Commoner vs Fighter/Rogue vs Wizard/Cleric

[Elf Witch]

I don't think the argument is whether or not commoners should be able to attack at all, but whether they should be able to do so as well as a first level fighter or rogue. Conversely, the question can be phrased: "Should Fighters and Rogues have combat abilities/stunts that commoners don't."

Guns are far easier to use than primitive handweapons...that's why they end the reign of aristocratic warrior classes, historically. Modern crossbows have "learned a lot" from guns and are far more sophisticated and easy to use than their medieval counterparts. That said, I suspect that a peasant could probably fire a crossbow that he found on a table, but would run into difficulty attempting to reload it. (Although crossbows took far less training to use than longbows.)

Of course, two commoners can kill each other...I don't think people are arguing that commoners couldn't make basic attacks. I mean the dude and the intruder are probably both d6 hp commoners (to use 3e terms.) So the one guy got lucky and rolled max damage (maybe critted?) and other guy rolled low hp. Or maybe the fight took more than one round. Tada, one commoner killed another. What people are suggesting is that neither one of them did anything particularly fancy during that fight.



Okay. You both probably still have single digit hp (again in 3e terms.) HP are abstract (sadly, perhaps). So if this guy had 4 HP and you did 4....he's incapacitated.



I'm not sure about the magic stuff. That varies a lot in the genre. In some of my favorite fantasy sources, there are no gods (or at least they don't seem to be any evident than they are in this world) and priestly casters are just wizards with credentials from a church. In other sources, magic isn't just a matter of training, its a special thing that only some few chosen people get to do ever. Sometimes I don't like how D&D (and many rpgs) treat magic as if its just an alternative to science. That always leaves me thinking about Magitech.

In any case, both are probably something that should be set up to vary between campaigns and playgroups, rather than firmly fixed in the rules.

I am not saying they should be as good as a fighter. But they might be good enough to kill some Kobolds.

As for the magic/cleric thing it should of course be up to the DM and the flavor of his game.

But a mob of commoners with pitchforks ought to be a risk for low level characters. A pitchfork through your lungs can ruin anyone's day.

 

[Elf Witch]

In all fairness, I did say that. In both of my previous posts I said a reasonable reaction would be either run or take a swing. Damn right I might swing my briefcase (or my handbag )

My handbag is a deadly weapon so are my stilettos.

I took a self defense class after the mugger tried to take my purse. And we were taught how to fight dirty. The main goal disable and run like hell.

All I am saying is that people who live in a dangerous place may learn a few skills to help protect themselves that is all.

 

[Ratskinner]

I don't think you give people enough credit. faced with an assailant with a knife you might not do a wuxia style move but you might swing your briefcase at them and then run.

Or you might just stand there frozen in fear.

I am not saying that you could untrained do a monk style counterattack. But say the orcs are riding off with your child you could throw rocks which in real life can kill. You might grab a fallen crossbow and fire it and if you roll well enough actually hit and do damage.

I have seen to many DMs play NPC commoners has totally helpless and that is just not realistic.

Basic attacks are not the issue, nor I would think is a Survival skill check. The question is:

Let's take a "classless" person, a mundane or a Commoner. Is there anything a Fighter/Rogue can do that the Commoner cannot attempt?

I would argue, yes, there are. Its not that there's absolutely no chance that it ever happens, but the d20 has a minimum resolution of 5%. If the chance of something happening is very far below that, then it should probably be "forbidden."

However, I would also hold that individual campaigns and circumstances could make that different.

 

[Ratskinner]

I am not saying they should be as good as a fighter. But they might be good enough to kill some Kobolds.

As for the magic/cleric thing it should of course be up to the DM and the flavor of his game.

But a mob of commoners with pitchforks ought to be a risk for low level characters. A pitchfork through your lungs can ruin anyone's day.

I was overjoyed to hear them toying with the idea that a mob of townsfolk could actually threaten a giant (or something like that.)

 

[Elf Witch]

I was overjoyed to hear them toying with the idea that a mob of townsfolk could actually threaten a giant (or something like that.)

I would love to see rules for something like that.

 

[Mengu]

Seems more like a setting question than a system question. System shouldn't care.

In my 4e setting everyone, even commoners can attempt magic in the form of rituals via use of arcana, religion, or nature. Instantaneous magic requires further training, and can't be attempted untrained. The powers at the disposal of the PC's are all "magic" regardless of their power source. A fighter using storm of blows is using magic to move incredibly fast between opponents before they can react. Again, in my setting, I call this shared power source, destiny, and it is the power source all PC's (and NPC's in their order) use. It's a setting thing.

I don't think the system needs to define how the powers PC's have access to are explained. Similarly, the system does not need to explain what commoners can do. Maybe I want to run a campaign where anyone not trained in magic is considered an ignorant uncivilized barbarian, or muggle. What commoners can and can't do, need not be defined by the system. As a matter of fact, the system should ideally be agnostic of such things.

