Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JulesCARV 03-18-06, 08:59 AM	Hi. I've decided that I don't really like the system of NPC classes as given, with commoners, experts, aristocrats, magewrights, adepts, and warriors. Simply put, I find that it doesn't really make sense to me. Let's say a commoner and a ranger at level 1 with 0 experience go through adventures and such that give them 10,000 experience. They are now level 5. Bearing in mind that they've gone through the same stuff, gotten equal amounts of experience, it seems like the commoner is just a black hole of experience, with experience not being translated into anything useful. To me, it seems that generally being mediocre should be represented by 1) not having many class levels/much experience 2) low ability scores. In addition, what's the ECL on a fifth level human expert? A fifth level human commoner? The ECL does exist, probably, but I certainly can't name it off the top of my head, which, to me, is a problem with the NPC class system. My objective is to make a "commoner" class that is unattractive to adventurers, but actually would make sense as a class for commoners to take if they were given a choice, and didn't expect to live lives of combat (whereas with the current system, a commoner given any rational choice of class would rather be a ranger or something, which has all of the commoner's class skills and is better all around). I realize that this isn't everyone's cup of tea. I realize that many people think that the NPC class system as it is is fine, and that my problems with it aren't really significant, because, for example, they don't need to keep track of experience or ECL. While I don't mind people criticizing the concept, and people should certainly feel free to do so, what I'm really looking for it balance advice/suggestions. In short, I want commoners to be better at doing the sort of things they do than adventurers of similar level (though they would primarily be low level), but not good at adventuring. This proposed civilian class is a mix of "commoner" and "expert" as currently written, but is supposed to be better than either, and balanced vis-à-vis PC classes. Civilian Hit die: d4 Class Skills: All Skill points at first level: (8 + int modifier) x 4 Skill points at each additional level: 8 + int modifier Base Attack Bonus: As wizard (1/2 class levels, rounded down) Saves: All poor (1/3 class levels, rounded down) Weapon and armor proficiency: One simple weapon from each category (i.e., one light simple weapon, one one-handed simple weapon, one two-handed simple weapon, and one ranged simple weapon). Skill specialization: At first level, the civilian designates one skill as a specialized skill. With this skill, they add their civilian class levels to checks with this skill as a competence bonus. Every three levels thereafter (4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, and 19th level), they can designate one additional skill as a specialized skill. A civilian who selects "speak language" as a specialized skill gains a bonus language every level in lieu of the competence bonus. Bonus feats: Civilians gain bonus feats every third level, starting at the 2nd (2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 20th levels). These bonus feats generally involve boosting skills (skill focus, +2/+2 skills like alertness or self-sufficient) or allowing new applications of skills (track, urban tracking, investigate, research) Civilian Table Level BAB Fort Ref Will Special 1st +0 +0 +0 +0 Skill Specialization 2nd +1 +0 +0 +0 Bonus Feat 3rd +1 +1 +1 +1 4th +2 +1 +1 +1 Skill Specialization 5th +2 +1 +1 +1 Bonus Feat 6th +3 +2 +2 +2 7th +3 +2 +2 +2 Skill Specialization 8th +4 +2 +2 +2 Bonus Feat 9th +4 +3 +3 +3 10th +5 +3 +3 +3 Skill Specialization 11th +5 +3 +3 +3 Bonus Feat 12th +6 +4 +4 +4 13th +6 +4 +4 +4 Skill Specialization 14th +7 +4 +4 +4 Bonus Feat 15th +7 +5 +5 +5 16th +8 +5 +5 +5 Skill Specialization 17th +8 +5 +5 +5 Bonus Feat 18th +9 +6 +6 +6 19th +9 +6 +6 +6 Skill Specialization 20th +10 +6 +6 +6 Bonus Feat More rural, frontier-oriented civilians, hardier and with greater proficiency in military matters, would be represented by the Unearthed Arcana "Generic Expert," with a d6 hit die, better saves, better BAB, and fewer skills and feats representing heightened focus on survival at the expense of sophistication and expertise. Adepts would be replaced by clerics, archivists, healers, favored souls, and druids. Magewrights would simply be low-level wizards or sorcerors. Warriors would be replaced by fighters, barbarians, rangers, and paladins. Experts and commoners alike would be replaced by civilians and generic UA experts, the former in civilized, wealthy lands, and the latter in rougher territories. As for aristocrats -- I'm not sure. Would they just be multiclassed fighter/civilians? That certainly seems like it'd work, although it would deny the possibility of a level 1 aristocrat. Any ideas here?
MasterOfPsychic 03-18-06, 09:13 AM	Because you'd multiclass if you level up 5 times as a commoner... I like the SWRPG version of commoners... They simply don't have levels... When they get one, they go to level 1 ftr, etc...
JulesCARV 03-18-06, 10:11 AM	BTW, I just thought I'd note that this is based on a previous post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=605193) I made in the D&D General board. I just forgot to post that in this message.
Maraxus 03-18-06, 10:32 AM	I think there are hardly any jobs a civilian can do, that include as much bookreading, never going outdoors, never doing anything pysical, as being a wizard. That's why I think a d6 should be it for all of them. Skill specialization seams really extream to me. With maxing out a skill plus adding the level and about +5 through feats, and probably their NCP-wealth into items to further boost it, they should early take the epic level handbook, to see, what they can do... Hm, of cause, if you want a world with many, many low level characters, as the book sugests, and if you don't want the PCs to win every skill-comparison simply by the virtue of being a PC, than this might be good that way. Hm, it also fixes the logical problem of smithworking and masterwork (Every smith who forges masterwork stuff, given he only has a good int and maxed out craft, is either level 15+, or has no idea of economics, because the insanly high DC and the chance of failure make it more profitable to forge normal stuff.) And I would also make the BAB medium. The average bar fight once a week, the dire rat, that comes up the toilet, the new recruits of the thiefs-guild, even in civilised areas, that doesn't get raided by orcs every spring, the civilians have enough reason to not grow up that defencless. Hehe, think of a civilian 4, fighter 1, skill concentration on spot and listen, and bonus feat alertness. At level 5, he has spot/listen at +12, wis only crappy wisdom. He is no big challenge for the level 10 party if they choose to attack him, by if they need to sneak by him, this will really make it difficult, without requirering a level 10 NPC and a good explanation how such a powerful NPC can be a simple guard and no master at arms.
supernerd8916 03-18-06, 11:10 AM	your missing the point of the commoner. the commoner is a farmer, a barkeep, anything that requires them to stay at home pretty much. if, by your example, a commoner and a ranger went into a cave and had some fights, the commoner would probably get advice from the more experienced fighter (effectivly multiclassing to ranger) just so he would stay alive, or stay out of the fight. dont try to change it like that, because some pcs i know might actually want to play it. its not an adventuring class. so how does it get the training for the bonus feats? its assumed that the fighter is constantly training himself for the next battle, but the farmer? why should he get great cleave? (if you dont want them to get great cleave, at least write a full list on what they can or cannot take). if you made a barroom brawler npc prestige class, with improved BAB and fort saves, and a few extra feats (like improved unarmed strike, improved grapple, etc) i might incorporate it into my game. as it is, your commoner could potentially be as strong as a pc class, when you think about the fact that they get the ability to add theyre level to checks and bonus feats only slightly worse than those of a fighter. that means that any skill you choose specialization for is 2 times your level +3 +ability modifier. is there any reason that a level 20 commoner can be almost twice as sneaky as a 20th level rogue? granted, they dont get sneak attack or uncanny dodge, but it still defies logic that a commoner is so good at hiding. why? why is he so good at hiding? so he doesnt get caught in the barn with his pig?
Moribund 03-18-06, 11:10 AM	I have my own version of commoner and expert, which use some of the same sorts of abilities that your civilian class uses. However I keep them seperate. Commoner has 6 skill points per level, and adds Survival. This makes them well-rounded skill-wise, but unspecialized. PCs would stick to Rogue or Ranger. Expert drops to 4 skill points per level, has all skills as class skills and gets skill enhancing bonus feats. Skill Focus at 1st level, Favored in the Guild (from DMG2) at 5th, and bonus feats from an Expert feat list at later levels. This makes experts really good at one thing (so the name fits the class) but less diverse than other commoners and skill-heavy PC classes. I made some changes to other NPC classes as well: Warrior, Adept, and Magewright all get 4 skill points per level and add a few class skills making them better crafters, soldiers, guards, religious leaders, etc. This makes the classes more important in the world, but still not attractive to PCs. Aristocrats have more equipment than NPCs of equal level (+25% at 1st level, increases with aristocrat level) and they get a competance bonus on Diplomacy and Sense Motive checks. Aristocrats recieve Leadership as a bonus feat, and get bonuses to their leadership score at later levels. NPC classes are always non-associated class levels for the purposes of CR. ECL has no real bearing on NPC classes as it is assumed that PCs never take levels in those classes. The civilian class seems a tad on the powerful side to be NPC class for CR determination, and involves too much decision making for a DM to create quickly. BTW life is easier if you make adepts spontanous list casters like warmages. Choosing what spells to have prepared is DM time better spent elsewhere.
Kursk 03-18-06, 12:57 PM	Hi. I've decided that I don't really like the system of NPC classes as given, with commoners, experts, aristocrats, magewrights, adepts, and warriors. Simply put, I find that it doesn't really make sense to me. Let's say a commoner and a ranger at level 1 with 0 experience go through adventures and such that give them 10,000 experience. They are now level 5. Bearing in mind that they've gone through the same stuff, gotten equal amounts of experience, it seems like the commoner is just a black hole of experience, Well, read the section again. These are not viable PC classes. They are NPC classes. EOT.
