For those who raised the question of why a higher level cobbler or weaver would have increased hit points and bab, bear in mind that most villages had militias of some sort. Even if soldiering wasn't a cobbler's day job, it would not be that unusual for a 5th lvl cobbler to not only be in the militia, but also have some kind of rank in it (chances are the routine guards or privates would likely be their apprentices and journeyman). Picture the modern day national guard; most would lose to someone in full time military or a full fledged security officer, but still could outfight the average citizen even if their expertise isn't combat specific. This is because as part of their training, they tend to be in better physical shape than the average person, and have at least been exposed to the general theory of combat, and at least some actual field training in that area, which is more than most people in this country can say.
As for the lvl 15 NPCs that the 3.5 books have in their world, you run into major issues there. Those tables also recomend most small towns have a high level druid. Why would anyone in a small town then go to the lvl 3 PCs instead of the lvl 7-15 druid? They produce so many high level characters that your world becomes flooded with them, and it totaly drowns out your PCs. If you don't design the adventures with this in mind, it can totally destroy the story. And if there is a lvl 15 crafter in town, you go right back to the OP's orriginal complaint, where he has a +7 BAB and 5 times the HP of the town guards. He can single handedly take care of adventures the PCs would normally do at low levels, just like that druid.That is a age old problem. The "I the most powerful Archmage in the land want you minions (1st level PC's) to risk your lives to do something one wish spell would accomplish in 9 segments..." problem. Hey but what can you do.
The other is if you say high levels are rare you have to ask why are they rare? Meaning the PC's can progress to level 20 in a short span of game time with stats and abilities no different than that of a "classed" NPC can have, so why isn't the world full of 20th levelers? On the other hand if we assume 20th level is a rare occurrence then we have the issue of the PC's becoming the most powerful force in the land, again within a very short span of time. These are just thing we except when we choose to play D&D style level based games.
S.
One of the things my group always used to relate how high level the NPC's in the land would be, is dependent on what types of challenges there are in the area. At a certain point, you stop getting XP for defeating monsters that are a significantly lower level than you. If the most powerful creature in this area is only a CR 5, then the NPC's are not going to be radically higher level than that, maybe 8 or 9 tops. Sure, they could just travel elsewhere and slay something exotic, but then again, this is why they are NPCs, and not PCs.
Think of it this way. In most video game RPG's, the monsters surround certain areas are a certain threat level. If an NPC never leaves his home town, he's not going to get very high level.
Again, this is just how we explain it in our group. YMMV.
Bob the Tailor is ... a 10th-level expert ... [with] a +7/+2 combat bonusAh ... I forgot that PF changed this. I was still thinking 1/2, or same as a Wizard ... which is fair.
Considering what I said above about "hollow levels" or only giving him 1hp/die I still don't have such a problem with it.
How about this ... to get to 10th Level Expert takes a lot of XP, and the only way he's going to be doing this is by handling a lot of fancy clothing, odd fabrics and exotic materials. His clients are going to be the adventurers and nobles who can afford such things.
"But my lord, who do you fancy such an odd design for the shoulders ... it's not at all the latest fashion."
"True, but when drawing a sword and attacking an opponent to the left, the way the young nobles have their jackets cut binds and you can't move as fast and need to turn your back on any attackers in front of you to turn left."
"Is that so, my lord?"
"Certainly ... let me show you!"
Heck, with those kind of Levels it's possible Bob Tailor has spent some time accompanying adventurers or the King's Champion of the Army as personal tailor and would certainly have had the opportunity to rub elbows with people who fight for a living and learn a few things. I think it can be reasonably justified.
The guys who just sit in their shops mending tunics and socks and get XP from killing cockroaches are lucky to make 2nd level. Bob must have done much more, and in doing so been explosed to much more.
"My lord, why do these armor suits you bring in for re-lining always have blood stains in the same location of the right of the back above the hip."
"Oh, well, that's where the kidney's located. Need someone to go down fast, stab there."
