Why be a Commoner?

[green slime]

Actually, I'm pretty sure the NPC doesn't choose his levels: the DM does and for that matter the PC doesn't either the player does.

Ummm... well.... I'll let you off this time! But remember, I've... not ... really got anything on you... but... if I did... well.

We'll just leave it at that, shall we? (please? I'm running out of nonsense here...)

 

[Celebrim]

My biggest problem with the class is that it's far too good. I don't think sub-fodder type mooks should have to gain HD, saves or BAB to increase skill points.

I'm found of having old men and women in my campaign who are say 9th level commoners with STR's and CON's in the 6 or lower range. This results in a high level character with non-skill stats roughly in line with a 1st level character.

I think the problem you describe goes away if you are willing to allow that 10 is not the lowest possible score you can have in an ability. If someone is supposed to be a non-combatant and frail, then a frail attribute build will almost completely overcome the weak upgrades of the commoner class.

On the other hand I lothe humanoid Hit Dice. Humanoids should either have class levels or monsterious humanoid HD.

I pretty much agree with that.

On a slightly different subject, someone said that they had ranks in commoner. I tend to not believe them. My personal feeling is that anyone with at least a High School education is at 1st level expert, and most people in our comparitively well educated society are probably at least expert 2's and 3's. Now, most of us probably seriously out of shape, a concept that D&D doesn't really have in the RAW, but twelve to eighteen weeks of training would make most of us pretty scary if we aren't already.

 

[Nifft]

Because, until the discovery and popularization of tea, everyone had to mix alcohol with their water to stave off disease. Commoners exist because, up until the Renaissance, everyone was drunk, all the time.

This also helps explain why civilized folks were frequently overrun by barbarians, even when the civilized folks were previously the same kind of barbarians: the barbarians didn't need to drink beer for breakfast. Their water wasn't polluted by a large, stationary population. The barbarians were (relatively) sober.

Beer! Thou makest mine civilization, and thou takest it away.

Cheers, -- N

PS: Remember this on St. Patty's Day: most philosophies and religions were written by drunk men. Cheers!

 

[Twowolves]

Of course the Commoner class isn't very good. It is the COMMONer class, after all.

Commoner, the class that chooses YOU!

 

[Tonguez]

I don't think it's very silly to ask the question of why these NPC classes exist. They are so bad that even the writers tend to ignore their intended purpose (mook jobs) in writing - .

Exactly. There is no reason at all for the stupid commoner class to exist

If I want a NPC with amazing skills but really low str and BAb then I don't need to stat out a character with a class - all I need is a personality and a skill rank. If the PCs attack himhe will either die instantly or suddenly become a uber minor god of asskicking ...

 

[billd91]

I hope that, if they still exist in 4e, they are cut down to at most 5 levels and given a modicum of a reason to exist (backbreaking Commoner labor doesn't even rate a good Fort save? Even those wimpy wizards who have never seen a callus or suffered the sniffles are tougher). As is they are just fodder for joke characters (level 20 commoner with skill focus (basketweaving), etc). Really there could be a single 5-level "Non-Player Class" that could replace all of the existing ones without a lot of work, assuming you want to keep the main classes out of reach of non-heroic individuals.

The only truly good thing the current system did was eliminate the lame 0-level NPCs from AD&D.

I think 5 levels would be way too few. One of the main reasons that leveling NPCs with non-adventuring classes is useful is so that you have a more natural way of having the locals be tough enough to keep the PCs in some kind of check without making them all the cliche former adventurer/barkeeps you see all over the Forgotten Realms.
A 10th level commoner? Why not? Farmer Maggot in the Lord of the Rings seems like he could be a guy somewhere in that neighborhood. Good at what he does (raising crops), reasonably savvy, and tough as nails (for a commoner).

 

[Destil]

I'm found of having old men and women in my campaign who are say 9th level commoners with STR's and CON's in the 6 or lower range. This results in a high level character with non-skill stats roughly in line with a 1st level character.

I think the problem you describe goes away if you are willing to allow that 10 is not the lowest possible score you can have in an ability. If someone is supposed to be a non-combatant and frail, then a frail attribute build will almost completely overcome the weak upgrades of the commoner class.

I've done both, I like that Keith Baker put a level 20 commoner in Sharn who was a venerable elf (hence almost no HP). But I find it a little silly that you need to do so in order to keep HP reasonable.

 

[Grog]

I've done both, I like that Keith Baker put a level 20 commoner in Sharn who was a venerable elf (hence almost no HP). But I find it a little silly that you need to do so in order to keep HP reasonable.

Remember, though, that you always have a minimum of one hit point per hit die. So that 20th level commoner will have 20 hit points even if his Con score is 1. Which means this frail old man can't be killed by a single sword blow from an average town guard.

Mind you, I don't think most commoners make it to 20th level, so this probably isn't really much of an issue. Frankly, I can't imagine how anyone could possibly reach 20th level as a commoner....

 

[DM_Matt]

Frankly, I can't imagine how anyone could possibly reach 20th level as a commoner....

Xander Harris?

 

[Nifft]

Xander Harris?

... had at least one level of Soldier Guy.

-- N