Koga:The ninja trick 03-18-06, 02:43 PM	You could conceivably make all the npc classes not suck with a little tweaking.. Commoners: Increase thier hit die to d20 (you heard The Koga!). But make a penalty that once you level in commoner, you cannot multiclass, and if you are any other class, you cannot multiclass into a commoner. This makes it extremely difficult (outside of prestige classing but it'll still be hard..) to break the commoner, and you'll be a damage soaking machine! Also give the commoner all simple weapons proffietcy. Warriors: Just like the fighter, sept loses bonus feat at 1st level, but now has a hit die of d12. Considering everything, this is actually still better then the original fighter, which says alot. Aristocrat: Gestalt of original npc aristocrat and the swashbuckler class, now he's just as functional as a PC class. Expert: Gestalt of the npc expert and soulknife. It's really not that big of a gain, but the combined skills plus a soulknife could perhaps make both not suck.. maybe.. As for spellcasters, bleh, just tag along favoured souls, warlocks, and hexblades, those are the most kickass "spellcasters" anyways..
supernerd8916 03-18-06, 03:02 PM	excuse me but- your missing the point of the commoner. the commoner is a farmer, a barkeep, anything that requires them to stay at home pretty much. if, by your example, a commoner and a ranger went into a cave and had some fights, the commoner would probably get advice from the more experienced fighter (effectivly multiclassing to ranger) just so he would stay alive, or stay out of the fight. dont try to change it like that, because some pcs i know might actually want to play it. its not an adventuring class. so how does it get the training for the bonus feats? its assumed that the fighter is constantly training himself for the next battle, but the farmer? why should he get great cleave? (if you dont want them to get great cleave, at least write a full list on what they can or cannot take). if you made a barroom brawler npc prestige class, with improved BAB and fort saves, and a few extra feats (like improved unarmed strike, improved grapple, etc) i might incorporate it into my game. as it is, your commoner could potentially be as strong as a pc class, when you think about the fact that they get the ability to add theyre level to checks and bonus feats only slightly worse than those of a fighter. that means that any skill you choose specialization for is 2 times your level +3 +ability modifier. is there any reason that a level 20 commoner can be almost twice as sneaky as a 20th level rogue? granted, they dont get sneak attack or uncanny dodge, but it still defies logic that a commoner is so good at hiding. why? why is he so good at hiding? so he doesnt get caught in the barn with his pig? did i stutter?
General_Ridley 03-18-06, 03:12 PM	the commoner, as written, is balanced against PC classes by the fact that it sucks. That is its job, and it excels at it.
BlaineTog 03-18-06, 05:22 PM	the commoner, as written, is balanced against PC classes by the fact that it sucks. That is its job, and it excels at it.Exactly. The Commoner class only exists so as to fit all the little characters that the PCs might meet into the current mechanics. If the commoner wanted to be more powerful, he'd start gaining PC class levels.
Maraxus 03-18-06, 05:42 PM	your missing the point of the commoner. the commoner is a farmer, a barkeep, anything that requires them to stay at home pretty much. if, by your example, a commoner and a ranger went into a cave and had some fights, the commoner would probably get advice from the more experienced fighter (effectivly multiclassing to ranger) just so he would stay alive, or stay out of the fight. dont try to change it like that, because some pcs i know might actually want to play it. its not an adventuring class. so how does it get the training for the bonus feats? its assumed that the fighter is constantly training himself for the next battle, but the farmer? why should he get great cleave? (if you dont want them to get great cleave, at least write a full list on what they can or cannot take). if you made a barroom brawler npc prestige class, with improved BAB and fort saves, and a few extra feats (like improved unarmed strike, improved grapple, etc) i might incorporate it into my game. as it is, your commoner could potentially be as strong as a pc class, when you think about the fact that they get the ability to add theyre level to checks and bonus feats only slightly worse than those of a fighter. that means that any skill you choose specialization for is 2 times your level +3 +ability modifier. is there any reason that a level 20 commoner can be almost twice as sneaky as a 20th level rogue? granted, they dont get sneak attack or uncanny dodge, but it still defies logic that a commoner is so good at hiding. why? why is he so good at hiding? so he doesnt get caught in the barn with his pig? You-huu are wro-hong, you are wrong. :P ... Well, at least a kind of. You are also a kind of right, but I still prefer to call it wrong. ;) The book desicners made it that way, but at this point, they obviously made an intern logical error, and that's why it needs fixing. Yes, the commoner is a guy with an average job. Yes, he stays at home. And this is, why he hardly earns any experience. That's why he hardly ever levels up. That's why a commoner/civilian will have a BAB of only +0 to +6, even if the class has an average BAB. Just because of them having low levels. PCs will be better! Just not (that much) better per level. You have to realize, that the characters hardly know of thier level (wizards usually do, because they keep track of what (and how many) levels they can cast. Through they probably have various synonymes for level). "Level" if meant to be an indicator for how powerful you are (later replaced by ECL, witch still includes "...level"). Right: Your Level should say, how powerful you can be expected to be (if the PHB was balanced over all classes and levels), not your combination of level and class. That's, what CR are based on, experience gain and all that stuff. And now you say, that this should not cound for NPCs, because they are supposed to be "weaker"? No, that's wrong, the proper representation for "weaker" is "less levels". Of cause, you don't need to balance the classes like that, especially, if you set NPC-equipment, experience for fights/other confrontations vs NPCs and NPC-level distribution in the world (I think this are all points, that have flaws because of the bad NPC classes) in your game as you like anyway. For example in my games, I do it that way. Koga: Hey, I like your warrior. He is worse then the fighter at the first 4 or 5 levels (at which the fighter is undenyably strong), but then a bit stronger at the higher levels (at which the fighter is -even I admit it- weak). Nothing that really let's people drop on their knees and shout: "Oh, I was blind but you made me see", but a little, simple and yet good change in the right direction.
Silverthumb128 03-18-06, 06:24 PM	Aren't Commoners supposed to be, well, common? Average? I'd go with the generic classes from Unearthed Arcana, myself, if I wanted an NPC class with bite.
Cantankerous 03-18-06, 06:38 PM	Why in the heck would anyone want an NPC class with bite? The very thing that sets the PCs apart is that they're NOT mucking about with NPC classes. That, more than even their higher point buy, is supposed to be (mechanicly) what makes them PCs, special, heroes. Isshia
ManTimeForgot 03-18-06, 06:59 PM	That isn't an unattractive class to adventurers. You are giving me +20 competence bonus to a bunch of skills... You are giving me 8+ skill points per level. The class you have there multiclassed with one rogue level is probably better than the rogue at being a rogue... And if you could get ahold of a feat or something to duplicate the effects of the traps skill, then you wouldn't even need that one level of rogue... On at least 7 skills the "Cvilian" you have listed there would kick the crap out of the rogue at his own game. I mean what kind of NPC class is MORE skilled that than the most skilled adventurer? MTF
SwiftFox 03-18-06, 07:07 PM	What is it with these people that think commoners and goblins should be balanced against adventurers? The crappiness of generic NPCs is something that serves to distinguish player classes and races as heroic... commoners and goblins are supposed to suck, they are supposed to be inferior to adventurers!
Silverthumb128 03-18-06, 08:14 PM	Why in the heck would anyone want an NPC class with bite? Something different? Or maybe it fits a character's background story not to be a Rogue, or a Sorceror, and an Expert, or Adept works better? That's right, people do still think of a character before choosing class/feats/etc. Plus, they're good. For anyone who wants to allow for some real flexibility in their character, and don't want to keep using the same character builds over and over. Doing things differently is how D&D evolves and grows, and it allows you to expand your imagination. Imagination? Is he serious? Yes.
Maraxus 03-18-06, 08:31 PM	That isn't an unattractive class to adventurers. You are giving me +20 competence bonus to a bunch of skills... You are giving me 8+ skill points per level. The class you have there multiclassed with one rogue level is probably better than the rogue at being a rogue... And if you could get ahold of a feat or something to duplicate the effects of the traps skill, then you wouldn't even need that one level of rogue... On at least 7 skills the "Cvilian" you have listed there would kick the crap out of the rogue at his own game. I mean what kind of NPC class is MORE skilled that than the most skilled adventurer? MTF I think the main point of the rogue is the sneak attack. Evading fireballs with his massive reflex save is another thing. Then comes the skill-thing.
JulesCARV 03-18-06, 08:32 PM	Okay: to reiterate, what I want here is a class such that: 1) Someone expecting to live a peaceful life would be better off selecting this class than say, rogue, ranger, or bard. 2) A typical adventurer would find this class unattractive. I gave their skills some pretty serious boosts. After all, this class is supposed to be, in its own way, as powerful as a wizard or barbarian, although in very different ways. Without good hit dice, saves, magical ability, or martial prowess, skills are given a lot of boosts. A level 20 commoner who's as powerful as a level 20 wizard who can cast Wail of the Banshee and Time Stop has to have some potent abilities. Of course, level 20 commoners would almost never exist, so this is mostly a moot point, but I think, like Maraxus, that it's better that character power differences be represented by differences in levels than some classes being more powerful than others. Besides, what's the rationalization for two skilled soldiers, one a level 8 warrior and one a level 5 fighter (assuming those are roughly evenly matched: not sure about that), having two different designations? However, I still want to avoid having the commoner class be attractive to adventurers. If the class as written is actually attractive to adventurers, then I feel like I've failed in some ways. Does anyone have any ideas on how to create a class that's not good at magic or combat, but is still in its own way as powerful as a PC class of equivalent level, without making them a very attractive class for adventurers?
