Why did they take a level of commoner?

[pawsplay]

Lots of you have said this.

Frankly, you're begging the question. Let's put it another way: "What did this NPC do to gain 6 levels of Commoner? Where did the XP come from?"

You still gain 1/2 XP from a significant but nonlethal encounter. A fairly interesting life can get you into the 6-9 level range in a few decades without once facing down a bugbear.

Just using a real life example, every car accident you've been in probably counts as a CR 1 encounter. People do die in car wrecks, and it can definitely cost you hit points or gold pieces.

 

[Patlin]

Just using a real life example, every car accident you've been in probably counts as a CR 1 encounter. People do die in car wrecks, and it can definitely cost you hit points or gold pieces.

Being positive-minded today, I'll point out your at least as entitled to xp when you avoid the accident.

 

[moritheil]

I think the OP's phrasing really highlights the assumption here:

Why would anyone voluntarily take a class of commoner, especially if they already had levels in Rogue?

Many writers, players, and DMs are of the mind that class levels and such mechanics are abstractions designed to simulate the reality of a character - and that a character does not necessarily knowingly and deliberately make such distinctions. OOTS, of course, has Elan humorously wondering if he should take a level in wizard, but that's not necessarily how all campaigns work.

 

[Nail]

Being positive-minded today, I'll point out you're at least as entitled to xp when you avoid the accident.

Excellent point.

I have several people in mind that should be reminded of this.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Lots of you have said this.

Frankly, you're begging the question. Let's put it another way: "What did this NPC do to gain 6 levels of Commoner? Where did the XP come from?"

"Levels" are merely an abstraction that represents the reality of the game world in a very vague and sometimes nonsensical manner.

In in-game terms what happened is that he reached the limit of his drive/potential in most of the things he had learned (including combat) but there are still a couple of things he managed to continue improving (his commoner class skills).

To ask where he earned xp is a question without meaning. He practiced and studied and lived life, and the result is a skill package represented in game mechanics as Rogue 2/Commoner 6.

Heck, for all you know he used to be a Rogue 8, but just got lazy and let himself get out of practice in a lot of areas, resulting in somebody better approximated as a Rogue 2/Commoner 6.

 

[Nail]

"To ask where he earned xp is a question without meaning.

Only if you are not playing D&D.


In 3.Xe D&D, XP have a source: overcoming appropriate-leveled challenges. Moreover, there is no concept of "Rogue XP" or "Commoner XP". XP is not typed by class. Everyone gets XP, and then gains levels in whatever class they wish (subject to campaign-specific limitations).

 

[Wolfwood2]

Only if you are not playing D&D.


In 3.Xe D&D, XP have a source: overcoming appropriate-leveled challenges. Moreover, there is no concept of "Rogue XP" or "Commoner XP". XP is not typed by class. Everyone gets XP, and then gains levels in whatever class they wish (subject to campaign-specific limitations).

XP is a metagame tool to control player character advancement. Naturally it acts funny if you take it as an in-game reality.

Okay, let's look at it this way. You know there are games out there where players don't track xp for their PCs, right? They level up whenever the DM says. "Okay I think it's about time for you to level up."

There are also games where the DM gives out XP at a slower rate than the book because the group enjoys longer periods of being at the same level between advancement.

Now my question for you is, do you think that from an internal in-game perspective these campaign worlds would look differently from worlds where PCs recieve and earn xp at a by-the-book rate? That is to say, does the fact the the PCs' advancement rate is divorced from overcoming challenges (in the first case) mean that all NPCs have an advancement rate divorced from overcoming challenges?

Or does the fact that the PCs have to overcome more challenges to advance (as in the second case) mean that NPCs work under pretty much the same rules, and so there are fewer high level NPCs?

From an in-game reality perspective, is it impossible to have an NPC above level one who has not overcome any challenges? Say the son of a noble who has trained every day with an instructor and has emerged with the skills of a second level Fighter. Is that something that cannot exist within the reality of the game world? (And if you count 'training' as overcoming challenges, then can't 'training' pretty much justify any NPC of any level?)

 

[Archade]

These are great thoughts, thanks guys!

First on experience. I think that pawsplay is right, an NPC living an interesting life can certainly gain levels over time. I also think Wolfwood is right, and NPCs probably have some sort of method of gaining experience from training (PCs would never do that, of course! )

But, the reason I beg this question is because Monte Cook says that in Ptolus, the conceits of the game are the conceits of the world. Certainly, if the guard are asking for volunteers to be polymorphed into trolls, I think the NPCs have some perception of a vocation to pursue. Certainly, a Rogue could make a conscious decision to take levels in Wizard. But why commoner? BTW, the NPC is listed as Rogue 2 / Commoner 6, leading one to believe the rogue levels came first.

Most NPCs, while not being adventurers, have to make decisions about "their character" in any case -- where to put skill ranks (obviously in profession-related skills), what alignment to be, how to spend their meager earnings. Why is it hard to wonder how they make their decisions on which classes to take when they level up?

I guess the thing that bugs me is there is no redeeming value to the Commoner or Warrior class, based on what else is available without prerequisites. I can see someone taking Wizard / Expert, or Rogue / Adept, but not Rogue / Commoner ...

 

[moritheil]

So in short, Ptolus has a flawed fourth wall?

 

[Wolfwood2]

I guess the thing that bugs me is there is no redeeming value to the Commoner or Warrior class, based on what else is available without prerequisites. I can see someone taking Wizard / Expert, or Rogue / Adept, but not Rogue / Commoner ...

More free time to shoot the bull in a tavern with your friends, less time having to spent practicing?

You just plain can't "get it" when you're trying to learn eight different things at once, but you find that by sticking to one or two you can still make progress?

Just because the game abstracts these things away doesn't mean they don't exist in the game world.