|
It depends on how you want your game to work out. The commoner is supposed to be the farmers or serfs for the type of class.
Warrior would be more what you'd find in an army for people, trained or untrained. The trained soldiers would just perhaps be 2nd or 3rd level warriors as opposed to first.
That's essentially how the game dictates your abilities. You start with class (so in general any soldier should normally be a warrior for example) and then decide how good that class should be by leveling it up.
Sprinkle in some commoners or maybe even an expert or a fighter or two and you can add some diversity, but a majority of the force would probably be better served as a warrior.
Hi, this is the correction fairy :)
french: It's French. You always capitalise it (not just French, either: German, American, Spanish.... ;-))
disapointed: It's disappointed
interessant: It's interesting (I can see where you get that from, it's the same in German)
The basic peasant know: It's knows. Third person singular gets the s.
The basic peasant know so differents thinks: It's the basic knows so many different thinks.
danses: I think you mean dances.
historys: It's histories.
fand: found
scornfull: scornful (I walk into that one myself on occasion.
prupose: propose
wenesday: it's wednesday - though that one probably won't matter in an oral :)
It's great that you're open to corrections, instead of getting all defensive about it. I see that behaviour far too often for my liking. "Hey, I'm a foreigner, I'm not good in the language, so back off."
|
Hi, this is the correction fairy :)
french: It's French. You always capitalise it (not just French, either: German, American, Spanish.... ;-))
disapointed: It's disappointed
interessant: It's interesting (I can see where you get that from, it's the same in German)
The basic peasant know: It's knows. Third person singular gets the s.
The basic peasant know so differents thinks: It's the basic knows so many different thinks.
danses: I think you mean dances.
historys: It's histories.
fand: found
scornfull: scornful (I walk into that one myself on occasion.
prupose: propose
wenesday: it's wednesday - though that one probably won't matter in an oral :)It's great that you're open to corrections, instead of getting all defensive about it. I see that behaviour far too often for my liking. "Hey, I'm a foreigner, I'm not good in the language, so back off."
Sorry to correct you, Teach,
But one, Wednesday is capitalised as well.And two, It should be "The basic peasant knows so many different things" not thinks
Hi, this is the correction fairy :)
french: It's French. You always capitalise it (not just French, either: German, American, Spanish.... ;-))
I disagree.
"french" should always be lowercased (as should "france".)
Now, I do agree that all other languages and nations should be capitalizaed. Just not the "frogs."
I think the commoner is fine.
Does your average pawn need that many skill points? I think most of his daily duties and what he knows falls under general knowledge or can be summed up with the Profession skill.
Plus, commoner isn't necessarily for the farmer who owns the farm. That one might indeed be an expert. His stablehands and maids, on the other hand, might be commoners.
The average guy living in the city, knowing nothing about how to run a farm, will probably have less "applied knowledge" still. He has a simple job somewhere in the city, maybe even in some sort of factory where he does the same activities or work steps over and over (not quite production line work, but somewhere in that line).
Not everything requires skills or skill ranks. I think they're mainly for extraordinary people with extraordinary skills. Everyone can jump (after all, the average human commoner with strength 10 and no ranks in jump, taking 10, can jump over a gap of 3 metres.), but it takes a skilled person to win big contests, break records, that sort of thing.
If you disagree: It's easy enough to do as you suggest: Just ignore the commoner class and use the others.
Sorry to correct you, Teach,
But one, Wednesday is capitalised as well.
And two, It should be "The basic peasant knows so many different things" not thinks
Don't be. I should have known. The thinks, in particular, was smirking in my face.
Hi, this is the correction fairy :)
french: It's French. You always capitalise it (not just French, either: German, American, Spanish.... ;-))
I disagree.
"french" should always be lowercased (as should "france".)
Now, I do agree that all other languages and nations should be capitalizaed. Just not the "frogs."
Bah. You know what I'm going to have for dinner tonight? an OMELETTE. With FRENCH FRIES! You read that right: FRENCH FRIES. Not "freedom fries" (which sorta fits, I have to admit, with all the OIL you have to use to fry them ;-P)
No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.
Hi, this is the correction fairy :)
french: It's French. You always capitalise it (not just French, either: German, American, Spanish.... ;-))
I disagree.