MadApe19 03-18-06, 09:09 PM	In my own setting I don't use the commoner NPC class much, or at least not for a long period of time. I give it to all common people until they reach maturity, in which case they get their Commoner level swapped out for an Expert level. Exceptions are sheltered people/people who don't get a good education not of noble class, and bums who never take initiative in life. Why do I do this? I feel it makes more sense realistically. The expert's freedom of skill choice allows for people to learn their own way and based on where they grew up/what they were exposed to. For example, a lot of people would know how to swim if they were ever around a large/important body of water, and some are really good at it even though they're not too far along in life. On a related note, I also don't use the 10,10,10,11,11,11 stat array really often. I usually bump one up to a 12/13 and one down to a 9/8 to make a default array for average NPCs. I don't like this whole 'generic and useless' theme going on, even though they ARE suppost to be weaker than the PCs. It works good for my setting. :)
runestar 03-18-06, 10:22 PM	If a commoner were to go adventuring, and if he had only 1 commoner lv, chances are the dm would allow him to swap out his 1st commoner lv for a class lv. And if he were to lv, he would probably be gaining lvs in actual PC class lvs, not additional commoner lvs. The initial poster is not making any sense at all. :confused:
BeyondFated 03-18-06, 10:40 PM	The Commonor isn't supposed to be balanced against the PC classes, because those are PC classes. Its an NPC class. Or Non-Player-Character class, to be specific. Let me say that again for emphasis: NON-PLAYER-CHARACTER. PCs are called "Adventurers", because they take adventurering classes. If a Commonor was out adventuring, he wouldn't level up in Commonor, because he isn't out in the world commoning. He would take an adventuring class, because he was out adventuring. Making a NPC class balanced with the other classes completely defeats the point of an NPC class, IE, a class for NPCs.
JulesCARV 03-18-06, 11:08 PM	If a commoner were to go adventuring, and if he had only 1 commoner lv, chances are the dm would allow him to swap out his 1st commoner lv for a class lv. And if he were to lv, he would probably be gaining lvs in actual PC class lvs, not additional commoner lvs. The initial poster is not making any sense at all. :confused: Perhaps, and if a PC were to give up adventuring and take up teaching high school students, she would presumably multiclass into something a lot better for teaching high school kids, and less suited for adventure (though she wouldn't swap out her old ranger levels, which would be silly in my view). Now, what class would that be, though? Bard? Well, she'd get all knowledge skills, which is good in a teacher, but she doesn't need spellcasting, bardic music, or even 3/4 base attack bonus. (I don't think most commoners in civilized areas get into bar fights once per week. Really, how often do you get into bar fights? I'd guess you're a fairly troubled, violent person if it happens once per year, to be honest. No offense.) What she needs to teach high schoolers well is lots of skill points. Of course, the fascinate / suggestion combo would be useful for convincing some of them to turn in their homework. Overall, though, the class would best be something highly skilled, but without the adventuring skills of a bard (does she really need weapon proficiency: whip to teach high school kids? Wait, don't answer that.). By the way, for all advocates of the view that 90% of the population can be represented as level 1 commoners, how do you account for the immense variation within that 90%? This segment of the population includes everyone from an illiterate, drug-addicted panhandler to a prosperous, highly-skilled freeholding farmer who's in the 89th percentile. I would say that the panhandler is probably a level 1 UA generic expert with poor ability scores (expert instead of civilian to represent focus on survival at the expense of skill), or possibly a level 1 humanoid who doesn't have enough skills to swap out his racial hit die for a class level, while the highly-skilled farmer is a level 3 UA generic expert/civilian with good ability scores. If a level 1 commoner is Joe and Jane Average, though, what do you do to represent someone who's below average? Someone without the skills of a typical commoner? In short, how can level 1 commoner mean "average" when it's the weakest possible class/level combination? Doesn't average mean that there are going to be a lot of people better AND worse than you? Yet there's no one worse than the supposed average in the current system: average and worst-possible are conflated as the same thing.
ManTimeForgot 03-19-06, 12:58 AM	Sneak Attack does not make the rogue. Sneak attack is a nifty little side-track that half/half and PrC builds take advantage of to try and do crazy combat damage. What makes a rogue is his skills and one singular ability. Traps. Without the traps ability you can usually kiss your :censored: good bye. And without high search and disable device skill that ability probably wouldn't matter much either. Essentially this one class out does the rogue at his most important feature of the party. The rogue is a skills master. There are essentially three "default" roles for an adventuring game. Combat user, Skill user, and Magic user (tech user in future games). Rogues are not combat users. They are also not magic users. There are classes much better suited to combat and casting than the rogue. There is no denying this. This leaves the role of "Skill user." And this commoner while I probably wouldn't use it over the rogue (depending on what its class skill list looks like) would definitely make a rogue sweat. I mean who the :censored: becomes a rogue if you can just become a skill god by being a normal person. MTF
Koga:The ninja trick 03-19-06, 02:27 AM	The Koga thinks npc classes should be able to mechanichaly function as PC classes, one, npc characters could afford it, and secondly, some of us want more flavour to our games, immagine it for a moment, sure you could have some typical background, or, you could be a commoner who's entire family died and now your farm has been taken away by the state and you want some serious revenge..
Ruhl-Than Sage 03-19-06, 02:29 AM	A 1st level Human Commoner can be really good at what he does. Most Commoners are things like Farmers, Herders, Weavers, ect. Well he should have plently of skill points to max out his primary skill or two and take a few ranks in some other skills even with an average intelligence. He gets two feats and can spend one on Skill Focus and the other on a feat that grants +2 to two different skills, or something like Great Fortitude to represent a knack that he has, such as being sneaky or being able to hold his own in a drinking contest. He is an example 1st level Commoner using a 15 point buy, That class does just fine at what it is supposed to. Dan the Farmer 1st level Human Commoner Str: 12 +1 BAB: +0 Attack: Melee +1 [1d4+1 damage (Dagger) 19-20 x2] Dex: 8 -1 Init: -1 AC: 10 [Padded Armor, Dex] Touch: 9 Flat-Footed: 10 Con: 12 +1 Hit Points: 5 Wounds: Int: 10 +0 Languages: Local (whatever that might be), Common Wis: 13 +1 Cha: 8 -1 Fort: +1 Ref: -1 Will: +1 Feats: Skill Focus [Profession (Farmer)], Alertness Skills: Profession (Farmer) 4 ranks +8, Handle Animal 4 ranks +3, Spot 1 rank +4, Listen 1 rank +4, Craft (Repair) 2 ranks +3 Dan is a young farmer who works on his father's farm. His primary concern is the fields, but he tend to the animals too feeding and watering them and occasionally convincing escaped cows to return to pasture. He isn't very good at dealing with animals though, as he isn't the most charming fellow. Dan has a sharp eye and a keen ear which he uses to watch out for mischief from the local trouble makers and to hear when a fox has gotten in to the chicken coup. He has also been trained in the basics of repairing the many things that can break down on a farm; patching the roof, fixing the fences, and repairing broken tools. He is a bit clumsy but a strong lad with a hearty consitution and a bit of common sense. Here is an example of what a more expirienced Commoner might look like: John Stout the Brewer 4th level Human Commoner Str: 9 -1 BAB: +1 Attack: Melee +0 [1d6-1 dmg (Club)] Dex: 10 +0 Init: +0 AC: 10 Touch: 10 Flat: 10 Con: 12 +1 Hit Points: 12 Int: 12 +1 Languages: Local (Whatever that might be), Common, Halfling Wis: 10 +0 Cha: 11 +0 Fort: +4 Ref: +1 Will: +1 Feats: Skill Focus [Profession (Brewer)], Great Fortitude, Negotiator Skills: Profession (Brewer) 7 ranks +10, Appraise 2 ranks +3, Listen 2 ranks +2, Knowledge (Local) 2 ranks +3, Handle Animal 2 ranks +2, Diplomacy 1 ranks +3, Ride 2 ranks +2, Sense Motive 1 ranks +3, Climb 1 rank +1 John Stout the Brewer has been brewing beer in the sleepy town of Lockshire for the last 10 years, his father recently pasted away leaving him in charge of the business. Lockshire is mostly a human community, but a number of halflings live in the area as well; and come to the village to trade from time to time. John frequently sells his beer to the Cozy Hearth, a Halfling establishment on the edge of town; one of two taverns in town. He transports his goods on a horse drawn cart and takes very good care of his aging mare, Apples. John has always had a knack for negotiating a good deal which makes him a good businessman; and years of imbibing his own brew, have given him the ability to drink like a fish. He talks to the local people quite a bit and has learned a fair amount about the surrounding countryside and the goings on in the area. If you want a more skilled NPC that's what the Expert class is for. BTW enjoy the free NPCs ;)
haste9 03-19-06, 08:20 AM	Ruhl-Than Sage has some cool NPCs there! Let's start a thread where people post interesting NPCs for different jobs around a city or village or town. Only Commoner, Arisocrat, Warrior, and Expert classes for the characters. It would be a great resource for DMs to use for their games. Kind of like a Low-Powered NPC Handbook to flavor up a city. here is the thread I started. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=606835
supernerd8916 03-19-06, 08:50 AM	as long as you limit the skills and the feats that you can get through special abilities, go ahead. limit the skills they can get to swim, climb (depending on local) jump, concentration, knowledge(local), knowledge(nature) and things like that. make it clear that the DM can substitute ONE skill for another, depending on background.
