Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="General Barron" data-source="post: 2777011" data-attributes="member: 32468">Okay, this makes more sense. Although, in actual play, the DM would have to be careful to make sure his PC's don't advance levels much faster than this timetable. A simple method to do this might be to cut the XP given out by a fixed number (1/2, 1/4, etc). If the PCs still manage to make 20th level in 1 year of game time, then it wouldn't make sense to require NPCs to have 30 years of adventuring behind them to reach the same goal.I think you are misinterpreting what I meant by this. Whenever a character, in any class, gains a level, a whole bunch of various statistics increase all at once. A major portion of these statistics are combat-related: HP, BaB, and Saves being the most important.So let's say a bard does nothing but perform wonderfully in front of a crowd, day after day after day. According to you, he is gaining in Experience. Certainly he is gaining experience as a performer. But when he gains a level due to this performing experience, he gains not only a point of perform skill, but he also gains in combat prowess (HP, BaB, Saves, etc); not to mention gaining in other skills, magic, etc.I'm not saying that combat should be the only thing that rewards experience. I tend to give out more storyline XP than combat XP. But the undeniable fact of the matter is: the higher a character's level, the better they are in combat. Like it or not, this is just the way character advancement is set up in DnD (level/class based, as opposed to skill based).So my point was, it makes no sense to have commoners advancing in levels (beyond maybe 3rd or so), because it makes no sense having commoners being more powerful in combat than, well, a 1st level commoner. It certainly makes little sense having commoners who are more powerful in combat than a 1st level fighter.I then went on to point out that the skills currently are set up so that having 4 in a craft or profession skill makes one a skilled professional. The majority of commoners won't even have that (many would be laborers with no profession or craft skill at all). Therefore, there is little need to make above 1st level commoners in terms of 'skills making sense', since you can get even higher skill ratings (for those rare and exceptional professionals) by using feats and exceptional ability scores.My main beef with this system was just with giving levels to common people. Not just some, but an absurd amount of levels. For commoners, a better system would be one that gives them fractions of levels over time (one skill point at manhood, another every 5 years, for example. HPs gain in similar manner), reaching a maximum level of 1-3.</blockquote>

Verification