D&D 5E Poll: What is a Level 1 PC?

[delericho]

Hah, yeah - but the issues come into play when (1) he's a 10th-level commoner,

I deal with that by ruling that normal (as in non-adventurer) characters don't get above 5th level. No way, no how. That 20th level Commoner (or even the 10th level one) is a theoretical construct - he doesn't exist IMC. (Excepting something like Berem from Dragonlance, but he's inherently a special case.)

(2) your jewelers, architects, and musicians are beating your equally-experienced farmers in brawls

That's fair... mostly. The Commoner NPC class is clearly weaker than any of the others. If I was actually concerned about balance, I would give a Commoner one more level than an 'equivalent' Expert or Warrior.

Not being particularly bothered with balancing the NPC classes, I'll instead note that the difference (at 5th level) is +1 BAB, +3 Will save, and +6 hp (on average). Incidentally, both my sample commoner and the +6 value I've just given assume max hit points at 1st level.

So the expert mostly wins, but even at 5th level it's not a huge disparity. If I really wanted to give an in-world justification, I'd say the Expert gets a better diet by virtue of improved wealth (for having a saleable trade). But I'll readily accept that that's a stretch.

(3) you compare that 5th-level commoner to a standard 1st-level town guard in leather with a spear truncheon.

Well, three things about that:

1) Why is the warrior using substandard weapons and armour? Surely he should be using appropriate gear, or it's not a fair comparison?
2) We're comparing the most extreme outlier amongst farmers with the run-of-the-mill warrior. I'm not sure I have a problem with the Commoner winning in those circumstances.
3) In any case...

Bob, Joe's Warrior Cousin
1st level Warrior
Str 13, Dex 10, Con 12, Int 9, Wis 11, Cha 8
Skills: Intimidate +3
Feats: Weapon Proficiency (simple, martial), Armour Prof (all), Shield Prof, Weapon Focus (longsword), Toughness
Hit Points: 12
AC: 16 (scale mail, large shield)
Fort +3, Ref +0, Will +0
Attack: Longsword +3, 1d8+1 damage
Attack: Light Mace (thrown) +1, 1d6+1 damage

I'm not sure that Joe would win that fight - yes, he has quite a few more hit points, but he's also considerably less likely to hit. I suspect it would be a close run thing. Where Joe is better is in his chosen skills, where he roundly outclasses Bob... but that's as it should be.

(Amusingly, I've now written far more words than I intended in defence of something that I file under "more trouble than it's worth". )

 

[Cadence]

Theres nothing unnecesary about having a thoroughly detailed world. A campaign world doesnt revolve around the characters and cease to exist when they exist stage left. It should keep going and evolving as people respond to developments in the world.

This fallacy of butt kicking commoners is something you've brought up over and over again and its simply a ridiculous strawman.

Most of those NPC classes gain +1 ATT bonus every 3 or 4 levels, so even metropolis size cities should only have 4 or 5 10th level NPC's. Who will certainly be gaurds and wizardly adepts, not farmers and still only have a +3 ATT.

I like thoroughly detailed worlds too. But people have different amounts of time to put into detailing them. I can fully appreciate a DM who doesn't have the time to do everything finding full NPC classes annoying for regular use because they take away from other important aspects of game prep, but appreciating them for a handful of regulars.

If the concern is "consistency and versimilitude" then I don't agree it is a straw man. Why should a generic 5th level sage have any business being able to put up a better fight against a 1st level city guard than a 1st level sage would. Why should the non-adventurer's to-hit and HP ever go up unless they are training in something that would cause them to. The fix seems easy... don't give HP and hit bonuses to non-adventurers. This also allows for you to have a 3rd level cleric who never had combat training and the like.

 

[timASW]

That's not really true though. One of the things about 3.x that always really bugged me was how it coupled combat ability (which is represented by level) with someone's skill at a non-combat task.

Or instance, say you had the greatest blacksmith in the world or the greatest starship designer in the galaxy (as I first realized this in Star Wars d20 when I tried converting an old WEG Star Wars module where newbie PCs helped rescue the designer of the original Star Destroyer). By definition, he'd have like 23 skill ranks, and thus need to be 20th level.

Which would make him a better fighter than the vast majority of people in the world, which just doesn't make sense. (Especially in the module, since it was meant to beginners)

So if you want verisimilitude, then levels and classes should only represent combat ability, thus most NPCs should be 0th level and have no class.

