XP is a system used to denote when characters should level up, which is primarily for players. Levels are a system used to roughly approximate how tough, powerful, and skilled a character is. Both are abstractions and are not representative of real life, and should not get in the way of a good roleplay story. Commoners are usually low level because they are unskilled, not powerful, and not tough - a common sort of person. If you as a GM think it's important to have a character who is mildly skilled, powerful, and tough, but unusually specialized, perhaps a high-level commoner is for you. I've never had a GM who thought that a high-level commoner would be the most appropriate character for a situation - being mildly skilled, powerful, and tough, but unusually specialized also falls under the purview of many other classes. Applying some sort of XP progression to NPCs is rather ridiculous in my eyes, since ancient village elders should not be tougher or similarly tough as sprightly teenage villagers, and people who kill a lot of things (and sings while killing them!) should not be more skilled than a consummate professional who dedicates all his time to becoming a renaissance man. PCs get a bye, since they're players, which means they (hopefully) want to have fun and have a sense of improvement and achievement.


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:
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...

Since Profession is really the only skill (per the Core Rulebook) you need to run a small business, a smith needs just 12+ Int, Craft (Armor), Craft (Weapons), and Profession (Merchant) to be successful. "You can earn half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work. You know how to use the tools of your trade, how to perform the profession's daily tasks, how to supervise helpers, and how to handle common problems. You can also answer questions about your Profession. Basic questions are DC 10, while more complex questions are DC 15 or higher." As long as the smith has at least one assistant or apprentice that can manage the shop (possibly just one Craft and Profession (Merchant)), the smith can personally take on commission work for the more difficult jobs.

Sure, an expert NPC will be a better merchant/trader than a commoner NPC, but not necessarily a better smith. Commoners run the small "Mom and Pop" businesses, while experts run franchise chains.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

also commoners run shops in tiny villages where they are the only game in town and a lot of trade is barter anyway so it doesn't matter how business savvy they are. In larger towns these people work as employees for the more business savvy experts.


Kitty,
My NPCs are, usually, perfectly able to perform their tasks well. Just not every task.
Being a Master Carpenter does not mean you are appropriately skilled and equipped to handle an Orc tribe moving to take over your town. This is where the adventurers shine. I also don't run a Master Craftsman having 10 hit dice and other full combat abilities. The class structures really look like semi-adventurers. They will exist, but won't be the norm. An experienced caravaner would look like an expert as written, but that Carpenter shouldn't. The REAL common folk trade off combat effectiveness for better access to the skills they need to do the job. If you want it hard coded, use the classes but heavily increase the skills per level and the skill rank cap per level, that way you can have commoners being effective but not as overall effective as an adventurer.

The rules really fail the further away you get from from the PC adventurer mode.
If you can handle breaking the mold, for NPCs at least, divorce skill levels and appropriate feats from class levels.

Shadow Lodge

GM Rednal wrote:

Commoners are NOT always first level. The NPC Codex and Gamemastery Guide, I believe they are, have quite a few that aren't.

Leveling up in an NPC class is kind of like growing without special training or natural talent in a particular direction. For example, a noble may be Aristocrat 5 - definitely tougher than the average person thanks to their upbringing, though not by all that much and still probably not a match for a serious, trained Fighter.

judging from this source a commoner child is 1st level with most of them being second to third level.

fifth (and by extension any above this) however are quite rare


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wonder how much of "commoners are low level" perception is how campaigns generally start in places with fewer important people (small villages, poorer neighborhoods, etc.) so that the PCs can themselves be relatively important, and then later on when the PCs are accomplished they generally carry enough weight that the important people will want to talk to them them so that the "little people" tend to get lost in the shuffle.