"french" should always be lowercased (as should "france".)
Now, I do agree that all other languages and nations should be capitalizaed. Just not the "frogs."
Bah. You know what I'm going to have for dinner tonight? an OMELETTE. With FRENCH FRIES! You read that right: FRENCH FRIES. Not "freedom fries" (which sorta fits, I have to admit, with all the OIL you have to use to fry them ;-P)
No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.
P.S => Lord Fyre, I don't know, why you don't like French and I think that's only prejudices. Before, I didn't like Americans because I had prejudices like : Americans think that they are the master of the world, they scorn the other people. I met a American english teacher in the lycee. I have no more prejudices. Americans are different and insult an other people for any reason is a stupid thing. You should open your mind. Prejudices go to wars. And I never have eaten a frog.
It was intended to be a joke (Playing on the - until recently somewhat justified - trope about Americans being Arrogant Jerks.)
Clearly it didn't work as well as I had hoped. :(
(Yes, I am an American, worse I am a Californian.)
Hi, this is the correction fairy :)
french: It's French. You always capitalise it (not just French, either: German, American, Spanish.... ;-))
disapointed: It's disappointed
interessant: It's interesting (I can see where you get that from, it's the same in German)
The basic peasant know: It's knows. Third person singular gets the s.
The basic peasant know so differents thinks: It's the basic knows so many different thinks.
danses: I think you mean dances.
historys: It's histories.
fand: found
scornfull: scornful (I walk into that one myself on occasion.
prupose: propose
wenesday: it's wednesday - though that one probably won't matter in an oral :)It's great that you're open to corrections, instead of getting all defensive about it. I see that behaviour far too often for my liking. "Hey, I'm a foreigner, I'm not good in the language, so back off."
Sorry to correct you, Teach,
But one, Wednesday is capitalised as well.
And two, It should be "The basic peasant knows so many different things" not thinks
Sorry Paul, but I believe colons would be more appropriate for your list numbers. For example: "But one: Wednesday is capitalised as well." It is also stylistically improper to start a sentence with "but" or "and." I'll let "capitalised" slide as the English spelling.
I look forward to someone else's correction of my post. This is fun!
P.S => Lord Fyre, I don't know, why you don't like French and I think that's only prejudices. Before, I didn't like Americans because I had prejudices like : Americans think that they are the master of the world, they scorn the other people. I met a American english teacher in the lycee. I have no more prejudices. Americans are different and insult an other people for any reason is a stupid thing. You should open your mind. Prejudices go to wars. And I never have eaten a frog.
P.P.S : I don't said that all Frenchs have no Prejudices about Americans but stupid men are all around the world, but I will don't accept to be insulted because I'm French. I'm proud to be French and to be European.
Please don't let one guy on an internet forum speak for all Americans. He's entitled to his opinion, but most do not share it.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I would allow that the original post has a point.
It makes sense to have commoners - farmers, unskilled laborers, peasants with pitchforks and torches- in a fantasy game.
It makes substantially less sense to have a Commoner NPC class in a game. Are we really expecting to see 5th Level Commoners? 12th Level Commoners? "I am one of the finest unskilled laborers in the barony!" "I keep hitting the peasant with my guisarme and he won't fall down! Perhaps it's because he's a high-level Commoner."
The kind of NPC you could describe as a mid- to high-level Commoner would certainly be described better as an Expert or Warrior. Or perhaps even a low-level Rogue or Ranger. The archetypical peasant would be a character with no class levels at all.
I think even 2nd or 3rd level commoners make some sense. But they probably would multiclass into expert or warrior after that.
Dance : 1
Take care of animals : 1
Construct : 1
Knowledge ( nature ) : 1
Job ( peasant ) : 1
Knowledge ( local ) : 1
But listen to what Chris says, it's good :-)
I agree if you really want to expand the real skill set of Commoners (and dislike using Profession:Peasant to cover multiple skills) it's completely reasonable to just use Experts in place of the Commoner class, or just give the Commoner Class 2 more skills (giving them less skills than Expert but slightly higher HPs). That would actually give Commoners: 'average' HD type / BAB and average number of skill points. Good definition of Commoner, in my opinion. Otherwise, I agree taking multiple levels of Commoner seems pointless and offers nothing over a Warrior2/Expert2 .
