i was wondering about the bunch of npcs classes in other books and systems and why we just have those five npc classes every time?
adept
aristocrat
commoner
expert
warrior
in eberron was the Magewrighter
in ravenloft was the prophet
And theres others from others companies which escape at this moment, but the wholy idea is that: why there´s only five of them?
i wish paiso makes theyre own npc classes for flavor. maybe something relative with the campaign (pathfinder)
mmmm lets try something here:
Gipsy
hp: d8
skills: acrobatics, , craft, perform, proffesion, knowledge (local, history, arcana, nature), survival.
Proficiencies: simple weapons, no armor nor shield, and they select a specific kind of martial weapons.
there are a bunch of gipsyes over the world, there nomads who travel with theyre kin and protect themselves against the evil deeds!!
lvl bab f/ r/ w special
1 +0 +0/+0/+2 Gipsy performance(+2 rounds every 1/3 levels as a bard)
2 +1 +0/+0/+3 -
3 +2 +0/+0/+3 sneak attack 1d4 (as a rogue but every 4 lvls)
4 +3 +1/+1/+4 -
5 +3 +1/+1/+4 Gipsy hospitality/hatred
6 +4 +1/+1/+5 -
7 +5 +2/+2/+5 cantrips (from witch list)
-------------------------------------------------------
the gipsy is a community of peoples who lives traveling over the world and theyre are full of gossips and mistery.
protectives and enjoyable are those who lives the way as a Gipsy, dancing, singing, acting. more of this
if u like. you can make the rest of the remaining levels!
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure that attributing groups abilities that enhance the negative stereotypes about them to a real-world ethnic group is a good idea. Any Romani gamer would probably not be exactly comfortable with that, especially that the term "gypsy" has a very special meaning for them.
It's almost like you made a class named "Niggaz" and gave them enhanced skills at stealing and the ability to dual-wield pistols gangsta style.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how practitioners of Wicca feel about the Witch class, in that case.
Also, we need a Gunslinger archetype built towards dual wielding and that adds Disable Device to his class skills STAT.
With flavorful abilities like "Pop a Cap" and "Sideways for the Kill Shot", this archetype is truly fun for the whole family!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd prefer if there where no NPC classes at all.
Just replace Warrior with Fighter, Adept with Witch, Aristocrat with Noble, Expert with Akashic and Commoner with Humanoid.
If you want to show that someone is of inferior experience, use apprentice levels.
The idea that a level 10 commoner is a challening encounter for a 5th level party is rather strange.
As for racial stereotypes, we already have a barbarian class ...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a very good point, Gorbacz.
Makes me wonder how Romani gamers might feel about the depiction of the Varisians/Sczarni of Golarion, or the Vistani of Ravenloft. Both races/cultures are pretty heavily modeled after the real-world stereotypes associated with the Romani people.
Or, how might Africans (and those of African-descent) feel about the depiction of the Mwangi of Golarion? Black people are less advanced, jungle-dwellin' folks! Really?
I'd prefer if there where no NPC classes at all.
Just replace Warrior with Fighter, Adept with Witch, Aristocrat with Noble, Expert with Akashic and Commoner with Humanoid.
If you want to show that someone is of inferior experience, use apprentice levels.
The idea that a level 10 commoner is a challening encounter for a 5th level party is rather strange.
As for racial stereotypes, we already have a barbarian class ...
What's the Akashic?
Is Noble a PC class?
What are apprentice levels?
Wouldn't a level 10 commoner be CR 8?
|
|
What's the Akashic?
It's a class from Arcana Unearthed/Evolved. Pretty much the ultimate skillmonkey.
Is Noble a PC class?
There are several ones. Green Ronin updated theirs in the Pathfinder Freeport Companion, there are also 3.0 and 3.5 versions from Rokugan and Dragonlance.
What are apprentice levels?
They are a 3.0 rule that allowed 1st level multiclassing. In essence, you only got some abilities of a class. For example, fighters got their bonus feat but no BAB.
Wouldn't a level 10 commoner be CR 8?
Yes. And CR 8 should be a challenging encounter for a 5th level party.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never find NPC's flavorful or interesting or immersive unless I can peek at their statblock and see an unusual class name.
This is how roleplaying works right
|
|
That's a very good point, Gorbacz.
Makes me wonder how Romani gamers might feel about the depiction of the Varisians/Sczarni of Golarion, or the Vistani of Ravenloft. Both races/cultures are pretty heavily modeled after the real-world stereotypes associated with the Romani people.