JulesCARV 03-19-06, 09:39 AM	Okay: anyone got any advice on how to fix the civilian so that it is generally not very good in adventure situations, but is better than, say, the rogue in non-adventure situations? I tried to avoid making them front-loaded, so that they wouldn't just be a dip class that people would take a level of for the skills. As such, I made the power of the "skill specialization" feature scale quadratically with class levels, as the power of each skill specialization increased and the number of skill specializations increased, to make it weak at first and stronger later, but perhaps I overdid it. My objective was to make that one powerful feature balance the civilian as a bartender, high school teacher, lawyer, etc, so that a bard or rogue really wouldn't be a better choice for a bartender or whatever. I thought that tying that one powerful special ability to d4 hit dice, bad base attack bonus, and limited simple weapon proficiency would make them unattractive to the typical adventurer in spite of the power of skill specializations, but I might be wrong. In that case, I propose the following change: -Skill specialization would no longer be a class ability of the Civilian. -A new feat, "Skill Specialization [General]" would be created. -The skill specialization would require skill focus in the same skill, and 2nd level civilian. -Rather than providing an automatic skill bonus equal to civilian class levels, it would rather allow a player to trade in skill points to add a competence bonus to the skill, up to a maximum of civilian class levels, much like buying ranks, except that it would technically be a bonus rather ranks, to avoid screwing up feat/PrC prerequisites, the level + 3 rank limit, etc. Also, skill specialization (speak language) no longer would make any sense in this system, since it doesn't have a max ranks limit. The civilian would still thus kick the rogue's ass in a very specialized skill, and a rogue or bard would still suck as a lawyer compared to a well-specialized civilian of equal level, but I don't think this would be attractive to PCs anymore. Or would it? So here's the revision: Feat: Skill Specialization [General] Choose one skill with which you already have skill focus. Prerequisites: Skill focus in selected skill, selected skill as a class skill, Civilian level 2nd Benefit: You may invest skill points in the selected skill to provide a bonus equal to to the number of skill points invested. You may not invest more skill points than your civilian class levels. Special: You may gain Skill Specialization multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time, you select it for a different skill. Table: The Civilian Level BAB Fort Ref Will Special 1st +0 +0 +0 +0 2nd +1 +0 +0 +0 Bonus Feat 3rd +1 +1 +1 +1 4th +2 +1 +1 +1 5th +2 +1 +1 +1 Bonus Feat 6th +3 +2 +2 +2 7th +3 +2 +2 +2 8th +4 +2 +2 +2 Bonus Feat 9th +4 +3 +3 +3 10th +5 +3 +3 +3 11th +5 +3 +3 +3 Bonus Feat 12th +6 +4 +4 +4 13th +6 +4 +4 +4 14th +7 +4 +4 +4 Bonus Feat 15th +7 +5 +5 +5 16th +8 +5 +5 +5 17th +8 +5 +5 +5 Bonus Feat 18th +9 +6 +6 +6 19th +9 +6 +6 +6 20th +10 +6 +6 +6 Bonus Feat
supernerd8916 03-19-06, 09:58 AM	much better. scale down the feats to every four levels and i can live with it what do you mean by invest? i assume you mean sacrifice skill ranks in other skills for a competance bonus in one but im not sure
JulesCARV 03-19-06, 10:39 AM	I don't know about that :). They already get fewer bonus feats than fighters, and are otherwise worse all around except for class skills and skill points. Perhaps d4 hit dice and 8 + int skill points are more powerful than d10 hit dice and 2 + int skill points (after all, boosting d4 to average out as d10 requires a +3 constitution modifier, wherease boosting 2 + into to equal 8 + into requires a +6 intelligence modifier, considerably more). Given the all-bad saves, d4 hit dice, bad base attack bonus, and such, I'd say it's stretching it to claim that they're still overpowered because of a bonus feat every 3rd level. Still, I'll look it over and consider it. I did write the Skill Specialization feat poorly, though. Let me try again: Skill Specialization [General] Choose one skill with which you already have skill focus. Prerequisites: Skill focus in selected skill, selected skill as a class skill, Civilian level 2nd Benefit: You may spend skill points in the selected skill to provide a bonus to that skill equal to to the number of skill points spent. You may not spend more skill points than your civilian class levels. You may add to your bonus by spending more skill points whenever you gain a level, so long as that level includes the selected skill as a class skill, and your current bonus is less than your civilian class levels. Special: You may gain Skill Specialization multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time, you select it for a different skill.
JulesCARV 03-19-06, 11:45 AM	Also, an attempt at a list of Civilian Bonus Feats: Acrobatic, Agile, Agile Athlete, Alertness, Animal Affinity, Appraise Magic Value, Astral Tracking, Athletic, Autonomous, Complementary Insight, Deceitful, Deft Hands, Diligent, Earthcraft, Investigate, Investigator, Jack of all Trades, Magical Aptitude, Negotiator, Nimble Fingers, Open Minded, Persuasive, Psionic Affinity, Quick Reconnoiter, Recognize Imposter,Resarch, Sea legs, Seafarer, Self-sufficient, Skill Focus, Skill Knowledge, Skill Specialization, Sociable Personality, Steady Mountaineer, Stealthy, Tactile Trapsmith, Track, Tutor, Urban Tracking, Versatile Performer I added some new skills in an update; they're the bolded ones.
demonic_dante 03-19-06, 02:10 PM	:rant: Commoners (and the other NPC classes) suck because the people they represent suck. Having a level in a PC class represents that the person is above average in just about every way. A PC is athletic, smart, dextrous, tough, witty, and sensical whereas a NPC is one or two (really anywhere from none-five). Also a commoner would never adventure because that is not common, he would die very quickly and if you follow the (much better) eberron rules NPC's don't level up (meaning there level represents there natural skill as opposed to what they learn). In balancing the commoner class against PC classes you have made it possible for an exeptional individual to be mediocre. :rant:
Esponer 03-19-06, 02:54 PM	I agree with the original poster and disagree with… well, virtually everyone else who posted. I don't like NPC classes as written. If you're weak, then you don't have much experience – that's the only way we should be measuring "weak" in D&D terms. NPC classes are just plain silly, and unnecessary since those we'd think of as NPCs wouldn't be getting any EXP anyway. Look at it this way. Imagine a 17th level commoner, taking the NPC class as written. Now what is that? This seems to be the mistake here, really. A 17th level commoner is one hell of an oddity, because a commoner shouldn't be gaining this many levels. He is not Joe the chimney sweep – this guy, for some reason, has gained so much experience, no doubt much of it combat experience (given how D&D gives out experience) that he rivals the most powerful of wizards. To come along and say, "How can a random commoner be a better rogue than the highest level rogues?" is completely missing the point. A random commoner is a Commoner 1. A 20th level commoner is one hell of an oddity, because he's not common at all. There are two ways to handle this. Either make the "Commoner" class an actual viable class, which is balanced with the PC classes (bearing in mind that the average commoner will have only one level of this class), or don't bother with a progression at all. Just have your commoners have a racial hit dice and no class levels. I'm fine with either, though I applaud Maraxus' initial attempt with the Commoner. I would change it in a few ways though – allow only certain skills, namely Profession and Craft, and a few others. I'd also give them better hit dice and possibly medium base attack bonus progression, and then cut down on the number of skills they can specialise in. Then, perhaps reduce the bonus feats a bit (and allow only the fairly combat-useless ones). The class would be great for blacksmiths, teachers, diplomats, farmers, and so on. It'd still be up to a very, very imaginative DM to work out how the hell someone can have 20 levels in this class without having become an adventurer, but at least the mechanic's there if they want it. Remember. You walk into a village, and the people there are level 1. They don't need crappy NPC classes: it's enough, they're level 1.
JulesCARV 03-19-06, 03:40 PM	Thanks, Esponer: my proposal for the civilian was meant to represent a peaceful, highly-skilled type of commoner from a rich, highly-developed area. However, for the more provincial, survivalist sort of commoner, of the sort who faces violence on the frontiers or from gangs in impoverished urban areas, I propose using the Unearthed Arcana generic expert (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm). Maybe there should be some sort of system of "pre-level 1" levels, to represent people who aren't as powerful as level 1 characters. I think that it would be simpler to simply decree that the typical person is level 3, so that unusually untrained, inexperienced people can be level 1, but if that doesn't work, maybe we could have a level 1/2 or something, where people would have a rolled first hit die, with a 1 hp penalty, rather than setting it to maximum automatically, and they would have 3 x normal skill points as starting skill points, rather than 4 x normal skill points, and +0 base attack bonus (regardless of class), and no class features. Then when someone gets to level 1, they would gain their normal amount of skill points and roll their hit die, and since two rolled hit dice are worth just one hit point more than one maximized hit die, and 3 x normal skill points + normal skill points = 4 x normal skill points, and they'd gain all of their class features, they'd end up looking like level 1 characters (albeit with more hit point variation, although the same average).