"Interesting, my lord."
[In] first edition we had a completely non-sensible +1 year per level just because ... It seemed to us back then that a 20th level fighter should be an aged grizzled warrior not an...
This is probably the best explanation of high level commoners I have ever read. The tailor sitting around in his shop all day isn't going to be gaining much in the way of levels, but the one out there with clients, learning something new all the time, would be gaining quite a bit of xp.
I'm not sure I agree that a tailor chatting to his customers about combat should be a source of experience points. While it might enable him to know which end of a sword to hold, it certainly wouldn't grant him the increase in hit points and saving throws that's represented by the toughening effect of field experience.
The problem is that commoners and experts represent a vastly variable group of people. Some live in physically challenging environments or pursue physically challenging livelihoods, and some don't. A sailor and an accountant are both using the same advancement table. It's not fair for the accountant to be held back in level advancement (and denied the skill points and mental ability score increases that come with it), but it's also not plausible for him to advance as quickly in attack bonus, hit points, and saving throws.
It might be best to just drop the advancement tables altogether for these two classes, and come up with templates for Average Commoner, Tough Commoner, Average Expert and Tough Expert.
Can someone tell me what the highest-level commoner or expert is who's ever appeared in a Pathfinder product?
Despite what the DMG said, I clearly remember experts of levels 10-15 being mentioned in D&D 3.5 products.
The "templates" I was referring to weren't actual character/creature templates, but rather a simple set of statistics that applies to any commoner or expert, varying only by what specific skills the character takes and how he assigns his ability scores.
Shoes +10 don't make themselves.
Actually, they do. Shoes +10 are on par with the Codex of Infinite Planes, which is still in the process of scribing itself through possession of mortals.
|
I think that maybe a hybrid D&D / BRP system might hold the answer for non-adventurers, skills, and combat ability. Something where successful use of a skill results in a chance for the characters abililty in that skill to increase, but the more skilled you become, the less likely you are to advance in that skill.
I'm thinking maybe for a commoner with every six months spent in a profession roll a d20. If the roll is more than his ranks in the relevant skill, add 1d4 ranks. Skills that are frequently used but not in their profession would use a similar system, but roll once per year and only add 1 rank.
What do you guys think of that?
Also, I notice that absolutely nobody has commented on the rules of monster creation, which actually annoy me more. Monsters should be allowed to be as bizarre as the creator wants them to be, and chaining them to a set progression seems counter to that.
Kind of like me worrying about the fact that my home town doesn't have a viable defense if Godzilla attacks.
...Now I'm not going to sleep tonight. Thanks alot.
Also, I notice that absolutely nobody has commented on the rules of monster creation, which actually annoy me more. Monsters should be allowed to be as bizarre as the creator wants them to be, and chaining them to a set progression seems counter to that.
I, for one, didn't comment on it because it's not a problem (AFAIC). I love that the guidelines are there to codify for me the baseline assumptions behind the game - and then I can tweak/change/make bizarre to my heart's content.
No one is forcing anyone to follow the specific guidelines, so if there is a problem, it's not with the game (again, AFAIC).
Creative Director
|
Also, I notice that absolutely nobody has commented on the rules of monster creation, which actually annoy me more. Monsters should be allowed to be as bizarre as the creator wants them to be, and chaining them to a set progression seems counter to that.
Well... in Pathfinder RPG, the monster creation guidelines exist pretty much for only one reason—so whatever strange monster someone might create can be codified to fit into an expected CR score. There's nothing about the system that doesn't let you make bizarre monsters at all—as we often prove in Pathfinder's bestiaries—but since this is a game where you have to be able to award PCs XP for slaying monsters there needs to be a way to calculate those XP, and that's what CR does.
Of course, it's important not to skip over the very first paragraph on page 290 of the Bestiary where we talk about monster creation—for that paragraph says "there are many exceptions" to the standard monster progression. They're not chained to a set progression at all, in other words.