Or, how might Africans (and those of African-descent) feel about the depiction of the Mwangi of Golarion? Black people are less advanced, jungle-dwellin' folks! Really?
I believe that Varisians are a good call, not using the controversial name "gypsy" (which is pejorative for the people concerned, just like that n-word for the Afro-Americans) and emphasizing the more romanticized/idealized aspect of the Traveller culture (family virtues, joy of the road, dance and arts) instead of focusing on the "lazy dirty horse thief" stereotype. It's actually the same road that TSR took with Ravenloft's Vistani.
Contrast this with the World of Darkness "Gypsies" book which pretty much made the Romani a cabal of supernatural thieves of shady agenda. One of the worst blemishes in White Wolf's publishing history, blergh.
As for Mwangi, the same black people count Old Mage Jatembe, one of the greatest wizards and biggest "Good Guy No Strings Attached" personalities in Golarion. You pretty much can't do the "heart of darkness jungle" setting without having black-skinned natives. Less advanced does not mean "worse", the Bhutan people in our world (despite their technological backwardness) are one of the happiest nations on the planet, more than most of "Western" nations.
Everything is OK as long as the setting doesn't imply that <ethnicity, race> = inferior, criminal, nuisance.
I'd have to say that Paizo has done a pretty good job of avoiding lazy stereotypes. The Varisian culture is a good example of this, as Gorbacz has mentioned. Still, there are those amongst us that are sensitive to these sort of issues and likely to take offense.
Of all Golarion's ethnic and cultural analogues, the only one that raises my concern is the Mwangi. But, considering I don't own any source books, and gather most of my information from wiki-pages and forums, I must confess a lack of personal knowledge on the subject.
From what I've read, I'm not really comfortable with their depiction, but neither am I offended. They have their place in the setting, that's for sure, but it's definitely something I'd bring up with my group were I to decide to run a game in that part of Golarion. Everyone has their tastes, after all, and some things just rub people the wrong way (one of the hazards of creating a published setting, I'd imagine).
To the OP, rather than using a term like "Gypsy", which could be conceived as racially insensitive, you could call your NPC class something along the lines of "Miscreant" or "Vagabond". Has the same sort of feel you were going for, but is less racially-charged and therefor less likely to cause offense.
I don't really think such a class is necessary, though. It's also including more class features than other NPC classes, which could imply a power creep (borrowing from a PC class, no less). If you're fine with that, that's cool!
If not, I'd recommend more than just limiting the rounds/day of performance, but also the types allowed. Maybe confine them to what is available to a 1st level bard (counterspell, distraction, fascinate, and inspire courage).
Though at this point, why not just use a PC class? You could always dilute the character with NPC class levels (such as a commoner 3/bard 1).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we need LESS NPC classes. Just the commoner, warrior and expert. Aristocrats don't need a separate NPC class, and adepts just cheapen the feel of magic.
Questions to be asked before designing a new NPC class: What would be the point of introducing another NPC class? What role it would serve that it isn't fulfilled by one of existing classes?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my mind, there would be 5-6 NPC classes:
• Warrior as basic NPC Fighter (or ideally, switch the names and have Warrior be PC and Fighter be NPC);
• Adept as basic NPC Arcane Caster
• Acolyte (new) as basic NPC Divine Caster
• Thief (new) as basic NPC Rogue
• Expert as the NPC professional/skill monkey
• I'm not totally decided on Aristocrat (see below)
I agree w/ Jadeite that levels in Commoner should just be racial levels, the assumption being that everything presented in the monster books are the commoner version of the creatures. A 2nd-level human Commoner could just be described as a Human 2.
Then "Noble" could be a template applied when needed, almost like Advanced. They'd pick up stat bonuses - reflecting better health, better education, etc. - some additional weapon and armor proficiencies, more skill choices and skill points, all reflecting their noble upbringing and training. I think this would probably replace the Aristocrat NPC class, and you could just have a Noble Human Expert 3 with a focus on Diplomacy, K (nobility), etc.
|
|
What would be the point of introducing another NPC class? What role it would serve that it isn't fulfilled by one of existing classes?
To me, it isn't filling roles that aren't already there, it's filling them in a lesser way. I see the world as being populated by mundane people and PCs being the extraordinary heroes. But, if in order to build some muggers, I make them Rogues 2, and I have to start assigning them extraordinary talents that I don't want my run-of-the-mill street thug to have. PC start picking up heroic abilities pretty quickly, abilities that I don't want most people in a society to have.