Daw

Now we're speaking the same language. It's not the language of Pathfinder, but that's fine by me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@PossibleCabbage: A fair bit, methinks. Also, in my games, Commoners above 5th Level are all but unheard of. It's not that it's impossible... but usually, anybody with the kind of life experience to bring them higher than that will be focusing their efforts on some field relevant to them, and this is usually represented by retraining into a different class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I wonder how much of "commoners are low level" perception is how campaigns generally start in places with fewer important people (small villages, poorer neighborhoods, etc.) so that the PCs can themselves be relatively important, and then later on when the PCs are accomplished they generally carry enough weight that the important people will want to talk to them them so that the "little people" tend to get lost in the shuffle.

For social and caster classes, you tend to become more powerful in a geopolitical sense as you rise in levels. High level Wizards can move armies, high level Druids can flood countrysides, high level Rogues can topple leaders with well-placed lies. Individual commoners lack that sort of power, which is part of why they aren't often important parts of high-level games. To challenge elite and powerful players, you need challenges of similar scale or of personal importance. Commoners often don't make the cut since they are not similarly powerful, and since the life of a common person (as commoners are supposed to be) is often not the most important problem the players need to be addressing. At a certain level of power, common people stop being common people, and often become specialists or better generalists of a sort. Even then, there is often a simpler or more powerful way to represent a character concept of a powerful average man. Sure, you can build a combat-worthy Dragon using Commoner HD, but that's a (rather ridiculous) personal choice. Why not just use the Dragon HD to build a dragon? In the end, commoners are narrative constructs for the benefit of the players (and sometimes cannon fodder for evil campaigns, but I digress). Commoner is most often used to represent average people, and once you hit a certain level, a certain amount of power, you cease to be an average person, and your character concept would likely be better represented by some other class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to propose a fluid system. I think that people can "top out" at any point in their lives. Maybe they're still getting experience after that point, but their skill pts are going into Profession (parent) or (dart-thrower), any HP that they would have earned are being eroded by a hard life, and so on. When I say that a given level character can handle a certain DC task, I mean that they have the skill to do it reliably and unsupervised -- that they're permitted a Take-10 for that DC of tasks.

Level 1 ~ Beginner ~ DC 5, scutwork only
Level 2 ~ Worker ~ DC 10, simple tasks
Level 3 ~ Competent ~ DC 15, routine tasks
Level 4 ~ Supervisor ~ DC 20, most non-routine tasks
Level 5 ~ Owner ~ DC 25, even difficult tasks

Now I have to say quickly that this is mostly an RP way of pegging a commoner when the party walks up to someone. They're talking to a barmaid: Does she get drink orders mixed up a lot? (Level 1.) Is she quite competent at the simple tasks of her profession? (Level 2.) Is she able to handle rising aggressions as well as remembering frequent patrons' drink preferences? (Level 3.) Is she able to run the tavern single-handedly, and to boss other staff? (Level 4.) Has she bought the tavern? (Level 5.)

I admit that turning this into a mechanic reveals distortions. It's absurd to say that a Beginner may Take-10 for a DC 5 task, when they probably succeed at such a task on a "1" anyway. Meanwhile, many Supervisors & I believe all Owners will fail at their DCs on a Take-10; they actually need a Take-12.

Maybe someone here can help me refine this proposal. But I think it's an interesting place to start. The key point is that it isn't age I'd want to look at; it's responsibility.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

bitter lily,
I myself prefer guidelines like you have above as I as a GM can use them an not have to create every NPC out there but having said that I know quite a few GM's who cannot do what I do and spend copious hours creating NPC's to fit every situation (even if it is just taking a templated NPC and adding in the relevant local info (town location) notes and equipment changes).

In the past such things have greatly helped and speed up my games and prep times but even though it baffles me such things do not work or be used by everyone.
But then we each have our own strengths and weaknesses as GM and players.

So the short version, IMHO go for it. Write an article, distribute it, gather feedback and tweak it if need be. Often you and your game will be much better for the effort.

MDC


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

bitter lily,

I myself prefer guidelines like you have above as I as a GM can use them an not have to create every NPC out there but having said that I know quite a few GM's who cannot do what I do and spend copious hours creating NPC's to fit every situation (even if it is just taking a templated NPC and adding in the relevant local info (town location) notes and equipment changes).