NPC's really dont need to be that high of a level to do anything. You have to take into account the ability to take 20 on a roll and the consideration that the "best" anything in the world probably has 4 or 5 points of bonus from ability scores.

So assuming you want them to be able hit a DC 30 in the course of their work all you really need is a 3rd level NPC, 6 ranks, high ability score.

Even without high ability scores he only needs to be 7th level which generally only gives a +1 or +2 for NPC classes on the to-hit rolls. Which I really dont find a hard time justifying. Your blacksmith is probably part of the militia. The starship designer is probably current or former military and thus received at least basic training. etc, etc.

 

[timASW]

Verisimilitude.

Let's use your example of a blacksmith who can forge mithril, who you insist is made using the expert NPC class and with several levels in it. Compare that character to a 1st level Warrior, who is a professional at fighting. The expert, if they've got four or five levels, is harder to kill and more likely to hit a target, and given they've presumably got wealth appropriate to their level is able to equip themselves adequately. The blacksmith is better at fighting than the person who has that as their profession, not because they're supposed to be good at fighting but because they have to be to have the skill levels they require to be able to work mithril.

And apparently you consider that adds to verisimilitude. I don't.

Actually NO.

skill wise he would probably need to be 4th level. Off the top of my head.
That gives him +1 to his and 12 HP on Average.

A 1st Level fighter has +1 BAB, weapon focus (most likely) +2. So better. They both likely have a STR bonus (blacksmithing is muscle building work) and a max 1st level HD 10+CON. As a fighter that means He'll have a bare minimum of +2 per level and probably 3 or 4.

So the NPC actually has both fewer HP and a lower attack bonus then the 1st level PC fighter.

He could beat a caster silly in a fist fight sure, but i have no problem with that at all.

Sorry about setting your strawman on fire, it does burn quite prettily though and tis the season for burning men after all.

 

[Cadence]

Actually NO.
Skill wise he would probably need to be 4th level. Off the top of my head.
That gives him +1 to his and 12 HP on Average.

In 3.5 the expert has d6, so averages 3.5 per level and the BAB at 4th level is +3. Figuring a 12 Str and 12 Con, the 4th level Smith has an average of 18 hit points and an attack bonus of +4. A 4th level sage with 10 Str and 10 Con would have an average of 14 hit points and a base attack bonus of +3.

A first level warrior on the city guard (14 Str and 14 Con?) would have an average of only 6.5 hp and a +3 attack bonus. Off duty in a bar, that makes the sage better, right?

But again, why should the non-adventuring non-combatant who never trains in anything fight related get more ability to heroically shrug off damage and get better at hitting things just because he's refining his ability to select the best metals or his advanced mathematics? I'm missing how that is versimilitude.

 

[Obryn]

Well, three things about that:

1) Why is the warrior using substandard weapons and armour? Surely he should be using appropriate gear, or it's not a fair comparison?
2) We're comparing the most extreme outlier amongst farmers with the run-of-the-mill warrior. I'm not sure I have a problem with the Commoner winning in those circumstances.

He's a town guard. I am guessing they can't budget in much above leather and spears most of the time. (If he's a rich town guard, then he can get whatever he wants, I suppose!)

He also gets 4 hps if he has the same stat spread as the Commoner and we go apples to apples with averaged HP values. Being a Warrior and an NPC, he has a d8, and doesn't get maximum automatically. This makes a really big difference. (Edit: 7! Sorry! Oh my goodness those feats for random town guards!)

And what, no Skill Focus: Profession (Guard)? He needs his money, man!

-O

 

[delericho]

Theres nothing unnecesary about having a thoroughly detailed world. A campaign world doesnt revolve around the characters and cease to exist when they exist stage left. It should keep going and evolving as people respond to developments in the world.

You can have a thoroughly detailed world without statting out every farmer. Most NPCs never need any stats, ever. Even in that minority of cases where they do need stats, they most often only ever need a subset of them all.

Going through all that work for every NPC, or even just for every NPC where you need some stats, is unnecessary work.

Its absolute true verisimilitude, everything works the same way for everyone. Thats the right way to do things.

I'm afraid not. It's absolute true consistency, but that honestly is not quite the same thing. Versimilitude is "the illusion of truth". Consistency is "they work the same".