I'm not sure I agree that a tailor chatting to his customers about combat should be a source of experience points. While it might enable him to know which end of a sword to hold, it certainly wouldn't grant him the increase in hit points and saving throws that's represented by the toughening effect of field experience.
The problem is that commoners and experts represent a vastly variable group of people. Some live in physically challenging environments or pursue physically challenging livelihoods, and some don't. A sailor and an accountant are both using the same advancement table. It's not fair for the accountant to be held back in level advancement (and denied the skill points and mental ability score increases that come with it), but it's also not plausible for him to advance as quickly in attack bonus, hit points, and saving throws.
It might be best to just drop the advancement tables altogether for these two classes, and come up with templates for Average Commoner, Tough Commoner, Average Expert and Tough Expert.
You can learn an amazing amount by simply talking with someone with experience from the field. I play in a local band, and everything that doesn't involve being on stage is learned from talking. There are some hardened veterans in the scene who really know their stuff, and I guarantee they didn't need to kill their opening act to get there.
Maybe so. The fundamental problem here, though, is that an increase in any kind of skill level (including profession, knowledge, perform, etc.) is also tied to a steady increase in combat ability, and that doesn't really make sense in the case of most non-adventuring characters.
I still favor a system allowing more sedentary NPC's to swap out combat advancement in favor of more skill points.
P.S. Sorry, Arnwym ... do you need me to sing you a lullaby?
No, I need Godzilla defense plans!
I still favor a system allowing more sedentary NPC's to swap out combat advancement in favor of more skill points.And I prefer a pure point-buy, Classless and Level-less system that lets you make anything you want in any way you want ... but we're playing D&D here, so you live with it.
R.
There's no need to break the system to do this. Simply allowing a choice between two options at certain levels would do the job just fine.
I still favor a system allowing more sedentary NPC's to swap out combat advancement in favor of more skill points.
I'd give Experts "skill sets" like Sorcerers get blood lines. "Academic" get no BAB, period, but instead get a constantly increasing bonus to a selected set of favored skills (but can't take the "hard" crafting skills as favored skills).
"Hard Crafters (ala Blacksmiths)" get a BAB increase (maybe a partial one), but have a much smaller (possibly just their one main craft skill) they can apply that bonus to, as well. So, a level 6 Blacksmith, being the mightiest tree in the fo... errr... best blacksmith in the land would have an additional +4 to his particular Craft rolls.
"Soft Crafters" would likely be something in between.
Commoners and Warriors I'd leave alone. Probably leave the Adepts alone, too.
Aristocrats would get no BAB, but instead get Diplomacy/Leadership bonuses. (The cliched fencing training would be like picking up a level or three of Fighter/Warrior.)
I still favor a system allowing more sedentary NPC's to swap out combat advancement in favor of more skill points.I'd give Experts "skill sets" like Sorcerers get blood lines. "Academic" get no BAB, period, but instead get a constantly increasing bonus to a selected set of favored skills (but can't take the "hard" crafting skills as favored skills).
"Hard Crafters (ala Blacksmiths)" get a BAB increase (maybe a partial one), but have a much smaller (possibly just their one main craft skill) they can apply that bonus to, as well. So, a level 6 Blacksmith, being the mightiest tree in the fo... errr... best blacksmith in the land would have an additional +4 to his particular Craft rolls.
"Soft Crafters" would likely be something in between.
Commoners and Warriors I'd leave alone. Probably leave the Adepts alone, too.
Aristocrats would get no BAB, but instead get Diplomacy/Leadership bonuses. (The cliched fencing training would be like picking up a level or three of Fighter/Warrior.)
Would you allow PCs to play these characters, or multiclass with them? That is my biggest problem with alternate NPC classes. I look at them and ask "why can't I play one if it fits?" Then I look at them and ask "Can I use this to break prestige classes?" And then everything breaks because you often can, at least in 3.5.