20th level commoner?!

[AbeTheGnome]

i got to thinking about NPC classes, and once again i got in trouble trying to reconcile d&d with reality. how do 1st level commoners survive in the monster-infested wilderness? why does a child have just as many hit points as a grown man? why does a cat have half that many? how can a 1st level expert produce a masterwork mithral bastard sword?

and so, i've decided that in my next game, there won't be any 1st level characters at all, barring children. all PCs and NPCs will start out with three levels of an NPC class. that means more hp, more skill points (representing knowledge gained through experience), higher saves and BABs, but no feats. a PCs first heroic class level will actually be his fourth level. how would this affect the game?

 

[White Whale]

They will be very weak for their level. That is if you don't give them the 3 NPC classes for "free" (don't count against Effective Character Level)?

 

[AbeTheGnome]

They will be very weak for their level. That is if you don't give them the 3 NPC classes for "free" (don't count against Effective Character Level)?

i may count the three npc levels as one for calculating ECL for encounters, but honestly, i just wing it with encounters most of the time. i give them what i think they're ready for, and if it's obvious that i misjudged, i'll botch the rolls.

 

[Sound of Azure]

Characters gain levels by overcoming challenges, not necessarily by killing stuff. The wily merchant in your campaign's main city "defeats" townsfolk on a daily basis every time he gets them to buy his overpriced merchandise, for instance. He wouldn't get much xp, but it eventually adds up. The same goes for a commoner farmer successfully harvesting his crop and feeding his family after a drought or harsh winter. Even if nothing else really happens to him, he'll eventually hit 2nd level

Secondly, for the most part, a commoner isn't likely to be roaming about in the wilderness anyway unless forced to. They're going to be using the skills they have (working the land, being a carpenter, etc). When they are forced to deal with really dangerous stuff, they tend to die. Those that don't may very well advance in level, even if it was mostly luck that got them through.

 

[White Whale]

Note that if you "give" them 3 NPC classes it will be possible to qualify for some prestige classes with only a couple of heroic classes. Non-spellcasters gain the most, I believe.

 

[AbeTheGnome]

Note that if you "give" them 3 NPC classes it will be possible to qualify for some prestige classes with only a couple of heroic classes.

in this sense, i think it's not much different from starting players out at 4th level: less play sessions before they can get into the class that they really want to be in. that's fine with me. if a player really wants to play a shadowdancer, let's get her there asap. keep in mind, however, that many prestige classes require feats, and feats aren't available to NPC classes.

Non-spellcasters gain the most, I believe.

i'm not sure how you mean. if this is the case, though, that's fine as well. spellcasters get plenty of time to shine at mid to high levels. the adept is still available for the "pre" levels, though, which means casters would start out with more spells at their disposal. of course, their caster levels couldn't stack.

 

[Li Shenron]

why does a child have just as many hit points as a grown man?

Because the chance that a dagger stab will kill either one is not that different.

But your idea of 3 commoner's levels is not bad. However, how about replacing the commoner's levels with class levels as the character advances? Something like, eg for a Wizard:

At no xp (not yet a PC), you're Commoner 3
At 0xp, you're Commoner 2 / Wizard 1
At 1000xp, you're Commoner 1 / Wizard 2
At 3000xp, you're Wizard 3

and so on.

 

[Thanee]

I'm not sure if reality-based arguments work for hit points. Hit points (and levels as in D&D) are just completely unrealistic, there is no way around it.

Bye
Thanee

 

[White Whale]

i'm not sure how you mean.

Qualifying for a prestige class usually requires some combination of the following:
-feats
-skill points
-Base attack bonus
-able to cast level X spells

This means that for 'fighter'-like characters the NPC levels don't delay them in getting into the PrC, whereas for spellcasters the NPC levels are next to useless. Or, in other words: a warrior3/Ftr2 probably qualifies for several PrCs, but spellcasters have to be NPC3/spellcaster5. That is 3 levels later.

if this is the case, though, that's fine as well. spellcasters get plenty of time to shine at mid to high levels. the adept is still available for the "pre" levels, though, which means casters would start out with more spells at their disposal. of course, their caster levels couldn't stack.

The problem is, spellcasters suck at the early levels where the fighter shines. Your 'solution' makes this problem even worse at low levels. IMO, you should try to make spellcasters better in the low levels, and worse in the high levels.

I think Li Shenron's suggestion is the best so far.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm not sure if reality-based arguments work for hit points. Hit points (and levels as in D&D) are just completely unrealistic, there is no way around it.

Bye
Thanee

I think the key problem is in the levels.

If we could imagine for a second that hit points were NOT tied to levels but completely indipendent, they wouldn't be so unrealistic IMHO.

But as soon as they are linked to levels, it gets problematic. Same with skill ranks tied to level, for example!