So, for me, I'd like to see a non-heroic NPC class option for each niche that PCs can fill - fight, very minor arcane, very minor divine, sneak, professional.
Most of the NPCs can be done with a version of the Warrior, Expert, or Commoner classes, based upon skill choices. I would like to see an NPC Cleric class, Priest. This is the guy that is running the local church, not out adventuring. He can cast spells, but in a limited way, and most spells are higher in level for him.
There is a problem with the CRs though. No way should a Warrior and Commoner of the same level have the same CR.
I think that Expert should be able to choose which save is his good save.
A "Hedge Wizard" would also be interesting.
im going to make a "like paizo´s usualy ask for sorry to the community" here:
Let´s change the name of "Gipsy" and replace for "Wanderer" instead.
ok guys, look what i found here... what have you to say about?
http://paizo.com/products/btpy8q2b/discuss?Gypsy
|
|
I created an NPC class for my games call The Mage. They work just like the Adept except for arcane spells, uses Intelligence instead of Wisdom, and their spell list.
Side note, no NPC class should EVER get class features. None of the other NPC classes do and for a good reason. The ONLY exception to this is the Adept and now the Mage getting a familiar.
0 Level: arcane mark, dancing lights, daze, detect magic, detect poison, flare, light, mage hand, mending, message, read magic
1st Level: alarm, burning hands, color spray, comprehend languages, endure elements, feather fall, floating disk, identify, mage armor, magic aura, magic missile, magic weapon, mount, obscuring mist, silent image, summon monster I, unseen servant
2nd Level: acid arrow, arcane lock, continual flame, flaming sphere, gust of wind, identify fingerprint, knock, levitate, make whole, minor image, resist energy, scare, see invisibility, summon monster II, whispering wind
3rd Level: arcane sight, daylight, dispel magic, fireball, heroism, lightning bolt, major image, nondetection, sleet storm, summon monster III, tongues, wind wall
4th Level: dimension door, fear, hallucinatory terrain, scrying, stone shape, summon monster IV, wall of fire
5th Level: cone of cold, fabricate, major creation, permanency, sending, summon monster V, telekinesis, teleport
The point of NPC classes such as adept is so that low-scale hedge magic is available in a campaign setting to folks other than highly trained, heroically scaled awesome outliers in the world population.
Adventurer or PC classes push the envelope and go beyond what is sane or reasonable for most people in either capability or even motivation. After all, being a PC class implies that your characters are special in some way, a serious cut above the rest. If that weren't the case, low level play may as well be called Dungeons and Minions.
The arcane wasn't covered by existing options. Experts cover the entire range of scoundrels and skilled types in my opinion. Aristocrats cover the social arena very well, which represent spoiled yet educated types that don't have any proclivity towards straining for greatness or danger. Commoners are self-explanatory. Adepts do the job of divine casting well.
Mosaic, exactly! When every criminal shmuck in an alley can evade fireballs and studies anatomy charts for sneak attack like he's Batman, we have a problem.
I like the idea of your thief/scoundrel type class to fill the role of a criminal persona.
I do like the idea of the vagabond whose only features are highly weakened morale bonuses and some shifty class skills.
I wonder how practitioners of Wicca feel about the Witch class, in that case.
My Wiccan & Witch (Slight differences between the 2) friends like the Witch and find it pretty cool. Stylized but not Cliche like some other games.
My wiccan buddy doesn't get bent out of shape about casual use of terms in the story-telling media (games, movies, TV, literature). He much prefers it to fear of witchcraft, with it possibly equating to satanism.
Mine could care less what anyone thinks. I was just stating what I heard from them when they were looking over the class.
Though I think we have enough NPC Classes. Anything that can't fit into the current ones probably should be a PC Classed NPC.
& I could see a Level 10 commoner being challenging depending on Circumstances. Not all Encounters are Combat Encounters after all.
I just have a Priest and Mage NPC Classes that use the Cleric and Wizard Spell Progression and Lists with Diminished Casting. They only get a Familiar. The Priest doesn't get Domains or Domain Spell Slots.
The Mage also has a Spellbook like a Wizard.
I wonder how practitioners of Wicca feel about the Witch class, in that case.
Considering they adopted the term "Witch" in the 1930's, they have no grounds to complain about preexisting stereotypes. However, they would probably complain anyway.
I've always found the number of NPC classes to be more than sufficient.
