Minor spoiler for the Fall of the Plaguestone module.
A very early encounter includes:
DRUNKEN FARMER
...
Str +3, Dex +1, Con +1, Int +1, Wis +0, Cha +1
Items: durable farm clothes (counts as padded armor)
HP 16
They have no class levels, as this is not 3.x and we are leaving the paradigm that non-PCs are built like PCs.
But DAYUM, those ability scores! Their modifiers are almost as high as those of Level 1 heroes! (Using the default character generation system in the CRB, a character's modifiers total to +9, while these NPCs' modifiers add up to +7.)
And their HP matches that of a typical Level 1 human adventurer.
I've grown used to the idea that a 10 in an ability score represents average ability in the game world.
So is this the new norm for commoners? Is there even a "norm" or common expectation to speak of? Or is this one, but it was not adhered to for this module?
And compared to the non-adventurers around them, how do our heroes compare? It would seem that they are distinguished by the feats, and not by their ability scores...
I assume feats, proficiency and levels?
Under the new idea you would expect a farmer to have a human boost and farmer background boost to give +2 strength
The Int doesn't make sense
There is a debate on whether middle ages / renaissance farmers would be stronger than average. One one side there is more heavy manual labor and the other poorer nutrition
Does look odd though on the face of it
But I think it is just a maths thing to give them a chance of hitting and perhaps not supposed to represent that they have stats of 16,12,12,12,10,12
A clue would be their melee role and damage output (see the discussion on goblin warriors for a similar thing)
Minor spoiler for the Fall of the Plaguestone module.
A very early encounter includes:
** spoiler omitted **
They have no class levels, as this is not 3.x and we are leaving the paradigm that non-PCs are built like PCs.
But DAYUM, those ability scores! Their modifiers are almost as high as those of Level 1 heroes! (Using the default character generation system in the CRB, a character's modifiers total to +9, while these NPCs' modifiers add up to +7.)
And their HP matches that of a typical Level 1 human adventurer.
I've grown used to the idea that a 10 in an ability score represents average ability in the game world.
So is this the new norm for commoners? Is there even a "norm" or common expectation to speak of? Or is this one, but it was not adhered to for this module?
And compared to the non-adventurers around them, how do our heroes compare? It would seem that they are distinguished by the feats, and not by their ability scores...
I was kind of surprised by that, too. They get 4 fewer attribute points than a first level character and "average" is clearly not 10 anymore.
|
10 remains 'average' in some sense, but how common stats above average are seems to vary.
Looking in the Bestiary for Level -1 and Level 0 humanoid foes, a net of +4 to +7 Ability Mods seems average for Level -1 and a total of +8 Ability Mods or so for Level 0. Level 1, like 1st level PCs, tend to be around +9.
Personally, I suspect future commoners may be less impressive than these, but they'll probably have somewhat better average stats than they did in PF1 (though even there, the average farmer netted +1 in stat mods).
I was kind of surprised by that, too. They get 4 fewer attribute points than a first level character and "average" is clearly not 10 anymore.
It would seem that the new "normal" is a 12 (+1 modifier)...
... And that 10s are actually below average in ability. (Gasp!)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A 10 is listed as the human average in the corebook. That doesn't mean that everyone has a 10 in things, though. Many people are above average (or below average) in some ways.
In particular, people who the PCs engage with will often be above average to some degree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are you just looking at a tiny part of their stats, not even the most important ones? Other than HP, which you listed, what matters the most is attack/damage/defensive rolls.
They are 1 less than those of 1st-level characters who are Trained in those proficiencies:
fist +5 (1d4+3 B)
chair +3 (1d6+3 B) [improvised weapon]
mug +1 (1d3+3 B) [also improvised]
So it's as if they have a proficiency modifier wherein their Level is 0.
Same with AC: they have an AC of 13. (10 + Level 0 + Dex 1 + Trained 2)
So they were "built like PCs"... but with ability scores nearly as good as those of PCs.
In PF1, the NPC array was 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 (average 10.5), while for PCs it was 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 (average 12).
In PF2 (from this limited example, granted), the respective averages are 12.33 and 12.67 respectively.
It appears that the designers have created a system wherein the PCs are distinguished from commoners, not by their innate ability, but by their development and training (Class + Level). To me that's not necessarily a bad thing. But it does scrap the idea that 10 (and a +0) represent average ability without being open about it.
I was kind of surprised by that, too. They get 4 fewer attribute points than a first level character and "average" is clearly not 10 anymore.It would seem that the new "normal" is a 12 (+1 modifier)...
... And that 10s are actually below average in ability. (Gasp!)
Captain Obvious is actually incorrect.
A 10 is listed as the human average in the corebook. That doesn't mean that everyone has a 10 in things, though. Many people are above average (or below average) in some ways.
In particular, people who the PCs engage with will often be above average to some degree.
I'll wager that is not the case. I predict everyone is going to have ancestry modifiers and nobody is going to have flaws, unless specified by ancestry. Everyone is also going to have a background for another 2 +2's. It looks like there were another 3 +2's (instead of the 4 a PC would get besides the boost for class). I could see the 3 +2's changing depending upon the encounter, but do you really think we're going to see reductions relative to ancestry and background? I don't.
Don't get me wrong. It's just numbers. If 12 is the new average, that's fine with me. I don't exactly see the point of changing it, but whatever.
A 10 is listed as the human average in the corebook. That doesn't mean that everyone has a 10 in things, though. Many people are above average (or below average) in some ways.
In particular, people who the PCs engage with will often be above average to some degree.
Ah, so if the CRB says that, then this statblock appears to be an aberration.
Sure, PCs generally engage with people who are extraordinarily talented. But in this particular example there's no reason to think they're not regular average people.
A 10 is listed as the human average in the corebook. That doesn't mean that everyone has a 10 in things, though. Many people are above average (or below average) in some ways.
In particular, people who the PCs engage with will often be above average to some degree.
I'll wager that is not the case. I predict everyone is going to have ancestry modifiers and nobody is going to have flaws, unless specified by ancestry. Everyone is also going to have a background for another 2 +2's. It looks like there were another 3 +2's (instead of the 4 a PC would get besides the boost for class). I could see the 3 +2's changing depending upon the encounter, but do you really think we're going to see reductions relative to ancestry and background? I don't.
Don't get me wrong. It's just numbers. If 12 is the new average, that's fine with me. I don't exactly see the point of changing it, but whatever.
Ah, you're right. So by these rules they should get a sum total of two +1s from ancestry, and two +1s from background. You can even say that they also get one +1 increase from their profession, just as PCs get one from their class (adventuring is their profession.
As for 12 being the new average, I agree that it's no big deal. But it is a "culture shock" for someone who comes from previous editions and/or gives weight to the baseline of 10.