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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 5501199" data-attributes="member: 15538">What is happening is that a few of us are trying to settle, once and for all, that previous editions of D&D spelled out the presence of quite average individuals, while other people seem intent on moving the goalposts. Based on what you have just posted, you are unwilling to condede that quotations from three or more editions of D&D are sufficient to settle the matter. To me this is not a question of my own "preferences and expectations" but about settling a misprepresentation of the rules.Only to a degree. In no version of D&D, at least prior to 4e, did he have a "PC glow" by virtue of being classed.That is under the paragraph "Number of Prospective Henchmen." Clearly, not all classed individuals are available for hire. You are stripping away the context. The quote does not "clearly spell out" anything that furthers your argument; it is only a spitball estimate of how many adventurers are "in the business." Further, being eligible for "level advancement" only says that they are not given a fixed number of HD; as clearly spelled out in many places, many martial NPCs are members of the fighter class. The Noble's squire is not an "ubermensch," he's a dangidy-dong squire, and he's a 2nd level fighter. Members of PC classes are simply skilled and uncommon, not ubermenschen. They are not living legends. A 1st level fighter is just a guy with weapon proficiencies. In 3e, he is distinguished from his Warrior peers by having a truly professional level of ability, comparable to a working constable, a full-time soldier, or a vocational knight. You can claim how it "should" be or how you would like it to be... you can argue your "personal perferences and expectations"... but by the RAW, what you are saying is not true. Not slightly. Not in bad lighting on a Wednesday is it true.</blockquote>

Verification