I made an NPC class I titled "Geurilla/Bandit" and used it in one campaign. I used the warrior as a base, but added survival and stealth to the class skill list and sneak attack progression as the rogue. In the campaign they used light armor and simple weapons, as they were poor. Like many house rules it was fun for a bit, but ultimately it didn't add enough to the game that I kept using it.
I've considered other NPC classes, but, in the end, gone with what exists.
The Adept serves my campaign as the typical priest, leaving the Cleric to fill roles in elite orders; officers in the Church's Grand Legion, inquisitors in the Holy Inquisition (although I recently decided to put the Inquisitor into that slot for obvious reasons), etc.. I thought of an arcane version of the Adept, but decided anyone educated enough to do D&D / PFs rather scholarly approach to arcane magic would be best represented as the PC class. Or as a Sorceror. And now, we have the Witch as well.
The Aristocrat serves well for the wealthy / elite, not necessarily just nobles. Rich merchants, burgers, etc. as well as the odd members of the gentry and aristocracy are well covered...
Commoner's make good farmers, laborers, fishermen, etc.
The Expert fills out most craftsman, artisan and trader roles. I considered new more specialized NPC classes for these, but there was not enough gain and the expert could cover the roles through skill selection, etc.
I refer to the Warrior NPC class as the Soldier and he fits well into any NPC combat slot from city watch to mercenary soldier. For me, "Warrior" should refer to someone raised in a military class. In short it fits "Fighter" better than the generic Fighter title does. That's just me though.
I try to minimize the PC classes in routine roles in my world. Most people should be "ordinary folks" using NPC classes. This leaves the PC classes for specialized roles, elite NPCs, and adventurers.
One thing that has made the NPC classes easier and more useful to me is a list of typical skills, and feats for different professions. I need a smith, he's an expert of level x, I look up his skill choices, use any unused to fill in thing about him and he's ready for use. Easy enough to do off the cuff, but having it worked out ahead of time made setting up large number of NPC stat blocks easier as well as quick NPC creation.
|
|
I have a soft spot for Experts. One other change I would make is give Experts "Profession" as a class skill... and no one else, including PC classes. PCs could still take the skill, but they wouldn't get the +3 class skill bonus. I've never liked that a dude out exploring dungeons all day can be just as good at being a baker as the guy who dedicates his life to baking.
The main character of Kekkaishi takes offense at that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a soft spot for Experts. One other change I would make is give Experts "Profession" as a class skill... and no one else, including PC classes. PCs could still take the skill, but they wouldn't get the +3 class skill bonus. I've never liked that a dude out exploring dungeons all day can be just as good at being a baker as the guy who dedicates his life to baking.
That's important to you?
I've never liked that a dude out exploring dungeons all day can be just as good at being a baker as the guy who dedicates his life to baking.
In general, I like the idea that an adventurer did something for a living before killing things and taking their stuff.
|
|
It's not important to me on the scale of, say, figuring how Stealth and Perception rules actually work, but sure, the thought, "That doesn't seem quite right" pops into my head once in a while. Expert 5 w/ Profession (brewer) = "I'm a master brewer and I can brew world-class beer!" Fighter 5 w/ Profession (brewer) = "I spend all day killing monsters, and I can still brew beer just as well as you can!" No, not a huge big deal, but, yeah, it doesn't seem quite right to me.
Point taken, but it could happen in the realm of fantasy literature.
Alrighty then.
The main character of Kekkaishi takes offense at that.
Agreed
|
In my mind, there would be 5-6 NPC classes:
• Warrior as basic NPC Fighter (or ideally, switch the names and have Warrior be PC and Fighter be NPC);
• Adept as basic NPC Arcane Caster
• Acolyte (new) as basic NPC Divine Caster
• Thief (new) as basic NPC Rogue
• Expert as the NPC professional/skill monkey• I'm not totally decided on Aristocrat (see below)
I agree w/ Jadeite that levels in Commoner should just be racial levels, the assumption being that everything presented in the monster books are the commoner version of the creatures. A 2nd-level human Commoner could just be described as a Human 2.
Then "Noble" could be a template applied when needed, almost like Advanced. They'd pick up stat bonuses - reflecting better health, better education, etc. - some additional weapon and armor proficiencies, more skill choices and skill points, all reflecting their noble upbringing and training. I think this would probably replace the Aristocrat NPC class, and you could just have a Noble Human Expert 3 with a focus on Diplomacy, K (nobility), etc.
I really like this idea....and would like to see more templates and alternate features for the classes. I will put this in my "to do if time ever permits" pile and hope to develop it more for my home game.
thanks.