Are we really expecting to see 5th Level Commoners? 12th Level Commoners? "I am one of the finest unskilled laborers in the barony!" "I keep hitting the peasant with my guisarme and he won't fall down! Perhaps it's because he's a high-level Commoner."
The kind of NPC you could describe as a mid- to high-level Commoner would certainly be described better as an Expert or Warrior. Or perhaps even a low-level Rogue or Ranger. The archetypical peasant would be a character with no class levels at all.
Couldn't agree more. The entire concept of a "commoner" class seems unnecessary to me. I don't even write up commoners, they are just "Grog the bartender - tall, strong, irritable, has a crossbow and club under the bar, +1 to hit with each, 6hp, 10ac" and then if a fight breaks out involving him I use what I have or wing what I don't. Spec'ing out every commoner in town seems pretty silly and usually pointless. And yeah, if anyone in town is anything special I usually make them a PC class.
|
Peasant (Com 1) (Human) (non-elite)
Str 12
Dex 8
Con 10
Int 10
Wis 12
Cha 10Skills: Craft (carpentry), Handle Animal (Cha) +4, Knowledge (local) (Int) +1, Perform (any 1) (Cha) +1, Profession (farmer) (Wis) +8, Ride (Dex) +3, Spot (Wis) +5, Survival (Wis) +5
Feats: Open Minded, Skill Focus (Profession (farmer)), faction feat
Proficient in one simple weapon (spear) and one martial weapon (longbow).
I would say shortbow, longbows should in actuality be exotic weapons. Unless an English Longbow is a different weapon.
Take car of animals : 1
car of animals? Carriage? ;-P
(Take car of animals = prendre la voiture des animals)
By the way, is "prendre la voiture des animals" right? Has been 10 years or so since I had French in school.
|
|
"Neithan, Yesterday, 09:57 AM Flag | Reply
I think even 2nd or 3rd level commoners make some sense. But they probably would multiclass into expert or warrior after that."
The best class for commoners to multi into is the Survivor prestige class from Savage Species. In fact, commoners are the only class that qualifies for this prestige class and they can enter the class at level 2. They're BAB doesn't increase but Survivors gain all good saves, imp. uncanny dodge, imp. evasion and DR5/-. That's one tough farmer.
They're BAB doesn't increase
Their
I would allow that the original post has a point.
It makes sense to have commoners - farmers, unskilled laborers, peasants with pitchforks and torches- in a fantasy game.
It makes substantially less sense to have a Commoner NPC class in a game. Are we really expecting to see 5th Level Commoners? 12th Level Commoners? "I am one of the finest unskilled laborers in the barony!" "I keep hitting the peasant with my guisarme and he won't fall down! Perhaps it's because he's a high-level Commoner."
The kind of NPC you could describe as a mid- to high-level Commoner would certainly be described better as an Expert or Warrior. Or perhaps even a low-level Rogue or Ranger. The archetypical peasant would be a character with no class levels at all.
Your comments reminded me of the Dungeon adventure where the BBEG was... the high level Commoner. Never played through but always thought it seemed a neat adventure.
Great heavens of Farmutopia. You have no idea how much I love the class. Commoner lvl 10? Why not?
Your common farmer
Human Commoner 10
STR 10
DEX 10
CON 10
INT 10
WIS 14
CHA 10
HP 1d4... 2,5 average... let's make it 25. Not enough to withstand a good power attack hit, but enough not to be ashamed in the nextfight in local inn.
Skills
Profession 10 ranks
Craft (something that allows you to make common repairs)
Knowledge (nature, history)
Perform (dnace, sing, telling stories)
Swim, Climb...
Add skill focuses and skill oriented feats mostly
TADAAAH! Way better than lvl 1 often used...
Not all things should be avalilable for the lvl 1 characters. I think that the craft DCs are way too low. Lvl 5 and below commoners are children and if they want to change class, then I allow retraining.
Don't be a fool and stay in school (and become a hero).
(Yes, I am an American, worse I am a Californian.)