Maraxus 03-19-06, 03:44 PM	I know another way to look at this. It came from a question, that came up after to much computer-roleplaying-games: "How much XP do you players get for delivering a letter, without any danger? 100? No? 20? 5? Okay. - And then, why aren't postman 20th level after only a few years?" Of cause, you should not give a postman 5 XP per letter he delivers. But 1000 XP per year after reaching adulthood is a fair deal (long-living races like elfes proportionally less, because they are obviously dump when they need 20 years to learn how to walk and talk, and another 100 years (or something) to get their first level). This does of cause mean, not every NPC can have the NPC gear value wealth. A commoner, allthrough he has worked his whole life may have made no savings. And, the best point for balancing NPC-classes with PC-classes: challenge rating: The book does not explicitly say a CR for NPC-class-NPCs, but it is probably meant to be Level-1 (As you can see when looking at races like drow or Duergar). Obviusly, this is stupid. A warrior is much better then a commoner in terms of CR). A proper formular for a NPC s CR would be something like Comoner Level /5 + Aristrocrate Level /4 + Expert Level /4 + Adept Level /3 + Warrior Level /3 + Wealth equal to a PC of Level /2 ( + PC-class Level /2 ) Example: A commoner 3 / warrior 3 with 5400 gp wealth (Equal to PC level 4) would have a CR of 3/5 + 3/3 + 4/2 = 3.666
MadApe19 03-19-06, 07:01 PM	Maybe there should be some sort of system of "pre-level 1" levels, to represent people who aren't as powerful as level 1 characters. In the DMG (at least, the 3.0 one, I'm not sure about the 3.5), there is a variant that allows 1st-level multiclasses, and each half of the level is basically a 'level 0' in a regular PC class. Perhaps these level 0's could be used as a basis for the common people as well as apprenticeships and the regular 1st-level multiclassing. If this were to become true however, I'd suggest buffing the Expert and Aristocrat classes or replacing them with the Generics from UA, because you'd probably still need them. Some people would still fit less adventurer-like roles, and that's what we'd need those for. It seems realistic to me that such people would generally choose everyday roles, but at least some of them would have unusual abilities that they could represent with the generics and their special ability choices.
ManTimeForgot 03-19-06, 07:01 PM	The NPC classes as is make perfect sense. If NPC classes were as good as PC classes, then why the hell would PC classes EVER come into existence. If you could be just as skilled as a rogue as a commoner, then the rogue would NEVER come to exist. You would just be a commoner who knew how to do everything the rogue does. PC classes exist because there is a DISCREPANCY between the type of people who are NPCs and those who are PCs. A 17th level commoner is an oddity, but he isn't getting the training, he isn't learning as much from his experiences, and he also isn't very smart. You can't GET to 17th level without adventuring. The risk reward ratio for CR's essentially guarantee that if you want to make into the double digits, then you need to adventure. So this commoner who instead chose not to study under a fighter/wizard and gain insight in how to improve his combat worthiness chose to remain a sub-standard class while going off and fighting mind-flayers and beholders. If every single commoner were the equivalent of a level one rogue, then the PC's would be in SERIOUS trouble. Not only wouldn't they be able to stay in the spot light since everyone and their cousin is on par with them; they would also be in serious trouble trying to get any kind of experience. No one would hire adventurers because a commoner (rogue substitute) is just as good. Beyond this the adventurers would be prime targets for thievery by all of the level 1 "rogues" in the town which just happens to be 50% of the population... Having high powered NPC classes defeats the flavor of the game and upsets the mechanical roles that PC classes play. MTF
Ruhl-Than Sage 03-19-06, 07:05 PM	I believe the challange rating for NPC classes is 1/4 per level for Commoner and 1/2 per level for all other NPC classes. As for 17th level Commoners, I agree that doesn't really make any sense. I don't think I would ever make a Commoner of more then 12th level. As a very general rule of thumb I would say. 1st-3rd level: Young Commoner <25 years old 4th-8th level: Mature Commoner 25+ years old 9th-12th level: Veteran Commoner 40+ years old Commoners are supposed to represent truely unexceptional people, so I would use a 15 point buy for your average commoner. For a commoner that doesn't suck use a 20 point buy, and he would probably end up multiclassing into some other NPC class at some point (probably Expert or Warrior, but maybe Adept). For a truely exceptional Commoner use a 25 point buy and they will almost undoubtly gains some levels in another NPC, or maybe even PC class at some point assuming they don't die before that.
MadApe19 03-19-06, 07:07 PM	Having high powered NPC classes defeats the flavor of the game and upsets the mechanical roles that PC classes play. Perhaps, but I don't see why using a modified version of the 0-levels in the DMG wouldn't work. There'd be lots of people who have aspirations to be more than just regular people, and even if they don't, I can see at least a lot of them showing some of their childhood/teenage dreams in their capabilities. This is a bad example, as you could easily just recommend ranks in the Perform skill, but... A teenager might want to be a rockstar someday, and picks up a guitar or bass. He ends up in an office job, but he learned to play really good in his younger years and probably could do half-decently in a band.
BeyondFated 03-19-06, 07:09 PM	The Koga thinks npc classes should be able to mechanichaly function as PC classes, one, npc characters could afford it, and secondly, some of us want more flavour to our games, immagine it for a moment, sure you could have some typical background, or, you could be a commoner who's entire family died and now your farm has been taken away by the state and you want some serious revenge.. Well, he would probably be a commoner in name only, maybe even having one or two levels in commoner. But there is no way in the abyss he is going to survive be farming the monsters to death. Thus, your example commoner would probably take a PC class, or at least take up the Warrior class. Pumping up the commoner class does not flavor make.It makes stupidly powerful commoners. Flavor is more about how something is described, than how it works mechanically. Just because you have a farmer that wants revenge, and studies magic to do so, does not mean you give commoners a spell list. Give him levels in wizard if you are so inclined, but don't change a class that is absolutly perfect for what it was designed to do.
Jaxgaret 03-19-06, 07:50 PM	Ruhl-Than Sage has some cool NPCs there! Let's start a thread where people post interesting NPCs for different jobs around a city or village or town. Only Commoner, Arisocrat, Warrior, and Expert classes for the characters. It would be a great resource for DMs to use for their games. Kind of like a Low-Powered NPC Handbook to flavor up a city. here is the thread I started. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=606835 Great idea. Oh, and to the OP - there is an easy solution. It is approximately correct to state that PC class levels are 50% more powerful than NPC class levels (try the comparisons yourself). So simply count every 3 NPC levels as equivalent to 2 PC levels, and you're about even.
JulesCARV 03-20-06, 07:21 AM	Why do you think that PCs should be better all around than typical people at level 1? I don't think that your typical NPC commoner should be a level 18 rogue/wizard/prestige bard/druid/sublime chord/fochlucan lyrist or anything. Really, I don't. However, if you say that the typical person is a level 1 commoner, how do you represent a below-average person? Someone who's not as bright or talented as the average Joe? Sure, you could lower the point buy from, say, 15 to, say, 5, but what about as far as class? In short, you have mechanical representation for people who are at about the median, above the median, and way above the median (commoners, other NPC classes, and PC classes, respectively), but how would you represent someone who's below the median? Way below the median? Are people really so scared if the typical commoner is a level 3 middle-aged civilian carpenter, with 9 hit points (4 + 2*2.5), a +1 base attack bonus, cancelled out by a -1 strength penalty, unarmed except for a light crossbow that's collecting dust in her closet, something that she's mostly forgotten even exists, and with high ranks in profession (carpenter), craft (woodworking), appraise, knowledge (local), knowledge (architecture and engineering), and a few other ancillary skills? A level 1 28 point buy fighter with a chain shirt, buckler, longbow, and longsword would still easily take her on in most combat situations -- but then, she's not a combatant. A wizard can still out-magic her -- but she's not a mage. A rogue can probably out-sneak her -- but she's not a sneaker. In short, she's good at what she does, and that's it.
Ruhl-Than Sage 03-20-06, 09:47 AM	That's just the thing, you do use Commoner to represent people who suck! The real average characters are the Experts, Warriors, Aristocrats, and Adepts. Think about it this way, the Commoner is like the guy who works in a low paying service job until he's 30. Whereas the Expert is the guy who goes to college gets his bachelor's degree and gets a decent job as some sort of proffesional or semi-professional by the time he's 24. Meanwhile the Rogue is the guy that manages to make a fortune off of his natural talent: becoming an actor, buying and selling property, intenting something, or some other way. This isn't a perfect analogy obviously, it's just supposed to help you understand the relative roles. When they say average, they mean it in the most derogitory way possibile. It's like a nice way of saying loser. ;)
BeyondFated 03-20-06, 12:52 PM	Why do you think that PCs should be better all around than typical people at level 1?. Because PCs spend large amounts of time and energy training and learning about combat and/or magic. Life and death situations are something that they expect, and thus they are more powerful because of it.
JulesCARV 03-20-06, 01:20 PM	Because PCs spend large amounts of time and energy training and learning about combat and/or magic. Life and death situations are something that they expect, and thus they are more powerful because of it. Right. Which is why they're better at handling life and death situations, as their classes are written that way. Note that the civilian is not written that way -- and has completely different strengths than any of the current PC classes.
Tisner44 06-03-06, 06:11 PM	Actually I like the original ability that they are able to add their class level to a specific skill. Keep in mind that most NPC's don't make it past level 5. So a +5 bonus to one or two skill is not that big of a deal. I also don't have a problem with giving them a wide range of skills to choose from, but I think they should choose those skills and they only need 4 SP/level to distribute. Most of the skills will be put in craft or profession skills, maybe perform. ;) A commoner should not be better as a whole than a Player class, but they can be a little better at one or two specific skills than a low level character, this in no way makes them overpowered. It means they can make a decent living doing a specific job or using a specific skill. Just my thoughts :cool:
ideasmith 06-03-06, 06:49 PM	What really balances Commoners agains PC classes: Commoners can go up levels without having to go on dangerous adventures. That's why they're an NPC class.
