Commoner vs. Expert

[MavrickWeirdo]

And peasants would at least attempt to defend their ancestral rights and ways of life against their lords in periodic peasant revolts.

It's certainly true that there were professional mercenaries. However, when it came to defending their village from marauders or defending their city from an invading army, every male of age was expected (and able) to bear arms in defense of their home.

I would expect this tendency to be even more pronounced in elven and dwarven cultures given their traditional presentation in D&D.

Even in human cultures, however, I would expect commoners to use at least one of their two simple weapon proficiencies for a weapon used by the local militia. In frontier cultures, I wouldn't be surprised if all the human commoners had proficiency in longspear and light crossbow and took combat reflexes as a feat. While a force of 40 Com 1-4s with longspears (and combat reflexes) and crossbows led by their mayor (Exp 5 with a heavy mace (a sign of office) and light crossbow), part time captain of the militia (Ftr 3/Com 2 middle aged retired mercenary) and priest (Com 2/Clr 1 or something) might not be a significant threat to PCs past level 4 or so, it might well be sufficient to fend off a typical orc raiding party or to hold a palisade for a few days against an orc tribe on the warpath. (Hopefully, it would be long enough for the cavalry to arrive). Historically, in defending the palisade, they would probably also have help from the women and girls as well--either in carrying up millstones, etc to drop on the heads of the orcs manning the ram or scaling the walls or in carrying ammunition and reloading crossbows, etc. In fact, even in the wealthy, advanced FR nations like Cormyr, I would expect the merchants and commoners to have one or two combat feats or proficiencies to reflect militia training and duty.

You actually give commoners more credit than I do. I agree that commoners would have some "basic training", I don't think the would be as militant as you describe.

While I am not sure about 3.5, in 3E Longspears are not a simple weapon. In the example above I would have men armed each with one of: Cudgle, Dagger, Quarterstaff, Sickle, & Spear.

Technically crossbows are a simple weapon (in game terms). I have no problem with commoners being "proficient" with them, but most would not "Own" crossbows. In the community you described, I would guess that the Captain would keep 5 crossbows for the men to use. They would form a small squad of 5 primary(the best), and 5 backup crossbowmen. In some ways it is a result of "peasant revolts" that commoner militias were given only limited weapon training.

As far as Feats go, I would give 1 combat feat to a 3rd or 4th level commoner, but rarely to 1st or 2nd level commoners.

 

[JimAde]

As far as Feats go, I would give 1 combat feat to a 3rd or 4th level commoner, but rarely to 1st or 2nd level commoners.

I agree, unless that feat is useful in non-combat situations (like Point Blank Shot for hunting). I also occasionally give commoners combat feats if they simply like to fight. Improved Grapple is a favorite for guys who just like to rassle. It might also be handy when your Animal Handling roll fails.

 

[Tonguez]

I don't know about the last bit there. I think it depends far too much on a modern-style division of labor for my tastes. Certainly, in the ancient world it was much different. Defending the village from raids was the job of every male villager of age--not just those with special training and experience as warriors. On the American frontier, it was the same, as I understand it. Even in the late middle ages/renaissance/reformation era when professional armies were beginning to predominate in the wars of Europe, an ordinary burgher was expected to serve his city in time of war. And peasants would at least attempt to defend their ancestral rights and ways of life against their lords in periodic peasant revolts.

All of that points toward the position that there was no strong distinction between common "warriors" and civilians in any of the time periods that D&D draws its aesthetic influence from.

Actually I think this highlights one of the deficiencies of the DnD class system rather than justification for giving commoners combat feats.

I agree that in a DnD world peasant folk should have some combat preparedness. however this is modeled by the mechanic of creating a commoner/warrior multiclass character (or the fighter/commoners you mention). Especially considering the number of marauding monsters and the frontier lifestyle I'd say that peasant folk would soon multiclass into warriors or in a few cases fighters in order to model the fact they they are able to hold the walls long enough for the cavalry (fighters) to arrive.

The other problem with the leveled class system of course is the exponential power creep which means that a single high level PC class character is way more powerful than a low level commoner such that they will kill him in a single blow thus futher reason for Commoners to multiclass and gain levels sufficient to at the very least survive against the multiple threats of his/her world

The other option is to control the conditions through the DMs 'creative discretion' ability and decide that low level commoners aren't warriors and thus aren't combat prepared and so look like XYZ