[threadjack]
A Texan, a Californian, and a Washingtonian are at a hunting camp together in the woods. They're sitting around the campfire drinking when the Texan suddenly stands, throws his bottle of whiskey into the air, raises his gun and shoots it. He then sits back down. The other two look surprised, so he takes out another bottle from his pack, grins, and says "We've got plenty of whiskey in Texas."
The Californian laughs and stands up. He tosses his bottle of wine into the air, raises his gun, and shoots it. Then he sits back down, pulls out another bottle and says "We've got plenty of wine in California."
Finally, the Washingtonian stands up. He takes his can of Olympia beer and tosses it high into the air. He raises his gun and shoots the Californian. He then catches the can as it falls, chugs the beer, and says "We've got plenty of Californians in Washington."
[/threadjack]
Um, "Pommes Frites". You're in Europe. :)
"Pommes". Or "fredde". I'm in Saarland.
[threadjack]The Californian laughs and stands up. He tosses his bottle of wine into the air, raises his gun, and shoots it. Then he sits back down, pulls out another bottle and says "We've got plenty of wine in California."[/threadjack]
(Yes, I am an American, worse I am a Californian.)
Yes, and with the current budget crisis, we also have "plenty of whines in California" too. :(
Couldn't agree more. The entire concept of a "commoner" class seems unnecessary to me.
I really like the NPC classes in 3e, far more than the previous 0-level concept. I like the idea that normals in the game world get better at what they do and tougher as well without having to have been adventurers of some stripe. Seems quite reasonable in a world where wolves or ankhegs might harry your flock, you might get into fights at the tavern, you might be part of the volunteer militia or carried a pike in some big war as part of the peasant levy, and the occasional orc or goblin bandits run through town. My farmers tend to pick up a level every 3-5 years of farming after coming of age, when I have a good reason to stat them out (which is rarely).
It makes substantially less sense to have a Commoner NPC class in a game. Are we really expecting to see 5th Level Commoners? 12th Level Commoners?
What's funny is that if you follow the rules to roll up a random town with randomly generated NPCs, the highest level NPC is a 16th-level commoner. Just looking at the numbers, a 16th-level commoner is probably more like a CR 7 or 8, like a fighter of half his level. Helluva Profession check, though.
I just figured he's some old town brawler who was good at unarmed combat or something.
OTOH, any 1st-level dwarven craftsman can make masterwork arms and armor if he takes 10 on the check.
OP: by design, Profession skills are supposed to encompass many skills. Profession(carpenter) is much broader than Craft(cabinetry). Why is there a need for heroes if ordinary people can beat the goblin warriors?
I always wondered by we had to used Profession(sailor) rather than Sail to steer a ship in 3e. We have the Fly skill now, right?
I hope someday all people in Europa will speak esperanto. It will be easier.
Interlingua es melior :)
But why not just have everybody learn English? ;)
I always felt that the commoner is a strange concept as well - perhaps there should be a level cap on that class, around level 5 or so. After reaching that, they will continue as expert or warrior in most cases.
Or just throw the entire rule out of the window and create the commoners stats just how you need them, as it was basically possible with the old 0-level characters. Commoners stats get all but irrelevant after the PC reach level 5 or so - so why bother much in the first place.
[threadjack]
The French have the reputation to be arrogant and unwilling to learn foreign languages. I know prejudice when I see it, but at least the language part seems to have some truth, AFAICT - friends of mine who had been to France told me that only a very small percentage knew English or any other language. This thread shows the exceptions, it seems (and there are several more around on these boards). OTOH, I guess it is not that much better in Germany (or Italy or Spain) - less people are fluent in English than I would have expected, but this surely comes from the fact that most of my friends have at least a working knowledge of English, so my expectations may be skewed. (Reading RPG books in English helps a lot).
And it is called "Pommes" or "Fritten" in my corner of Germany - nobody bothers to say "Pommfritz", as it would most likely be pronounced.
Stefan
[threadjack]
A Texan, a Californian, and a Washingtonian are at a hunting camp together in the woods. They're sitting around the campfire drinking when the Texan suddenly stands, throws his bottle of whiskey into the air, raises his gun and shoots it. He then sits back down. The other two look surprised, so he takes out another bottle from his pack, grins, and says "We've got plenty of whiskey in Texas."