The main character of Kekkaishi takes offense at that.Agreed
aristocrat and commoner maybe could be a social position...
by this way:
D%--------class
01-75-----Commoner
76-00-----Aristocrat
Commoner: add 1d6 to the character starting gold plus 1 profession skill rank
Aristocrat: add one multiplier to the character starting gold (e.g. Fighter starting gold 5d6X10... aristocrat fighter starting gold 5d6X11), plus 1 social skill rank (diplomacy, sense motive, or bluff)
The main character of Kekkaishi takes offense at that.Agreedaristocrat and commoner maybe could be a social position...
by this way:
D%--------class
01-75-----Commoner
76-00-----AristocratCommoner: add 1d6 to the character starting gold plus 1 profession skill rank
Aristocrat: add one multiplier to the character starting gold (e.g. Fighter starting gold 5d6X10... aristocrat fighter starting gold 5d6X11), plus 1 social skill rank (diplomacy, sense motive, or bluff)
How about:
D%--------class
01-98-----Commoner
99-00-----Aristocrat
I think there are already far too many classes, archetypes, prestige classes and racial substitutions to keep track of as it is (and I cull a lot of these in my home game). Adding in yet more classes which are less desirable than PC classes doesn't help. Adding in new classes which are more powerful than PC classes is 'GM cheating' to my mind.
I think there are already far too many classes, archetypes, prestige classes and racial substitutions to keep track of as it is (and I cull a lot of these in my home game). Adding in yet more classes which are less desirable than PC classes doesn't help. Adding in new classes which are more powerful than PC classes is 'GM cheating' to my mind.
Mostly I agree with you and not all of what exists sees use in my home game either. NPC classes on the other hand are about world building, not player abuse / use.
In my campaigns, I use some of the NPC classes.
The Adepts serves as low-ranking spiritual practitioners.
The Experts function as laborers, manufacturers, merchants, an other service providers.
The Warrior are the guards, soldiers, and thugs.
and The Magewrights (from Eberron) act as low-ranking magicians.
I don't use The Commoner or The Aristocrat, they don't make sense to me.
Even the most basic concept of the commoner, the farmer, is still an expert at agriculture. Aristocrats, be them kings of countries, generals of armies, or mayors of hamlets, would still have the time and resources to pursue other classes.
I have never seen anything wrong with the NPC classes, and they are so generalized that you don't really need to make more. You want a NPC thief? Expert with maxed out Stealth, Bluff, and Sleight of Hand. Need a pirate or seaman? Warrior or Expert with Profession (sailor) and Knowledge (nature).
I use commoner for things like Beggers and such. Aristocrat I use for the Lesser Nobles and similar.
So the Lesser Nobles you see in my games tend to be Aristocrats while a King/Queen would be based on his role.
• Warrior as basic NPC Fighter (or ideally, switch the names and have Warrior be PC and Fighter be NPC);
• Adept as basic NPC Arcane Caster
• Acolyte (new) as basic NPC Divine Caster
• Expert as the NPC professional/skill monkey
I mostly agree. I've always used the Adept/Acolyte version you show.
I also agree with Azaelas on the Commoner & Aristocrat.
I'm not sure about adding this: Thief (new) as basic NPC Rogue, however I do use the Magewright and since I use Psionics, I'd working on the Medium as a basic Psionic NPC.
I would still use expert for beggars and lesser noble. Nobility and impoverishment are statuses, not careers. I beggar is more likely to be a baker who contracted leprosy then someone who "trained" to be a vagrant. A noble is usually a merchant or soldier who has earned enough favor by doing their job to be granted that title by higher nobility. Classes are careers one must dedicate years of training to. Lesser nobility, or elected officials, always start out as something else. Even Prince William would say he is an officer in the military first, and a prince second.
I'm not advocating my way is right, of course, I just feel those two NPC classes are completely unnecessary.
I am thinking the Begger wouldn't have as much opportunity to learn the abilities of another class. And I was thinking more of the Heir of Old Money rather than the Original Merchant who started the Family Business that earned their status.
Where is Mosaic's Adept/Acolyte Classes?
I am converting the Magewright right now... Mainly dropping their class features for a Familiar. And figuring out what each spell is in Pathfinder.
I would still use expert for beggars and lesser noble. Nobility and impoverishment are statuses, not careers. I beggar is more likely to be a baker who contracted leprosy then someone who "trained" to be a vagrant. A noble is usually a merchant or soldier who has earned enough favor by doing their job to be granted that title by higher nobility. Classes are careers one must dedicate years of training to. Lesser nobility, or elected officials, always start out as something else. Even Prince William would say he is an officer in the military first, and a prince second.