Archmage_Vall 06-03-06, 07:11 PM	To make a commoner be decent at whatever their job is, I think you should make them specialize in 2 or maybe 3 related skills. These 2 or 3 skills would be their only class skills, and they would get their level added as a bonus to these skills only. They would also get 4 + Int skill points per level. Otherwise, unchanged from DMG commoner. Bill here is still going to suck in a fight against anything but the lowliest goblin or kobold, and he's not going to outshine an equal-level rogue at anything other than blacksmithing. Bill the Blacksmith Level 4 Human (Modified) Commoner HD: 4d4 (11 hp) AC: 9 (-1 dex) Attack: club +2 melee (1d6, 20/x2) Abilities: Str 11, Dex 9, Con 10, Int 12, Wis 11, Cha 9 Saves: Fort +1, Ref +0, Will +1 Feats: Skill Focus (Appraise), Skill Focus (Craft: Armorsmithing), Skill Focus (Craft: Weaponsmithing) Skills: Appraise +7 (+9 when appraising weapons or armor), Craft (Armorsmithing) +15, Craft (Weaponsmithing) +15, Diplomacy +1, Knowledge (Local) +4, Profession (Blacksmith) +11, Sense Motive +2 Edit: nm, this could probably be done just as well with a 4th level Expert.
ManTimeForgot 06-03-06, 08:04 PM	Rogues are NOT sneakers. They can be used as such, but they are SO much more than that. Rogues and to a more or less same extent Bards are the game's PC skill users. The commoner should NOT be better at skill use than the PC skill users. Its that simple. PC's are training for dangerous situations. They are pouring every waking effort into effectiveness since their effectiveness directly correlates into their survivability. A commoner of equal level to a PC skill user should under no circumstances be able to be better at skills. The best an NPC class should hope for is to tie, and even then I think that is non-sensical. Commoners with low stats are below average. You want to duplicate a retard? Make the commoner have low int so it doesn't get many skill points. But when you start handing out skill bonuses and skill bonus feats you are creating a major logical disconnect. Just where the hell is this training coming from. Commoners are supposed to be average. They are not training their hearts out; its not a matter of life and death for them. Commoners work because its how they make their living. Even an expert is just making a living. You want an "average" person with a slightly better than average grasp of what he does, then he takes levels in expert. I think giving the expert a few bonuses while making it a more rarified class societally would make sense. maybe add in some synergy combinations for profession/craft skills. But changing the commoner to the point that it rivals PC classes is patently ludicrous. The commoner has no business adventuring. And with a wide skill selection and good to great skill capability there is just no way to stop that from happening. Some class of individuals are less competent than others. Its not a matter of experience. I guarantee you that no matter how much combat experience you give to an average person they will not learn how to fight as well as a soldier who undergoes the same amount of combat; the soldier will always be better. The same should hold for skill use. A commoner who undergoes the same amount of experience should not be as good at skill use as the PC skill user. MTF
JulesCARV 06-03-06, 11:27 PM	As I've said, Mantimeforgot, I think that an adventurer who trains constantly has higher class levels than a civilian who doesn't, not better class levels. I think that it would make the system better if classes were, at least nominally, balanced, and weakness were represented by low ECL, not having a bad class. That's a matter of opinion, though. Anyway, in the theme of civilians being better in non-adventurous skills, I was thinking that maybe I should list which skills are eligible for skill specialization, and which aren't. The civilian skills represent skills where training and specialization matters a lot compared to the base ability score (for example, there's really no way a very weak person can be a great swimmer, nor a very clumsy person a great sneaker, but a very well-trained person with poor dexterity can be great as palming coins, or a stupid person with extensive experience good at seeing through forgeries: you'll notice that "trained only" skills can usually be specialized in). Civilians can take Skill Specialization in: Appraise, Craft, Decipher Script, Disable Device, Disguise, Forgery, Handle Animal, Heal, Knowledge (all skills, taken seperately), Open Lock, Perform, Profession, Psicraft, Sleight of Hand, Spellcraft, Tumble, Use Magic Device, Use Psionic Device, Use Rope Civilians cannot take Skill Specialization in: Autohypnosis, Balance, Bluff, Climb, Concentration, Escape Artist, Gather Information, Hide, Intimidate, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Ride, Search, Spot, Survival, Swim Also, thinking about it later, I'm thinking that they should get a civilian bonus feat every even-numbered level (like the fighter, except without the 1st level bonus feat), not every three levels starting with the second. d10 hit dice is equivalent to d4 hit dice plus a feat (toughness) every level, and 8 skill points is slightly better than 2 skill points plus a feat (open minded) every level. Add in the fighter's good fortitude save and base attack bonus, and I think 10 feats for the civilian is still okay.
IbanezNinja 06-03-06, 11:41 PM	There is really no need to mess with the commoner class, it's power level is exaclty where it should be. There are other npc classes besides that, the Warrior, Adept, and Expert. If a random joe shmoe is good at a skill with out being an adventurer, he's probably an expert or warrior, and not exactly a "commoner" because they have a skill. But at the same time, they are aren't as good as the PC classes, because they don't go out and risk their lives everyday, nor do they put in the same amount of time training as pcs.
Kursk 06-04-06, 12:59 AM	What really balances Commoners agains PC classes: Commoners can go up levels without having to go on dangerous adventures. That's why they're an NPC class. Really? Where in the DMG does it say that?
ideasmith 06-04-06, 01:16 AM	Really? Where in the DMG does it say that? Indirectly, on page 139. The commoners generated on the "HIGHEST-LEVEL LOCALS" table are much higher level than other classes. Since there is no way in [expletive deleted] that any adventuring character will get to 28th level and remain a commoner the whole time, it follows that these commoners are not adventurers. From which it follows that the commoners in question gained levels without adventuring.
Kursk 06-04-06, 01:29 AM	Indirectly, on page 139. The commoners generated on the "HIGHEST-LEVEL LOCALS" table are much higher level than other classes. Since there is no way in [expletive deleted] that any adventuring character will get to 28th level and remain a commoner the whole time, it follows that these commoners are not adventurers. From which it follows that the commoners in question gained levels without adventuring. I didn't think it was in the rules. thanks
Lotus Crane 06-04-06, 01:51 AM	While I've always felt that the PC classes needed to be better balanced against eachother, I don't think NPC classes need to be balanced against PC classes. In fact, perhaps NPC classes should be weaker than PC classes, not just as adventurers, but as non-adventurers too. Characters with levels in PC classes, whether actually player-controlled, or DM-controlled, are special individuals, whose heroism or villainry are supposed to shape the destiny of the world. Characters with levels in NPC classes are really just meant to be comparitively faceless and helpless background characters, who either get rescued by the PC, or cut down by them in waves. In fact, I think the terms "PC class" and "NPC class" are somewhat outdated and inaccurate, considering how many NPC villains actually have PC class levels. They should really be designated more as "main character classes" and "supporting character classes." Furthermore, characters shouldn't really be allowed to multiclass between "main character" and "supporting character" classes; whether or not a character is meant to have an important destiny should be determined at generation. With that in mind, no, I don't think commoners should actually be better at performing common labor and domestic duties than an adventuring PC or main character. Should a bard or ranger or any other main character actually decide to take up farming or housekeeping, they should easily be capable of doing the work of several commoners. In fact, one might make a heroic adventure (and I'm only being partially sarcastic here) of it. Imagine the party coming to a village where all the able-bodied men have been sent off to war, and the women and children are in danger of facing starvation because there aren't enough people left who can tend and harvest the crops. In a seemingly mundane but still very dire situation like this, 4 PC's should be capable of doing as much farming as 100+ NPC's, thus keeping the village alive until the men come back from war. And remember, while there doesn't seem to be explicit rules dealing with the subject, examples in the DMG and elsewhere suggest that while PC's or main characters must complete dangerous adventures to gain XP and levels, NPC's or supporting characters follow their own set of rules for advancement. Sometimes NPC's don't gain any experience for participating in a dangerous adventure (ie DMG hirelings), and at other times, NPC's seem to get assigned XP or levels for purely story reasons, or simply for living to old age. So there's really no reason why NPC classes like commoner need to be balanced against PC classes.
Wolf_Boy 06-04-06, 03:46 AM	I've seen people making comments on here questioning how/why commoners should be better at some skills than the skill monkey classes. Personally I've always wondered how pc's got so good... I mean really, Steven Horngelding comes from a long line of carpenters, his father was a carpenter, his father's father was a carpenter and so on. He was nailing boards before he could walk and talk and knows how to work with would like it's second nature as he's spent almost everyday of his life learning to be a carpenter. There's not much else his family is good at, but they are the best carpenters the town's ever seen. He's now 25 years old and from his father has learned almost every trick of the trade, there's nothing he can't build with carpentry, he works at carpentry for a living and has spent the majority of his life learning to be a carpenter. He's a good guy, never really been in a fight cept maybe when he was a kid, and he never really was very social, he's just your regular guy who's spent his life learning a trade skill and it's all he really does. He's obviously a commoner and has a very common history a commoner might have. He's not highly educated, and he does not have a broad range of skills. then Argoth "Axe Reaver" Buckley comes into town, he's a barbarian who did a bit of carpentry as a kid and has since been adventuring, he's spent the majority of his life on the road killing orcs and goblins, maybe occasionally doing a small bit of carpentry on the side on the rare occasion he has some down time. However, most of his life is adventuring in life and death situations where carpentry never really comes into play and he never honestly has any really time to put into it. Yet strangely enough, he's a better carpenter than our friend Steven... why? Because he's earned a lot of xp adventuring and killing orcs which has nothing what so ever to do with carpentry. Whereas Steven who's spent his entire life on this trade is mediocre in comparrison, it makes absolutely no sense. The rules fail, not because the commoners need 8 skill points per level and a bunch of feats (in truth they should be very specialized and unskilled in most things) but because the commoners despite being overly focused and specialized in their daily living activities pale in these few things they do EVERY FREAKING DAY to adventurers whom only do the same thing as a hobby on the side now and then. Commoners are the farmers of the world as well as the carpenters, bakers, blacksmiths, ect, and in these things they should conquer all and adventures should be tipping their hats to their expertise. They may not be able to save the world with their skills, but that's not their job, that's the adventurers jobs, but on the same note, any adventurer with the basketweaving skill should damn well suck compared to old Margerie who's been basketweaving her whole life since she was a young girl. That however is just my two cents, take it or leave it. Commoners should be more skilled than almost any adventurer even rogues at the very narrow and specific field to which their livelyhood applies.