The Californian laughs and stands up. He tosses his bottle of wine into the air, raises his gun, and shoots it. Then he sits back down, pulls out another bottle and says "We've got plenty of wine in California."
Finally, the Washingtonian stands up. He takes his can of Olympia beer and tosses it high into the air. He raises his gun and shoots the Californian. He then catches the can as it falls, chugs the beer, and says "We've got plenty of Californians in Washington."
[/threadjack]
Keep in mind some skills can be used untrained. A farmer wouldn't necessarily have to have skill points in all of the skills he uses.
I would allow that the original post has a point.
It makes sense to have commoners - farmers, unskilled laborers, peasants with pitchforks and torches- in a fantasy game.
It makes substantially less sense to have a Commoner NPC class in a game. Are we really expecting to see 5th Level Commoners? 12th Level Commoners? "I am one of the finest unskilled laborers in the barony!" "I keep hitting the peasant with my guisarme and he won't fall down! Perhaps it's because he's a high-level Commoner."
The kind of NPC you could describe as a mid- to high-level Commoner would certainly be described better as an Expert or Warrior. Or perhaps even a low-level Rogue or Ranger. The archetypical peasant would be a character with no class levels at all.
Once I had the party encounter a 20th lvl commoner. He was a Venerable tavern bar-potato with maxed Diplomacy. Whenever they interacted with him, he'd complain about 'the war' and coorce them into giving him drinking money.
-Steve
I think even 2nd or 3rd level commoners make some sense. But they probably would multiclass into expert or warrior after that.
Not multiclassing. Replacing.
So there could be a commoner 1. But upon getting level 2, that would be a warrior 2 or expert 2. Or perhaps even advancing to PC-class 1? ;)
Furthermore, ive been giving experts skill-enhancement bonus feats for every third level. Like a fighter but.. youll get it :P
That way a expert 9 sage really can be expected to know their stuff. In addition to likely having a magical +5 or +10 to key skill.
Or a chef etc diplomat being potentially very competent.
Once I had the party encounter a 20th lvl commoner. He was a Venerable tavern bar-potato with maxed Diplomacy. Whenever they interacted with him, he'd complain about 'the war' and coorce them into giving him drinking money.-Steve
Wouldn´t that rather be performance?
Stefan
I dont use the commoner class as such in my campaign, just give every humanoid creature with less than 2 HD a single HD (d6) that mimicks the commoner class as it is described.
You can switch some class skills as it suits the DM, I actually keep this HD even for PC's it gives them a little background and simple skills that often get overlooked (think 2nd edition secondary skills).
Any other class, including other NPC classes, have their HD and skills added to this base, an 'advanced' commoner would be better described as an expert.
I like this way for the natural advancement it offers, it also toughens your 1st lvl PC's up a bit (effectively I give them 6 bonus hp + con mod)
I don't like the entire way the skill system works with NPC classes. If you want to make a librarian/sage you have to give him 4-5 levels (or more) in expert. So he has higher BAB, better saves, and more HP than the typical guardsman... That doesn't make any sense at all.
Blacksmiths and laborers should have a big bonus to strength but they shouldn't have to dump other stats to get it. Nor should they necessarily have a higher BAB or saving throws.
So other than the warrior I generally ignore the NPC classes and just give my NPCs arbitrary skill bonuses or sometimes higher stats if I think it makes sense for the role.
As for correcting English, in your title. You cannot disagree with the non-player classes because non-player classes are inanimate objects. You agree or disagree with an opinion or an idea. You can disagree with the concept behind the commoner (an idea). It's best to just express your opinion, for example: "The commoner NPC class is poorly designed".
I prefer to replace that first NPC level with a better one or PC classes, if the NPC somehow "levels up" or becomes a recurring villain. It's a holdover from 2e, where NPCs were "0-level" until they took a level in a proper class. So I treat the first level of commoner (or sometimes warrior) as half a class, so to speak, until they can get a real one.
Giving "0-level" NPCs a level of humanoid also seems like a reasonable idea.