I'm not advocating my way is right, of course, I just feel those two NPC classes are completely unnecessary.
I'm not sure why you use only Expert. My commoner Baker is going to be just as good a baker as your Expert Baker. Now the pastry chef to the king, that is baking cakes, and pies, and fancy pastries; he's an Expert. The guy in the Thorp that bakes everyone's bread; he is just a Commoner. There are a lot more bread bakers, than there are pastry chefs.
Many beggars are out there, because they didn't want to work at a real job. Yes some are stuck because of circumstances, but many if not most just want to not have to work.
I would still use expert for beggars and lesser noble. Nobility and impoverishment are statuses, not careers. I beggar is more likely to be a baker who contracted leprosy then someone who "trained" to be a vagrant. A noble is usually a merchant or soldier who has earned enough favor by doing their job to be granted that title by higher nobility. Classes are careers one must dedicate years of training to. Lesser nobility, or elected officials, always start out as something else. Even Prince William would say he is an officer in the military first, and a prince second.
I'm not advocating my way is right, of course, I just feel those two NPC classes are completely unnecessary.
Well, I am not saying that you are "wrong" either. But, I find the Commoner a more direct path to the simple and easy basic, weak NPC. The Expert has too many skills and skill points, hit points, and Base Attack for my liking.
The saving grace is the mutable skills list, so you can customize your NPC more. Of course, you can just assign a given NPC lower hit points, and not use as much attack bonus. By definition, the use of these classes is restricted to the GM and his world building. They are a tool. But some people prefer to have as much framework and shorthand as possible in the toolbox. That is why I advocate filling out the NPC docket a little.
As others have said, I would add an 'Acolyte', a 'Magician', and a 'Diplomat' (don't like the name, it's from d20 Star Wars). Also, I would alter the Commoner class to be able to choose a small number of skills, as the Expert.
Ooh, you could split the difference: give the Commoner 4 skill points per level and the aforementioned "open" skill list, and you can drop the need for the Diplomat (weak BAB, hit points, good skills).
As a footnote: a problem I often see in discussions of classes such as Aristocrat, and Cavalier, is the tendency to assign to much to the name. If you rely on the name of the class to tell you what jobs they can fill, then all assassins are the same, and all "aristocrats" are the same. I look at the mechanical components to see what it can do. Then assign the right class for the right NPC.
-Cheers
I still just see the Commoner as useless. I would say a local Baker is a 2nd level-4th level expert and a king's Baker is a 9th-14th level expert.
Why do I dislike the Commoner? Because it's useless. It is both a waste of space on page and a waste of time in practice.
In the real world what separates the aristocracy from the commoners is wealth. As the Character wealth chart is based on level (the higher the level, the more money you can earn), then it would follow that a commoner is anyone of low level, and an aristocrat is anyone of high level.
My brother, who has a PhD in economics, says "One of the benefits of any society where there is a functioning sense of commerce (i.e. Money), which is true of even fantasy worlds, is specialization. The "commoner" would only exist in a society without any sense of commerce, as without trade of goods, everyone would have to manage their tasks for their own consumption. In other-words, everyone would have to be a thatchers, farmer, baker, and butcher at the same time to survive. The commoner simply does not have the skill points for that. In a trade-based society, one must specialize in something to function as part of the whole. Even the beggar specializes in begging, being an expert with skills in Bluff, Diplomacy, or maybe Perform."
Commoners still get class skills that let them specialize in thatching, or farming, or baking, or butchering, or pretty much any other Craft or Profession (because look, they get Craft and Profession). Just because they don't get their pick of extra skills like Spellcraft to specialize in doesn't mean they all try to do everything at once and never work together or specialize in anything.
The real problem with the NPC classes is that they're a really slow way to build NPC's, and forcing them to follow the same skill system as the PC's leads to silliness like the king's Baker being an objectively important person resistant to many weak (HD-dependent) forms of magic (and much harder to kill than most people) because otherwise the system doesn't give you any way to get his Craft (Pies) score high. As opposed to just saying "Screw it, this dude bakes really well" and giving him a high skill bonus without needing to assign five feats and make him hard to kill.
Also it's stupid because come on who cares what the king's baker's baker score is. Between a system that makes stating up most NPC's harder than it needs to be and a game in which most of those stats don't make a difference anyhow, NPC classes as a whole just waste a lot of time.