Confusion with Commoners. Damn Peasants! :P

[Quasqueton]

The primary rules-supported way of getting XP (and thus advancing in level) is by fighting and that would mean that a Level 7 Commoner got that way because he fought.

I feel dirty disagreeing with Rel. He and I see eye-to-eye on so much.

The primary way of getting XP *for adventurers* is by fighting. If you give XP for sneaking past an ogre and getting the treasure, or for negotiating for the release of the princess, or for bluffing into the fortress, or disabling and bypassing a trap, then you should realize that commoners get XP overcoming non-combat challenges as well.

I'm going to add this to the pet peeve thread.

Quasqueton

 

[TerraDave]

We had a great time disccusing the Commoner on this archieved thread:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=97601

Great thread!

Someone (monte cause he posts so much?) said that in fact the commoner would only get to high level by combat--or said something very much like that. (wait, was it in the DMG, where did I see that?)

But yes, the rules allow XP for overcoming challenges and story awards, and villages and towns will have higher level commoners if the guidelines are followed. The DM really has absolute discretion in leveling NPCs and deciding what an "ELx" encounter is for them.

 

[Rel]

I feel dirty disagreeing with Rel. He and I see eye-to-eye on so much.

Quasqueton

Don't feel dirty. I was probably talking too much out of my buttocks with that statement regarding fighting being the primary, rules-supported method of getting XP. Since I don't use the XP system in the DMG and never have then I'm far from familiar with what it truly says these days.

I sort of fell in line with the first few posts in that assumption. Since it wasn't the primary point of my post (and to save on confusion) I won't edit it but consider the statement withdrawn.

 

[jrients]

I plan on using Sean Reynold's ideas about NPC classes in my next campaign.