In the past such things have greatly helped and speed up my games and prep times but even though it baffles me such things do not work or be used by everyone.
But then we each have our own strengths and weaknesses as GM and players.

So the short version, IMHO go for it. Write an article, distribute it, gather feedback and tweak it if need be. Often you and your game will be much better for the effort.

MDC

Thanks for the feedback and encouragement! Now, how about help with the tweaks? :) The serious issue is with the fact that Level 4 & 5 commoners can't handle difficult tasks that come up -- it's absurd that they would have to roll several times, ruining materials (if they're a crafter), or go looking for someone with class levels. Actually, the point is, that they can't handle difficult tasks without taking class levels -- so that they can keep going above 5th level.


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

bitter lily,

I myself prefer guidelines like you have above as I as a GM can use them an not have to create every NPC out there but having said that I know quite a few GM's who cannot do what I do and spend copious hours creating NPC's to fit every situation (even if it is just taking a templated NPC and adding in the relevant local info (town location) notes and equipment changes).

In the past such things have greatly helped and speed up my games and prep times but even though it baffles me such things do not work or be used by everyone.
But then we each have our own strengths and weaknesses as GM and players.

So the short version, IMHO go for it. Write an article, distribute it, gather feedback and tweak it if need be. Often you and your game will be much better for the effort.

MDC

Thanks for the feedback and encouragement! Now, how about help with the tweaks? :) The serious issue is with the fact that Level 4 & 5 commoners can't handle difficult tasks that come up -- it's absurd that they would have to roll several times, ruining materials (if they're a crafter), or go looking for someone with class levels. Actually, the point is, that they can't handle difficult tasks without taking class levels -- so that they can keep going above 5th level.

That's what the Expert class is for. And such a character will have taken the Skill Focus feats for his relevant skills. Also keep in mind that most of the items a smith will make will be ordinary ones, there's a reason why blacksmiths don't exercise the time AND EXPENSE to make every weapon a masterwork one. the market's not there and it does not pay off in the long run.

And Expert is more of a driven character so I could see one going up to perhaps 8th level with a staff of several assistants, each adding +2 to assist in major projects... such as a lord's personal armor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Drahliana,
Expert Class is at least a semi-adventurer, and gains more combat ability than wanted, hence the thread. I think that at least some of the posters are looking for really competent NPCs outside of the combat fields, who aren't combat powerful as well, since even Commoner and Expert classes gain combat ability faster than is desired.

Lily and Mark
How about having your 5-level NPCs gain 4 skill ranks for each point "spent".
Building in Unlocks and Efficiencies (demi-feats) to your level structure wouldn't hurt either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In my game 'commoner' doesn't exist. All humanoids have a humanoid hit die [otherwise referred to as level zero] and the few who rise above it either become Experts or Freaks. Experts are normal people with advanced skills and abilities, Freaks gain the equivalent of Adventuring class levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mr.Goblin wrote:

I understand PCs need to be exceptional so lets put this in perspective. In the span of one year an adventuring party can get to tenth level. But an NPC would likely take fifteen to twenty years to do the same.

So why do people feel threatened when a thirty six year old man does not get killed by a feral cat that he happens to piss off when walking down an alley in the city.

All I know is that after watching This PSA Video there's a certain 14th level student who won't be looking to kick ally cats anytime soon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am by no means a PF expert but have played D&D on and off since 79, and have played the old Blackmoor, Chainmail and Deities and Demi-Gods (IIRC the name of that book) paperback books when a friend picked them up, as well as 3.X for a time.

But as a mod I might create a special feat that had prerequisites that only your target class and "person" could take that gives the benefit you want.
So you recognize the issue/problem, find decide on the fix, target the fix so as not to create other problems and test and re-test to see if it solves your problem and does not cause other problems.

