Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 3036691" data-attributes="member: 7240">If this were the case, why would anyone ever take a level in Commoner? By extension, wouldn't Commoners routinely take levels in Aristocrat? Indeed, why take a level in an NPC class at all, unless one's status as a PC or NPC is a matter of biological fact?I don't automatically permit these things. As a GM, I allow people to take cleric levels if they have ingratiated themselves with a specific temple of a specific god. The same goes from druid levels. For wizard levels, there has to be some initial access to a library. Sorcerors are born with innate talents, according to the RAW itself.Then put some brakes on it.The RAW is silent on your right as a GM to make classes fit into some kind of social order. The fact that the RAW does not mention the sociological dimension of class advancement does not either permit or prohibit it. The rules are silent; and where the rules are silent, the DM should speak.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fusangite, post: 3036691, member: 7240"] If this were the case, why would anyone ever take a level in Commoner? By extension, wouldn't Commoners routinely take levels in Aristocrat? Indeed, why take a level in an NPC class at all, unless one's status as a PC or NPC is a matter of biological fact?I don't automatically permit these things. As a GM, I allow people to take cleric levels if they have ingratiated themselves with a specific temple of a specific god. The same goes from druid levels. For wizard levels, there has to be some initial access to a library. Sorcerors are born with innate talents, according to the RAW itself.Then put some brakes on it. The RAW is silent on your right as a GM to make classes fit into some kind of social order. The fact that the RAW does not mention the sociological dimension of class advancement does not either permit or prohibit it. The rules are silent; and where the rules are silent, the DM should speak. [/QUOTE]

Verification