The French have the reputation to be arrogant and unwilling to learn foreign languages. I know prejudice when I see it, but at least the language part seems to have some truth, AFAICT
It's hard to believe that anyone is worse than Americans. The human norm is bilingualism; most of the world's people can speak two languages with some degree of fluency.
Except in the US, where we hardly ever need to speak another language to communicate with each other. In the "glass houses" vein, I don't think it's a good idea to criticize someone for not speaking a language well unless you speak some other tongue flawlessly (or have access to the 3rd-level spell ;) )
But...
Don't let the grammar-bugbears scare you away!
I don't like the entire way the skill system works with NPC classes. If you want to make a librarian/sage you have to give him 4-5 levels (or more) in expert. So he has higher BAB, better saves, and more HP than the typical guardsman... That doesn't make any sense at all.
Blacksmiths and laborers should have a big bonus to strength but they shouldn't have to dump other stats to get it. Nor should they necessarily have a higher BAB or saving throws.
So other than the warrior I generally ignore the NPC classes and just give my NPCs arbitrary skill bonuses or sometimes higher stats if I think it makes sense for the role.
This is one of the basic problems with level and class-based systems. It can remedied somewhat (check the MERP/RM system, where you still have an overall level, but skills, attacks etc. are independent from level). The "Buy the Numbers" pdf remedies it partially. If you use the RAW, you are stuck with these odd effects, however.
Stefan
According to the 3.5e DMG, every hamlet (a community of 81-400 people) should expect to have a commoner of level 4 to 16 (probably level 8 to 12). The highest-level commoner in a metropolis would be level 16 to 28 (probably level 20 to 24).
I have never considered the possibility of epic-level commoners before, or commoners with epic feats. Commoners probably wouldn't quality for most epic feats, except possibly Armor Skin, Combat Archery, Multiweapon Fighting, Overwhelming Critical, Penetrate Damage Reduction, Spellcasting Harrier...
A 4th-level human commoner that was dedicated to his craft would likely have a 14 Intelligence, with max ranks and Skill Focus, and so would have a Craft(any one) +12 check and could easily make masterwork items while taking 10. For that matter, a 1st-level dwarven smith with a 12 Intelligence, Skill Focus, and racial bonus to metalworking checks would have a Craft(weaponsmithing) check of +10.
In Pathfinder, however, dwarves don't get the racial bonus to metalworking checks. However, the "Master Craftsman" feat allows a 5th-level commoner to make wondrous items or magic arms and armor.
Of course, the highest-level commoner in any community could be any sort of commoner: a brewer, launderer, barroom brawler, ostler, forester, or so on. But if he was a smith, then +1 swords and +1 armor should be fairly common, even considering the time craft such an expensive item. Perhaps not common enough for every member of the guard, but possibly the head of the guard or local aristocrats.
Which is a good thing: +1 swords shouldn't be as rare as they would be if they were only made by NPC 6th-level clerics who happened to take the right feat.
A 1st-level human expert librarian or sage with the non-elite array could have a 15 Intelligence; with Skill Focus, that would come to a +9 Knowledge check. Given a generous circumstance bonus for taking time to make use of a well-stocked library, the sage should be able to make DC 20 Knowledge checks fairly easily. Perhaps there should be a feat other than Skill Focus, that would give a sage a +2 bonus to any Knowledge check, or any two Knowledge checks?
If a bowyer with a +7 Craft check takes 10 on the roll to make 50 arrows, he'd be able to make them in a day. Making 50 masterwork arrows would take a week and a half, though; that's about 4-5 per day.
EDIT
A venerable 1st-level human expert librarian would have an Intelligence of 18. That'd be a +11 Knowledge check with Skill Focus. Of course, he'd be something of a commoner munchkin.
EDIT 2
A 28th-level human commoner with the non-elite array, always boosting Intelligence, max ranks in Craft(weaponsmithing), Skill Focus, and Master Craftsman would have a 22 Intelligence and a +40 Craft check. Not including masterwork tools.
Question: A high-level commoner making a magic sword... using the Craft skill to make a +1 sword would take about two months for the 28th level commoner above. It would take a little more than a week to create a masterwork sword (voluntarily adding +30 to the DC and taking 10). But then using the magic item creation process would only take two days to turn the masterwork sword into a +1 sword.