Ridley's Cohort
First Post
I don't really see a problem with high level NPC classed characters making an appearance once in a blue moon. It makes more sense than the alternative.
AuraSeer said:You don't.
If you're not using the ELH, then it's impossible for anyone to advance past 20th. Higher levels simply do not exist.
If you are using the ELH, find the page where it says that there is no epic advancement for NPC classes. Commoners (and experts, and warriors, and so on) still top out at 20.
GuardianLurker said:All right let me try one final time :
I am NOT trying to question the existence of, or justify the mere occurence of, high-level commoners.
Those of you who have been replying along the lines of "a high-level commoner == crusty old coot" are completely missing my point.
GuardianLurker said:Which is this :
In a community where the most experienced adventuring class (you know, the ones who *take* most of the risks) is 5th, how does a stay-at-home commoner achieve over twice the experience levels?
GuardianLurker said:I could (and do) support the existence of high-level commoners in parity (or a little bit less) than their adventuring peers, but in excess?
Actually, you're the first person to actually phrase it that way. People may, or may not, have been trying to imply it - I certainly didn't infer it. All anyone else has talked about is *how* the "old coot" got there, which wasn't really my concern.drnuncheon said:
No, but you seem to be missing ours.
By living longer, and not moving away. Let's face it, in a thorp of 50 people, there's not a hell of a lot for a 5th level character to do. Most of the ones from an adventuring class are going to leave and...wait for it...adventure. That 13th level commoner, though - why leave? He lives here. His family's probably lived here for generations.
Actually, aside from 1st level (where the NPC classes suck up the remaining population), I'm not sure that's true. Certainly in any given settlement there are more Commoners than any other class, or probably any other two classes. But the commoners are also much weaker than any of the PC classes, so I'd expect their mortality curve to be steeper than "normal". Also, I've always thought of the commoners to the source of all the PCs, so most (all?) of the exceptional people (the ones most likely to become high-level) are members of the adventuring classes already. Though I admit that both of those are basically unfounded opinions.
I'd be surprised if they weren't in excess. There are a lot more commoners than there are members of PC classes, and commoners are a lot less likely to get killed at an early age than members of PC classes, by virtue of not throwing themselves headlong into danger as a means of generating income.
I don't agree. PC classes should only advance through adventuring, combat, or other adventurer-type activities.GuardianLurker said:
XPs are XPs after all.
AuraSeer said:
I don't agree. PC classes should only advance through adventuring, combat, or other adventurer-type activities.
GuardianLurker said:
And yours is a valid point, though I'll offer that if there are enough opportunities to advance to 13th level for a commoner, there's enough for an adventuring class as well. XPs are XPs after all.
GuardianLurker said:Actually, aside from 1st level (where the NPC classes suck up the remaining population), I'm not sure that's true. Certainly in any given settlement there are more Commoners than any other class, or probably any other two classes. But the commoners are also much weaker than any of the PC classes, so I'd expect their mortality curve to be steeper than "normal".