Now, consistency may give versimilitude, provided that the consistent ruleset matches up with what people expect to see. But where the common ruleset is flawed (and it is - 3.5e isn't perfect), then the consistency actually works against versimilitude, because it's consistently wrong.

(And, yeah, there are several places where 3.5e does pretend to a mathematical rigour that it doesn't actually have. The rules for the Jump skill are madness, balance at high levels is questionable at best, and magic item creation is wonky as heck. Now, granted, of these only the first has anything to do with versimilitude. But it should demonstrate this point: simply presenting a wall of math doesn't mean that the model is actually right.)

I dont give a damn HOW NEW you are as a DM. If you have a hard time managing Level+3 max skill ranks you have no business whatsoever behind the screen. Put it down and hand it over to someone else who can manage it.

That's really quite rude. Not wanting to deal with that level of detail is not the same as being unable to deal with it. 3.5e is a detailed and complex ruleset, which is simultaneously its great strength and its great weakness. Personally, I consider it my "D&D of choice". But I'm not at all surprised that others want something less rigourous in its math.

 

[timASW]

1/2 is the slowest progression.

And it's not a strawman at all. By sticking with a strict class/level for everything in the world, you're still insisiting that combat skill increase as you get better at farming.

Actually look again 1/3 is the slowest. And yes using the farm implements that doubled as militia weapons for years SHOULD make you better at fighting with them. You know its weight, how you use it to get the most force out of it and how to balance it as you swing it around. I have absolutely 0 problem with that, it makes perfect sense.

And if they pick up anything other then the simple weapon (tools) they get a -4 to hit putting them at a -2 BAB. AND if their chosen tool of trade is not listed as a simple weapon then its an IMPROVISED WEAPON, which has a -4 to hit, giving them a BAB of -2.

So do I see a problem with lunatic peasents of advanced age ( you dont gain XP too fast as a craftsman afterall, takes quite a while to hit 4th or 5th level farming or smithing) picking up a sword and taking their -2 attack bonus and 12 HP and beating up 1st level fighters willy nilly?

Why no Obryn I do not. And that strawman is still burning prettily....

...and Skill Focus! And other feats! And don't forget any bonuses for your best stats! You may have forgotten how long it can take to learn a system. And compared to something like a simple chart, it's still unnecessary labor.

I don't like the idea that DMing should be an exclusive club. It's a poor philosophy to build an RPG around.

-O

All the stuff you would expect any PLAYER to know when they sit down to play.

So if the bar to GMing is "enough knowledge to at least be a decent player" I have no problem with the club being that exclusive.

Aiming for the intellectual bottom barrel of humanity for the complexity of GMing is the poor philosophy for building an RPG.

Its not a hobby that appeals to dumb people, it just isnt and it never will be.

 

[timASW]

That's really quite rude. Not wanting to deal with that level of detail is not the same as being unable to deal with it. 3.5e is a detailed and complex ruleset, which is simultaneously its great strength and its great weakness. Personally, I consider it my "D&D of choice". But I'm not at all surprised that others want something less rigourous in its math.

Just when the hell did level +3 become rigorous math? These people can read after all. I hope they can manage the stuff my daughter is learning in learning in kindergarten without blowing a mental gasket.

And if they cant, well I'm sorry but NO they do not belong behind the screen.

 

[delericho]

He's a town guard. I am guessing they can't budget in much above leather and spears most of the time. (If he's a rich town guard, then he can get whatever he wants, I suppose!)

It's those adventurers, flooding the local economy with cheap armour and weapons from all those orcs they've been killing.

He also gets 4 hps if he has the same stat spread as the Commoner and we go apples to apples with averaged HP values. Being a Warrior and an NPC, he has a d8, and doesn't get maximum automatically. This makes a really big difference.

Eh, I gave the commoner max hit points at 1st level, hence the 14. Removing the max lowers that a litte... albeit to 13.

Both the commoner and the warrior have 15-point buy ability spreads. The original version of my commoner used the 13/12/11/10/9/8 I used for the warrior, but I changed it because it made him a much more effective farmer. Whereas Bob clearly became a warrior because he couldn't hack it as a farmer.

But if you're going to insist on the same stat spread, then I'm still going to claim 8 hit points - 5 for the average of d8, plus 3 for Toughness.