The other issue I can see but am not real sure about is how skill unlocks might influence the issue vs if you do not use skill unlocks in your game. The reason is I have read the rules but have not played with them in a game as my first impression was that it did not solve a problem I had/have and added some unneeded complexity to the game.

To analyse the problem moor, I would work backward in that I would look at the DC and say with a realistic roll what level would a NPC have to have to achieve that roll. I would do the math with out feats, items, spells, other mods I forgot and stats, by adding just two of the categories in, then add one more to the list each time and repeat. Now as I am no expert some of you could probably just look at the rules and say this category could be the biggest issue for NPC's (and maybe abuse by PC's which is why you try and limit it to NPC's only) and devise a rule fix there.

DAW,
The fix of allowing 5th level NPC's to have essentially 4 skill ranks for each point spent just seems a bit broad to me and rip for abuse as opposed to trying for a focused fix to select areas.
Which might be better suited for a class ability addition and or a NPC feat or a simply change in the max level of your NPC's to help with the issue.

MDC


Since an NPC is by definition part of the GM's setting, whether given some nominal control by a player or not, I think "abuse" is irrelevant, at least no more so than any other environmental effect. What we are trying to do here is codify non-combative NPCs to match the desired setting, i.e. "Effective" (and hopefully interesting) but non-competitive NPCs. Specifics are of course, up to the DM/designer.

That said, I would use the existing Commoner and Expert classes for cohorts and followers. Normal folk don't traipse around with Adventurers.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
bitter lily wrote:
The serious issue is with the fact that Level 4 & 5 commoners can't handle difficult tasks that come up -- it's absurd that they would have to roll several times, ruining materials (if they're a crafter), or go looking for someone with class levels. Actually, the point is, that they can't handle difficult tasks without taking class levels -- so that they can keep going above 5th level.

A 1st level commoner or expert with 12 Int, 1 rank in a Craft skill, and Skill Focus in that Craft skill has a check modifier of +8. Add a helper, masterwork tools, or a racial bonus (i.e., dwarf with Craftsman or gnome using Obsessive) and that's +10.

Combined with the "Taking 10" rule, a 1st level commoner or expert can make most items, including masterwork ones. The only exceptions are various alchemical substances and a handful of other items with a DC over 20.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
In my game 'commoner' doesn't exist. All humanoids have a humanoid hit die [otherwise referred to as level zero] and the few who rise above it either become Experts or Freaks. Experts are normal people with advanced skills and abilities, Freaks gain the equivalent of Adventuring class levels.

So you don't use Warriors or Arisstocrats at all? (or adepts for that matter)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klorox wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
In my game 'commoner' doesn't exist. All humanoids have a humanoid hit die [otherwise referred to as level zero] and the few who rise above it either become Experts or Freaks. Experts are normal people with advanced skills and abilities, Freaks gain the equivalent of Adventuring class levels.
So you don't use Warriors or Arisstocrats at all? (or adepts for that matter)

A warrior is an Expert of Battle, an aristocrat is an Expert of Politics. An adept is an Expert of Magic.

[Perhaps I should have noted when I said Expert it was a name/theme not the official class.]


Daw wrote:

Drahliana,

Expert Class is at least a semi-adventurer, and gains more combat ability than wanted, hence the thread. I think that at least some of the posters are looking for really competent NPCs outside of the combat fields, who aren't combat powerful as well, since even Commoner and Expert classes gain combat ability faster than is desired.

There really is no such thing as a "semi-adventurer" you either have made the step into the world of the fantastic, or you haven't. Experts are quite solidly people in the second category. I think you're way overthinking the mechanics of what you want, and have lost sight of your goal.

Try explaining as specifically as possible in mechanics terms what exactly is your aim point.


one of the local officer's often joke about the idea of a first level commoner with weapon focus pitchfork to which i often have to remind him he needs a BAB of +1 to do that so he'd have to be 3rd.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You mean 2nd.