Lotus Crane 06-04-06, 09:58 AM	PC's are as good as they are not because of training, but because of heroic (or villainous) destiny. And carpenters and blacksmiths, as skilled laborers, would be experts, not commoners. Commoners are farmers and unskilled laborers (ditch diggers, coal miners, etc.); anything better is at least an expert. And an expert is just a rogue without sneak attack, or a bard without music. Hence, PC classes should be clearly superior to NPC classes in all things, including a rogue being a better farmer than a commoner, should he choose to do so for some strange reason.
Seerow 06-04-06, 01:18 PM	Just one thing I'd like to note that I noticed a lot of people skimming over is for the purposes of this topic, the Commoner and Expert were rolled into one class. And really, it's better that way. WHY have a NPC class that not even an NPC would want? Even if you don't want the NPC classes balanced with PC classes, how about with the other NPC classes? Seriously, it's better to just scrap the commoner, and make the expert seriously good at what he's doing. As for Heroic/Villainous destiny, that's a copout excuse IMO. That destiny is what makes them great at what they train in. For the Barbarian in the example, that's smashing orc skulls, Argoth is good at that, better than any normal person could ever hope to be, because of his 'destiny'. That should NOT extend to give him ability to be better at a mere hobby than someone in their lifes work.
Kursk 06-04-06, 01:31 PM	Even if you don't want the NPC classes balanced with PC classes, how about with the other NPC classes? Seriously, it's better to just scrap the commoner, and make the expert seriously good at what he's doing. I went back to the old way. 0 Level for most people in world. Appropriate levels for those who need then due to story line and skills for those who need them. No mechanics, why would there be? They are NPC's! I don't have to worry about explaining it to anyone but myself.
JulesCARV 06-04-06, 03:28 PM	I like the idea of a "pre-classed progression," to represent children, adolescents, and unusually talentless adults. Something like this for humans: Infancy: 1 hit point, tiny size, 0-1 years Toddler: 2 hit points, small size, 1-4 years, 4 + int skill points, gain racial language as bonus language Child: 3 hit points, small size, 4-10 years, 8 + 2 int skill points Adolescent: 4 hit points, medium size, 11-15 years, 12 + 3 int skill points. Then, characters would be eligible to take a class level. Most would be civilians (in rich, safe areas), or Unearthed Arcana experts (in rougher, poorer frontiers or urban ghettos). Some would take PC classes. Some wouldn't take any class at all, and just keep their adolescent abilities throughout their lives, owing to laziness, mental disability, or something of the sort. People with severe disabilities might not go beyond the "toddler" or "child" progression, though in most cases, they would still gain medium size. The thing is, the first class level would not give quadruple skill points, nor would the first hit die be maximized. That's what the pre-classed progression is for: a fighter would thus have 4 + 1d10 + constitution hit points at first level, and 14 + 4 int skill points, and a rogue would have 4 + 1d6 + constitution hit points and 20 + 4 int skill points. This solves two things that irk me about the system at once. As I've complained before (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=623409), one is that a rogue 1/wizard 1 is so much better than a wizard 1/rogue 1. A rogue 1/wizard 1 gets 34 + 5 int skill points and 6 + 1d4 + 2 con hp, whereas the wizard 1/rogue 1 gets 16 + 5 int skill points and 4 + 1d6 + 2 con hp. Or a barbarian 1/wizard 1 gets 18 + 5 int skill points and 12 + 1d4 + 2con hp, while a wizard 1/barbarian 1 gets 12 + 5 int skill points and 4 + 1d12 + 2con hit points. Thus, someone who wants to be, for instance, an arcane trickster suffers from being a wizard first, then a rogue, rather than starting as a rogue, and for all but the dedicated roleplayer, they scrap an original story they had about their character which involved being a wizard first, and rewrite their background so that they were rogues first, even though that might not be what they originally wanted to roleplay. The other is the silliness of NPC classes from my perspective. The pre-classed progression allows level 0 characters who haven't gone beyond the pre-classed progression to be the "not good at anything at all" characters.
Drachasor 06-04-06, 04:37 PM	Well, the commoner is a bit odd. Certainly it the d4 seems a bit silly for a farmer. However it is and should remain weaker than normal PC classes, just as the expert is. Having a PC class is part of what makes the PCs heroes. Given an equivalent amount of experience, they are just BETTER than the average joe. Now, if joe-commoner becomes an adventurer, and joins the ranks of the heroes, then there are many solutions. The best, perhaps, is rebuilding the character without commoner levels. You can either use the rebuilding rules from the PHB2, modify them (since improving the commoner class levels should be easier than a normal rebuild), or make up your own. In the end Joe the Hero will no longer have any commoner levels; after he's done some adventuring anyhow. (For PCs it is probably best to assume this rebuild has already happened given how god-awful the npc classes are in general). -Drachasor
Harmony 06-04-06, 06:54 PM	I love NPC classes! They make the world seem so perfectly alive without the need of every trader being a rogue, every armsman a fighter and every friar a cleric. It smashes the "extreme fantasy" right out and instead makes a decently creditable world. The PC classes are the heroes, the extraordinary, those who are either highly trained or otherwise stand out since birth/growing up. The commoner is the lowest on the NPC pecking scale, they are generally an uneducated, dirty and smelly lot who despite all their weaknesses make the foundation upon which everything else rotates. Seen as individuals, they are hardly heroic, seen as a whole, they should be getting a big medal, and in the general D&D mythology, become a diety. They don't need high stats, good abilities or powerful classabilites to do their job. Experts are the ones NPC interacts with! They buy their gems, craft their weapons and armour, build their castles. When not being busy, they are the more educated crowd, they make the village go around, they perform the religious cermonies and are generally the individuals that stand out. Again, they don't need to be particularly powerful to excell at what they do. The warriors makes the stellar henchman, on your side or the other. You can use scores of them - it's fun! They wont be very deadly, but they make most encounters seem very real, and it also makes wonders for you to mark out the BBEG's lieutants (who's just not simply an extra fighter level over the other henchmen!). While not individually powerful, whole scores of them can easily overwhelm parties. The others are more powerful, either by station (aristocrat) or by magical abilites (adept) the the other NPC classes. Just by adding lots of experts, warriors and aristocrats instead of clerics, paladins, fighters, rangers and rogues, you perform miracles at making the characters seem like the (anti)heroes of the story. Magic is rarer, and even with a common use of adepts it's less powerful, making the PC spell users stand out. So, how do commoners get more powerful? They survive hazards. Be it draught, bad weather, ogre raids or goldinflation after an adventure party passed through. They don't level up at the pace adventurers do - why should they? The unlikely level 17 commoner would probably have lived through most hazards nature could throw at him, and survived. Carpenter vs. Carpeting Barbarian syndrome. We use common sense when increasing skills. If the barbarian never built something while gaining levels, we wouldn't let him increase his craft, thus the carpenter would probably still be a better carpenter. If you don't, it might look funny and you end up with a world which dosen't quite hold up together; just as if the carpenter had studied his whole life to grow potatoes and never touched a board, but put all his ranks in carpentry anyway.
JulesCARV 07-22-06, 09:07 PM	BTW, I just thought I'd post that I've refined and consolidated some of my ideas, combining them with a new system for 1st level. The new post includes the replacement NPC classes as well as ideas for pre-adult progression and first level. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=657787)
Kursk 07-22-06, 09:24 PM	I just make them "people". They have skills points for what they need and that's it. They don't learn spells, advanced fighting techniques, etc. They have 1 hit dice. They aren't adventureres so don't earn XP. They are regular people. Only PC's and those NPS's that are I deem "special" BBEG's, etc. have levels. Very simple.
andypalmer 07-22-06, 11:06 PM	In a separate thread, I posted my slight change to the Expert (a skill specialization); I think anything more than specialization in a SINGLE skill makes them too powerful. As for what happens when those with NPC classes (usually NPCs) gain XP, I use the following method: when they reach 500 XP, they can trade in those XP to "upgrade" their class to a PC class. For example, a 1st level Dwarven Warrior gets 500 XP and trades those in to become a 1st level Dwarven Fighter with 0 XP. This is not to say that, as DM, I always use this method - I do have 4th level Warriors, etc. but, especially when dealing with PC Hirelings and followers, it's a good way to show the "influence" of the PCs.