 

[Andor]

Seems more like a setting question than a system question. System shouldn't care.

I don't think the system needs to define how the powers PC's have access to are explained. Similarly, the system does not need to explain what commoners can do. Maybe I want to run a campaign where anyone not trained in magic is considered an ignorant uncivilized barbarian, or muggle. What commoners can and can't do, need not be defined by the system. As a matter of fact, the system should ideally be agnostic of such things.

I disagree completely. The system models the reality the characters live in. Unless you are playing something like Exalted where the PCs have been transfigured into superhuman entities, then the basic reality of the world is the same for a pc and for an NPC.

If the fighter cannot attempt hedge magic, then neither can a farmer. If the farmer can attempt hedge magic then so can the fighter.

If the GM wants to make a setting that plays with those assumptions, then of course he is free to do so. Nothing in any rulebook can prevent house rules or custom settings.

If you want the peasants of one area to be brutalized serfs who only know how to defend themselves with staves and another area has stout yeoman who train in the militia and have proficiency with (and sets of) leather armour and spears and bows then the rules will not stop you from doing so. If you want peasants who can sneeze 40d6 fireballs at will you can do that too, but I'm going to wonder why they needed my help with the goblins.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Attributes could play a big role here.

Maybe a commoner can swing a sword, but only if his strength is high enough. Donning armor: a peasant with only average stats can´t really use them well.
A commoner could try hedge magic, if he is wise or intelligent enough. The fighter could also do... but usually those stats are low for him, so usually the fighter will not be able to do magic.
Maybe he is rather wise, so he could pray for some wonders... knee at an altar and get some divine boons.
Attributes could play the important role of what a character is actually able to do. Be it mundane or magical. (And if you look at all editions... there is a trend that attributes do exactly this)

 

[Mengu]

The system models the reality the characters live in. Unless you are playing something like Exalted where the PCs have been transfigured into superhuman entities, then the basic reality of the world is the same for a pc and for an NPC.

I realize this is more or less a general consensus, but I don't understand why system assumptions of such campaign restrictions are necessary. The system is a way to resolve conflict, nothing more. It gives us the tools. Building a setting is not the system's job.

One of my favorite parts of reading fantasy novels is discovering the universe of the novel, and if I like it, I often wonder what it would be like to play in a campaign world like it. In many of them, the basic reality of the world is not the same for heroes and commoners. The PC's could be rune lords, or vampires, or jedi, or exalted, or chaos touched. Why does the system have to assume they are not special or unique in some fantastic way?

 

[Andor]

I realize this is more or less a general consensus, but I don't understand why system assumptions of such campaign restrictions are necessary. The system is a way to resolve conflict, nothing more. It gives us the tools. Building a setting is not the system's job.

If you are talking about a universal system like Gurps or the Hero system that is true, because there are no basic assumptions. You can define the magic system, the baseline human level, divine responses, etc.. You can build your world from the ground up without interference from the system.

That is not the case in a class based system. Assumptions are built in. You know what starting heros look like and the threats they are expected to deal with. If the NPCs are all stronger why did they bother hiring you? Because you are expendable? You know how many hp a goblin or orc has, you know what a fireball does. You may reasonably expect a rogue with a maxed out climbing stat + skill to be better than the average NPC at climbing. So your knowledge of climbing DCs lets you know if Joe NPC can climb that tree too.

Frankly the problem of D&D is usually that it has lots of cultural baggage built into the system but never 'fesses up to it. Paladin restrictions, Cleric non-edged weapons, druids, bards, wizards who can't heal, clerics who channel positive energy, fighters proficient in plate mail and composite bows. Exotic weapons lists. Monks.

These things all contain massive amounts of cultural baggage and world building assumptions built into them. And they should really, that's part of a class systems job.

If you are making a game about a nomadic herding culture it should have classes that reflect it's needs and skill sets. If you include a class that has no riding skills and instead makes architectural scale magic-items you should probably realize it's a poor fit and requires some explanation.

Again, as GM you can alter anything you please. "This is a mongol based campaign. All classes have riding as a base skill. Heavy armour proficiency is exotic, but the foot bow is a martial weapon. Clerics and Druids are equally respected and represented. Sorcerers have djinn blood and are not trusted. Wizards write spell books in the form of horsehide scrolls."

If you are making a game based on ancient rome then plate armour doesn't exist. Druids are a barbarian class. Warhorses haven't been bred yet, so mounted combat isn't done (light cav exists actually, but not heavy), but chariots are used.

Skills lists, spell lists, race lists, class lists, equipment lists. All of these things portray the world. All of them may need to be altered for any given campaign. But a lance or polymorph spell or sorcerer class are no more or less setting neutral than a bolt-action rifle.

*edit* And therefore the base rules, with equipment lists, race lists, class lists, etc... are actually portraying a setting. If you include gnomes then your setting has gnomes. If it has polymorph spells then there are people who know what it is like to soar like eagles.