Retraining is a thing [2nd level npc walth can afford one retrain right?]

Shadow Lodge

I like thinking about what circumstances would engender a high-level commoner, and what would they do. I agree it would probably involve some unassuming assistant stumbling upon ultimate power, or being an NPC who just accompanies a group of PCs and learns a whole lot by watching and helping everyone out.
With enough Charisma, perhaps feats like Noble Scion and Leadership, that commoner might be as surprised as anyone for having attained such power. Though, most likely, after achieving some political station, that commoner would enjoy the cushy/socially demanding life, and retrain into aristocrat or something. But it'd make a fun twist that the guy who's been impeding your progress and now pummeling you in person isn't a Fighter 11 or Monk 10, but a Commoner 20.


The Shifty Mongoose wrote:

I like thinking about what circumstances would engender a high-level commoner, and what would they do. I agree it would probably involve some unassuming assistant stumbling upon ultimate power, or being an NPC who just accompanies a group of PCs and learns a whole lot by watching and helping everyone out.

With enough Charisma, perhaps feats like Noble Scion and Leadership, that commoner might be as surprised as anyone for having attained such power. Though, most likely, after achieving some political station, that commoner would enjoy the cushy/socially demanding life, and retrain into aristocrat or something. But it'd make a fun twist that the guy who's been impeding your progress and now pummeling you in person isn't a Fighter 11 or Monk 10, but a Commoner 20.

I like to lean toward them shifting into a PC class... I think that's what the 30+ base classes are for really. Getting too cool to be just an NPC.

Would Dr. Jekyll be high level 'apothecary'... or did he shift classes into Alchemist? At what point would that happen?? When do you go from 'I can make some simple potions... to Hulking rage monster and bomber? Or go from city guard standing at the wall... to low level fighter? The line between them is very thin... but very distinct. A 20th level commoner or Expert should be awesome... and awesome things would really be better represented with something else


1 person marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:
The Shifty Mongoose wrote:

I like thinking about what circumstances would engender a high-level commoner, and what would they do. I agree it would probably involve some unassuming assistant stumbling upon ultimate power, or being an NPC who just accompanies a group of PCs and learns a whole lot by watching and helping everyone out.

With enough Charisma, perhaps feats like Noble Scion and Leadership, that commoner might be as surprised as anyone for having attained such power. Though, most likely, after achieving some political station, that commoner would enjoy the cushy/socially demanding life, and retrain into aristocrat or something. But it'd make a fun twist that the guy who's been impeding your progress and now pummeling you in person isn't a Fighter 11 or Monk 10, but a Commoner 20.

I like to lean toward them shifting into a PC class... I think that's what the 30+ base classes are for really. Getting too cool to be just an NPC.

Would Dr. Jekyll be high level 'apothecary'... or did he shift classes into Alchemist? At what point would that happen?? When do you go from 'I can make some simple potions... to Hulking rage monster and bomber? Or go from city guard standing at the wall... to low level fighter? The line between them is very thin... but very distinct. A 20th level commoner or Expert should be awesome... and awesome things would really be better represented with something else

Queen Galfrey of Mendev's story background includes her retraining from Aristocrat to Paladin. And her Crusade actually obtaining a Sun Orchard Elixir to extend her reign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


Queen Galfrey of Mendev's story background includes her retraining from Aristocrat to Paladin. And her Crusade actually obtaining a Sun Orchard Elixir to extend her reign.

Twice, as I recall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A high level commoner is a guy who has seen some really crazy stuff... and not learned anything particularly valuable from it. He's survived multiple wars, been the hostage of many a villain, picked up some genuine combat skills (nothing specific, just he's better at aiming and tougher than your average peasant), but ultimately just wants to go back home and tend the crops. This isn't due to stupidity, just a lack of ambition.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Umbral Reaver wrote:
Commoner is a 20 level class. Where are our level 20 commoners?