BabelMatrix 07-23-06, 05:13 PM	Although the good book, (DM's Guide,) outlines a level-up chart for NPC classes, I don't think it's very realistic to assume you'd find a level 20 commoner. By sheer math, yes, it can happen, but by following logic, you would assume that a combat-hardened commoner would gain combat-hardened stats through a class that reflects this, aka a PC class or the NPC Warrior class. A level 20 commoner is, sensibly, impossible. If you hit that good, you're a warrior, if you're that skilled, you're at least an expert, if you're that tough, you've faced things far worse than bad weather and mad cow disease striking your flock. A commoner is a fantasy-setting reflection of the people who post on this board, except sitting in a barn or raising sheep or being a mindless minion to some form of higher power, (I apologize to those who post and do one of the previously stated.) Tell me, does that mean that residents of Florida should be able to take about ten times as much of a beating than others because they face hurricanes all the time?
strange_person 09-16-06, 01:48 PM	I, for one, would be willing to accept the Civilian as a core class (as opposed to a prestige class) and get rid of the idea of NPC classes altogether. As suggested in Oriental Adventures, many "aristocrats" are low-level rogues (or bards, or civilians, and maybe a few sorcerers and paladins for those with practical skills) "commoners" and people with no marketable skills are 1st level humanoids with very bad rolls on the 3d6, or single-digit point buy, or permanent ability drain from childhood diseases. There is one modification I'd like to make to the civilian class, though: all skills as class skills, except Disable Device, Iaijutsu focus, Tumble, and UMD/UPD. Civilians don't fight, and fighting is the only possible application of Iaijutsu Focus. Tumble is also primarily a combat skill. Some civilians might be good at it, but they're either buying it as a cross-class skill or multiclassing. Using magical or psionic devices without meeting the activation prerequisites is difficult and dangerous. If someone is doing it for a living, they're probably either a magical researcher (wizard with a desk job) or highly specialized fence (rogue) or otherwise a part-time or retired adventurer. Similarly, a professional trapsmith or saboteur isn't exactly a normal person. With that modification, I think a rogue or bard would be much more reluctant to multiclass into Civilian. Losing sneak attack/bardic music, BAB, good saves, and other nifty class features is one thing, but survival skills like tumble and D Dev? No way!
Tisner44 09-16-06, 04:22 PM	If you are going to have a commoner class then they should get experience differently. Commoners generally specialize in their skills, but don't know every skill. I think giving the commoner the ability to select a certain number of class skills at creation. This allows the commoner to select the field they go into and to have the skills to do a good job. Keep in mind that given the option to choose most will choose craft or profession skills since that is what they will be using the most. The other thing you could do is alter the system completely for commoners and give them class skills based on their craft or profession. This would allow them to specialize, but would also allow them to switch jobs...although not easily. As far as experience, they should get xp for the things they do. Creating things or providing services. Soldiers/warriors would still get xp for killing and protecting, but may also recieve xp for just volunteering for a particularly dangerous watch even if nothing happens. As far as HP goes, don't give them a die roll for HP. Just add their con mod(if they have one), or if they choose they can take the toughness feat when they get a feat option. This would stop 20th level commoners from having the same amount of HP as wizards. :confused: Also keep the feats commoner classes can choose from very limited to skill bonus, maybe weapon focus(for the warrior types). They should not be able to get into feat trees...
JulesCARV 09-16-06, 10:43 PM	Tumble certainly should be a civilian class skill: it is, after all, a professional skill, like craft, profession, and perform, and can be used to make money on a regular basis. If anything, if I were to pick class skills, I would exclude things like spot and listen, and include things like tumble. Disable Device and UMD/UPD I'm not sure about.
Tisner44 09-20-06, 05:41 PM	Spot, listen, and search may seem like very important skills to an Adventurer, but to the normal person they are not much use. Spot and listen will not get a normal person money. Most people aren't getting ambushed or snuck up on too often, so what use would they be. If I created a commoner, I choose a craft or profession skill, maybe diplomacy for better customer service skills. Use magic device is pretty useless because most commoners can't afford very many of those with their pay.:P
strange_person 09-23-06, 12:47 PM	Spot, listen, and search may seem like very important skills to an Adventurer, but to the normal person they are not much use. Spot and listen will not get a normal person money. Most people aren't getting ambushed or snuck up on too often, so what use would they be. Civilians do more than just earn money. There are no rules for earning money with a Knowledge skill, but nobody objects to civilians having Knowledge (all categories, taken individually) as part of their class skill list. My point in including Spot and Listen is that alertness is a a civilian's first and only line of personal defense. A guard in a watchtower, with no meaningful combat skill, can still be a useful defense for a community if he can raise the alarm in time to get the real fighters out of bed and into their armor. Search does more than detect traps; it's used for searching wagons for contraband and patting down "adventurers" for concealed weapons. These are skills that a low-level, noncombatant guard would need to have. If I created a commoner, I choose a craft or profession skill, maybe diplomacy for better customer service skills. Use magic device is pretty useless because most commoners can't afford very many of those with their pay.:P On these points, I agree with you. Not every civilian is going to have spot and listen, just like not every bard has perform (pipe organ). However, virtually every civilian should have at least one money-making skill, and diplomacy is another good one.
BW0222 09-23-06, 01:30 PM	JulesCARV, Let's say a commoner and a ranger at level 1 with 0 experience go through adventures and such that give them 10,000 experience. Adventurers get experience for adventuring. Commoners do not. You award experience based on necessary risk. Whether a risk is necessary, depends upon the character, goals, and backgrounds. In a group of PCs walks up to the city guard and attacks them (for no good reason), you don't give them experience. It was an unnecessary encounter which not only doesn't help them reach their likely goals. In fact, it likely hinders reaching them. Adventurers and commoners have vastly different goals. An adventurer: a) become leader of my tribe, b) destroy the blue-dragon cult, c) set-up a stronghold, d) kill the evil cleric who murdered my parents, etc. Becoming more powerful, gaining large amounts of coin, gaining influence with key NPCs, etc. might all be means to these goals. Worth taking otherwise insane risks to do so. A commoner on the other hand, has must lower goals. Say: a) keep my family fed, clothed, and sheltered, b) pay back the landlord so I can have my own land, c) marry my daughter off, d) make an agreement with another farmer for grazing rights, etc. Pretty boring stuff. He might get 5xp for birthing a cow, 10xp for introducing his daughter to an established farmer's son, 10xp for arranging to sell excess grain to a baker in town for a good price, 25xp for driving some wolves off, etc. Over a few years... he'll gain a level and increase the skills he is using. None of it requires being particually high level and taking insane risks is less likely to meet those goals. If he dies... his family are begging in the streets. Not a good risk-benefit analysis, especially since he isn't particularly well suited to adventuring in the first place. Now... assume for some reason he ended up adventuring. It would have to be either an accident/stupidity/trickery, a decision to take risks for a short-term gain, or a long term decision to give up farming and become an adventurer. a) For the accident. Say he was conned into it. He wouldn't gain much XP because all these are likely unnecessary encounters. He could have reached his goals without wandering off and his adventuring is likely risking all these goals if he dies. b) For short-term gain. If he avoids dying... he'll grab his money, gain a level in commoner, and go back to the family farm. Maybe he is so indebt that this is the only way to make his goal and thus worth the risk of dying. c) If he wants to switch to an adventurer. He will change some of his goals and replace farming with adventuring as a means of supporting his family. As such... he would be nuts not to gain levels in say fighter... both because he is now needs to survive repeated fights, and because he won't be working his farm anymore.
JulesCARV 09-23-06, 02:25 PM	In my view, the fact that commoners don't get much experience means they should generally be low level, not that their class should suck. UMD could be useful. Say two civilian craftsmen have pooled together to buy an Eternal Wand of Magecraft (2 castings per day, one for each of them), costing 820 gp. Over the course of a year, the +4 on craft checks every week pay back about 104 gp per year for each of them (It would cost about four years to make the money back, combined, but it could be worth it if interest rates are below something like 20%). They need to know how to use it, and since they don't have any levels in sorcerer, wizard, or whatnot, they need Use Magic Device.
PhaedrusXY 09-23-06, 07:04 PM	My solution: I don't use NPC classes. Why bother statting out a commoner at all? If a commoner gets into a fight that involves actual adventurers, they are just so much background noise. If they get in the way and get hit, they die. If they don't, they just run away and/or cower or something. Anyone that is worth giving actual stats to in my games has PC classes.
strange_person 09-25-06, 04:55 PM	In my view, the fact that commoners don't get much experience means they should generally be low level, not that their class should suck. UMD could be useful. Say two civilian craftsmen have pooled together to buy an Eternal Wand of Magecraft (2 castings per day, one for each of them), costing 820 gp. Over the course of a year, the +4 on craft checks every week pay back about 104 gp per year for each of them (It would cost about four years to make the money back, combined, but it could be worth it if interest rates are below something like 20%). They need to know how to use it, and since they don't have any levels in sorcerer, wizard, or whatnot, they need Use Magic Device. I agree with you on the "NPC classes shouldn't suck" point. IMC, NPCs have lower levels (as shown in the highest-level-local table in the DMG) because it takes ~13.3 balanced encounters to earn enough XP to level up, and NPCs don't face many balanced encounters. An adventurer faces as much as 3 balanced encounters per day of full-time work. Based on the "running a buisness" section of the DMG, an ambitious NPC faces one or two a month, and considers it a really tough month afterwards. I think when a couple of civilians pool their resources and risk it all for a "big score," haggling with greedy mirabicaries and shady moneylenders, constantly worrying that something will go wrong and Vinnie the Ogre will come by to break their legs… either they're totally out of their element, and thus buying it as a cross-class skill, or they're multiclassing into Rogue. Maybe a little of both. That said, it sounds like a plausible and interesting scenario… kind of reminds me of the differences between the Baggins and Took families in LotR. And people think Eberron takes away from traditional fantasy! Along with some of the "nonviolence-oriented" feats in the BoED, it reinforces the idea that the Civilian is a playable PC class, even though most PCs wouldn't be interested in playing one. Also, Magecraft gives a +5 competence bonus, not a +4 unnamed. Does that change the math?