Favored classes, NPC classes, and non-humans

[Quasqueton]

According to the DMG, most humans (~90% ?) are of the commoner NPC class. Some (~10% ?) "specialists" are of the other NPC classes (adept, aristocrat, expert, warrior). And some fewer (~1% ?) are of the elite PC classes. Would you presume that since humans have no favored class, the numbers would be near equal among the PC classes? (Equal numbers of wizards to fighters to barbarians to monks?)

How about elves, dwarves, gnomes, and halflings (the "civilized" races)? Would their classes and percentages be about the same as the human demographics? Would PC-classed elves be more likely wizards? Would PC-classed halflings be more likely rogues?

How about orcs, goblins, gnolls, etc. (the "uncivilized" races)? Are there orc commoners? Are there goblin aristocrats? Are there gnoll experts? Are kobolds considered warriors (but with half the standard hit die)?


In a campaign I'm currently playing in, the DM has all orcs as barbarians, all goblins as rogues, and all hobgoblins as fighters. At first I had a hard time accepting the paradigm shift, but now I've come to think this makes a lot of sense. Why wouldn't the vast majority of a given race (especially the aggressive races) train in their favored class rather than as warriors (as the MM would have us use)?

What exactly does a favored class mean to a racial population? Although I see a logic in most (51%+) orcs being barbarians, and most gnolls being rangers, does this idea break down when considering most elves are trained wizards, and most kobolds are sorcerers, and most gnomes will be bards (in the revised rules)?


I working on populating a new campaign world, and I'm considering these concepts.

Quasqueton

 

[Tonguez]

Doesn't the MM assume that the Stat block given is that of a 'Warrior' from the given race - which makes sense imo since of the 'monster races' the one you are most likely to encounter is part of a raiding party/hunting party/patrol.

Of course they could be merchants but then do gnolls engage in trade?

Personally I think the Commoner class is redundant and of no real use to anyone - a mook with 1 HP doesn't need a skill list, and any NPC with a useful Skillbase is at least an Expert

IMHO It makes most since if most members of a race are say 60% Warriors, 25% Experts, 5% Aristocrats, 4% Adepts, 0.7% the favoured PC class and less than 0.3% other PC classes

The remaining 5% I'd leave to GM discretion (eg Elves might have more Aristocrats and Goblins more Rogues)

 

[Nail]

Doesn't the MM assume that the Stat block given is that of a 'Warrior' from the given race - which makes sense imo since of the 'monster races' the one you are most likely to encounter is part of a raiding party/hunting party/patrol.

Or no sense at all, depending on your perspective.

Example: goblins

A "patrol" of goblins? Goblins don't patrol...they raid. They don't "defend" an area...they steal stuff/kill things then run away. And which class is better at sneaking up and taking a "WHACK!" at something? Not a Warrior, buddy.

 

[Quasqueton]

bump

 

[drnuncheon]

Personally I think the Commoner class is redundant and of no real use to anyone - a mook with 1 HP doesn't need a skill list, and any NPC with a useful Skillbase is at least an Expert

There's a lot of people that could be Commoners or Experts, and it's a matter of personal taste which one you feel falls where.

A farmer, a barmaid, an innkeeper - all people that PCs might interact with, all probably commoners.

Since Craft is a class skill for commoners, even a blacksmith - what most people regard as the canonical example of the Expert class - could easily be a Commoner. He's probably just a village smith, but he can be just as good at that kind of smithing as an Expert of the same level.

As for percentages, the DMG demographics would suggest that there are more (and higher level) fighters and rogues, middling amounts of bards, clerics, and druids, with barbarians, monks, sorcerers and wizards making up the next tier and paladins and rangers rarest of all.

Edit: basing the numbers off of the 'average metropolis', it looks like the percentages are somewhere around here:

Paladin, Ranger: 5% each
Barbarian, Monk, Sorcerer, Wizard: 7.5% each
Bard, Cleric, Druid: 10% each
Fighter, Rogue: 15% each

 

[Desdichado]

IMHO It makes most since if most members of a race are say 60% Warriors, 25% Experts, 5% Aristocrats, 4% Adepts, 0.7% the favoured PC class and less than 0.3% other PC classes

Why would 60% of any population be warriors? Is your campaign setting really so warlike that everyone is at a constant state of war with their enemies? (If so, I suggest that's a difficult setting to roleplay -- you're better off playing something like Warhammer with that setting.)

The only reason to have so many characters as warriors is because it's easier that way -- you can pull them straight out of the MM without any modification.

But assuming a more normal setting; I would assume that most folks of any race would indeed be commoners. That's why they're, well, commoners. That doesn't mean that the most common encounters the PCs have will be with commoners, of course.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think it would be pretty sweet if instead of 'assuming Warrior' for the MM entries, they simply gave the critter one level in their favored class in addition to their monstrous HD (if any).

So a kobold would have 2 hp, and a few spells.

and an elf would have 1 hp and a few spells.

and a dwarf would have 5 hp, and a bonus fighter feat.

Yeah, that'd be sweet.

 

[paulewaug]

I think this brings up some very interesting ideas, options, and dilemmas.

I had been thinking about having most of the races my PCs encounter be "done up" using their preferred class rather than the MM standard of "Warrior."

I think this can add a lot of flavor to the races, rather than everythig basically being varions of the same stat block.
(i.e. "this race has this many Hit Points, is AC whatever and does X amount of damage" and this race is basically the same except it has 1 more hit point on average, uses a shield so has 2 points more Ac, and uses a d8 weapon instead of a d6 weapon, While this other race has the same hit points, doesn't use a shild but does use a d12 weapon.. re: Goblin, Hobgoblin, Orc.)

How much cooler would it be if the majority of the race used their racial preference? Goblins as Rogues (trying to flank and backstab), Hobgoblins fight as Fighters, and Orcs as raving berserkers! (And of course Kobolds having an array of powers from Sorcerer.)

So which would be more interesting, the majority of the race being that way, or just the occasional being of that race being that way?
Maybe Humans have the most "commoners" because they are the "most common?"

 

[Tonguez]

There's a lot of people that could be Commoners or Experts, and it's a matter of personal taste which one you feel falls where.

A farmer, a barmaid, an innkeeper - all people that PCs might interact with, all probably commoners.

My Father-in-law is a Farmer and the range of skills and knowledge required is that of an Expert not a commoner IMHO.

However my main point is that I (at least) don't need a 'Class of commoners' - if I want the PCs to interact with Betsy the Barmaid I wont be giving her a stat block - she will be

Betsy the Barmaid: gutsy and friendly but doesn't take crap from patrons. Calls on Boris the Bouncer if in trouble. Has a 'thing' going with the Captain of the Town Guard.

And Joshua what I'm suggesting is 60% of the classed population. I'm not counting the thousands/millions of people in the crowd scenes who will never get a speaking part...

Oh and yes IMC most people are trained as Warriors - Hunters at least...

 

[drnuncheon]

My Father-in-law is a Farmer and the range of skills and knowledge required is that of an Expert not a commoner IMHO.

Unless he's much older than I suspect, he is not a medieval farmer. The jobs aren't the same.

J