Murdered for the XP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When adventurer stops adventuring, his class levels turn into commoner levels.
The horror.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
In my game 'commoner' doesn't exist. All humanoids have a humanoid hit die [otherwise referred to as level zero] and the few who rise above it either become Experts or Freaks. Experts are normal people with advanced skills and abilities, Freaks gain the equivalent of Adventuring class levels.

I'd been meaning to design a humanoid Racial Character Class (RCC) for a reason similar to this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PK the Dragon wrote:
picked up some genuine combat skills (nothing specific, just he's better at aiming and tougher than your average peasant),

And isn't that the point where he's functionally retrained into a Warrior? Although I suppose if he got to a higher level and then retrained back into being a Commoner - although I'm not gonna lie, most people would probably go for Expert as the minimum - it might work. XD


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, I mean, he increased BAB and hit dice. I was just describing the mechanical effects of being high level. If he was a warrior, he would have made an effort to learn about weapons at a basic level. This guy just sorta got a bit stronger from osmosis, a bit more skilled, but didn't actually grow as a person, didn't learn any deep life lessons, didn't discover faith, learn to magic, nothing life shaking. He just became a really strong example of a guy who isn't particularly good at anything.

It's a little sad, though - all that experience, and he didn't get anything out of it. This is why we don't have level 20 commoners.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From a time standpoint it is much easier to create a 1st level commoner then having to flesh out a 5th level commoner if you have to, it also takes up less space in products for 1st levels generally then higher levels as they do not have as many abilities and other things that require lines in the product.

MDC


PK the Dragon wrote:

No, I mean, he increased BAB and hit dice. I was just describing the mechanical effects of being high level. If he was a warrior, he would have made an effort to learn about weapons at a basic level. This guy just sorta got a bit stronger from osmosis, a bit more skilled, but didn't actually grow as a person, didn't learn any deep life lessons, didn't discover faith, learn to magic, nothing life shaking. He just became a really strong example of a guy who isn't particularly good at anything.

It's a little sad, though - all that experience, and he didn't get anything out of it. This is why we don't have level 20 commoners.

I see the game as determining that with Stats and feats. A Commoner who's a little stronger and can hit harder... has a higher strength and a +2 or +3 to hit and damage over the average baseline common farmer. The ones who practice with the bow... have a higher dex or a higher Con for a few hitpoints. Their feat isn't skill focus, it's toughness, or they have a starting trait that gives them a +1 somewhere or a different skill..

If they're actually MUCH better at hitting and hit points and fighting... then they've gone into another class to be so much better.

Pathfinder is a game with a LOT of different moving parts. We have stats, we have feats, traits, Skills... all of which can be shifted around to simulate a lot of different characters. and THEN we add Dice rolls. The great equalizer... and everyone hits on a 20 and misses on a 1...

I really don't see the issues that other people do here. We don't need 20th level commoners... when they live perfectly functional lives with their 3 or less level commoners and experts and such. They can have the skills needed to do their job, they can aid others who need help... much like in real life. they can grab a weapon and defend the town against weak enemies... and need heroes for the big ones.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


Queen Galfrey of Mendev's story background includes her retraining from Aristocrat to Paladin. And her Crusade actually obtaining a Sun Orchard Elixir to extend her reign.
Twice, as I recall.

Long enough for her to tire of her extended lifespan. Living on while all you are close to either die of demonic horror, or old age, can get to one.


PK the Dragon wrote:
A high level commoner is a guy who has seen some really crazy stuff... and not learned anything particularly valuable from it. He's survived multiple wars, been the hostage of many a villain, picked up some genuine combat skills (nothing specific, just he's better at aiming and tougher than your average peasant), but ultimately just wants to go back home and tend the crops. This isn't due to stupidity, just a lack of ambition.

I can't say I like this definition of a high level commoner. They are weaker than any class of the same level, but they still gain plenty of hit points, feats, and skill points. Mechanically, they are far and beyond what regular people are realistically capable of (1st level NPC class).

101 to 150 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.