Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ptolemy18" data-source="post: 1985215" data-attributes="member: 24970">I like the idea of non-PC classes (like Commoner, Expert and Aristocrat). They're good ideas. But frankly, they don't function at high levels.The idea that it takes the same amount of &quot;experience&quot; to become a 17th level Wizard that it does to become a 17th level Commoner is absurd. Frankly, the very idea of a 17th level Commoner is pretty silly. (&quot;I am the WORLD EXPERT on MILKING COWS! I can &quot;Great Cleave&quot; through three cows' udders at once!!!&quot;)I also don't like the idea that some 17th level Commoner, with (theoretically) little or no combat experience, would have 30-50 hit points. That amount of hit points should reserved for people who actually go out and do stuff and fight monsters and generally kick ass. It's okay for heroes, but the idea of &quot;normal&quot; people taking multiple sword hits and shrugging it off is silly. (Of course, a 17th level Commoner is obviously abnormal, but you know what I mean.) A commoner who has some experience defending his farm would not be a 17th level Commoner, he'd be a 3rd level Commoner/1st level fighter (or something like that). Therefore, in my campaign world, I prefer to think of Commoners and Warriors (and Experts and Aristocrats to a lesser extent) as being dead-end classes in terms of level advancement. I might &quot;break the rules&quot; to allow them to have higher skill caps than their low level would permit, but the idea that a &quot;Commoner level&quot; is equivalent to a level in a regular PHB class doesn't really work in practice. A high-level Aristocrat or Expert is more reasonable, but again in the case of the Expert, I'd rather &quot;break the rules&quot; to give them higher skills without the higher HP, saves and attack bonuses.Jason</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ptolemy18, post: 1985215, member: 24970"] I like the idea of non-PC classes (like Commoner, Expert and Aristocrat). They're good ideas. But frankly, they don't function at high levels. The idea that it takes the same amount of "experience" to become a 17th level Wizard that it does to become a 17th level Commoner is absurd. Frankly, the very idea of a 17th level Commoner is pretty silly. ("I am the WORLD EXPERT on MILKING COWS! I can "Great Cleave" through three cows' udders at once!!!") I also don't like the idea that some 17th level Commoner, with (theoretically) little or no combat experience, would have 30-50 hit points. That amount of hit points should reserved for people who actually go out and do stuff and fight monsters and generally kick ass. It's okay for heroes, but the idea of "normal" people taking multiple sword hits and shrugging it off is silly. (Of course, a 17th level Commoner is obviously abnormal, but you know what I mean.) A commoner who has some experience defending his farm would not be a 17th level Commoner, he'd be a 3rd level Commoner/1st level fighter (or something like that). Therefore, in my campaign world, I prefer to think of Commoners and Warriors (and Experts and Aristocrats to a lesser extent) as being dead-end classes in terms of level advancement. I might "break the rules" to allow them to have higher skill caps than their low level would permit, but the idea that a "Commoner level" is equivalent to a level in a regular PHB class doesn't really work in practice. A high-level Aristocrat or Expert is more reasonable, but again in the case of the Expert, I'd rather "break the rules" to give them higher skills without the higher HP, saves and attack bonuses. Jason [/QUOTE]

Verification