Review/critique my "normal person" house rule

[sirpercival]

[A scholar should have a better knowledge check than a wizard.

This is almost certainly not true for Knowledge: Arcana, and almost certainly true for everything else.

[ImperatorK]

An acrobat should have a better jump check than a fighter. A scholar should have a better knowledge check than a wizard. An architect should have a better craft check than a rogue.

But... why? Why should "normal people" be better at anything than heroes?

It just occurred to me that I could stay within the rules by having a chain of low-bab, low-save PrCs, which have flaws as prereqs. That might be overly complicated though.

Or you could just do this.

[zioth]

But... why? Why should "normal people" be better at anything than heroes?

For people who don't run quite such heroic campaigns. It's true that, in fantasy, the best musicians are adventuring bards, and the best acrobats are crime-fighting sidekicks, but my campaign (and I assume some others) isn't like that. In fact, not all fantasy is like that. The guru who sits on top of a mountain waiting for people to ask him questions isn't a 20th level wizard -- he's a low-level expert with a huge bonus to knowledge skills, or, with my class, a 20th level Normal Person.

The trust is, none of this matters all that much. No matter how gritty a campaign world is, the jump skill of an NPC acrobat rarely comes into play. I wrote the first version of this class years ago, and I've still never used it in my campaign, but I do think this (or one of the many good suggestions offered here) has a place.

[zioth]

The same could be said for many other skills, perhaps even things like Spellcraft and the Knowledge skills. I know my knowledge of my own discipline in real life was definitely taken to new levels by lots of experimental work, as opposed to just studying things in textbooks, papers, and classrooms.

Here's another point: Maybe the best jumper in the world really is an acrobat turned 20th level fighter, but why is tat person also the best climber, swimmer and intimidator in the world? Why is a 20th level rogue the best at a ton of skills that he might not even use very often?

[ImperatorK]

For people who don't run quite such heroic campaigns.

But you don't need houserules for that, as I demonstrated earlier.

Maybe the best jumper in the world really is an acrobat turned 20th level fighter, but why is tat person also the best climber, swimmer and intimidator in the world?

Is he really? Or maybe he can be?

And you ignored this post a second time already. I assume that I won't get an answer?

[zioth]

And you ignored this post a second time already. I assume that I won't get an answer?

I didn't know you were looking for an answer outside of what I'd said in other posts, but I'll be happy to answer.

You're right that role-playing and DM design can mostly get around what I'm seeing as a problem. I just personally like the idea of having separate rules for these types of NPCs, rather than saying that every NPC needs specific flaws, specific ability scores etc. I'd like the possibility of having an expert with high con (tougher than most) but low hit points (still no match for an adventurer). I'd like the emperor's master chef to have +25 to his skill check without having +12 to his will save. I'd like the high-level adventurer who's a cooking hobbyist be worse at it than the emperor's chef. I don’t want a dozen level 10 carpenters to have a chance against a level 10 barbarian.

In most games, what I’m calling a problem isn’t a problem at all. In some games, a solution like yours would work, because a situation where it matters will come up so rarely. In other games, your solution might not be enough, so something more sophisticated, like my class or some way to remove the skill cap, might be called for.

[Prime32]

The whole premise here is this: If there's an adventurerer who has +X in a skill, then there's a non-adventurerer who has +X+1 in that skill, barring magic items. An acrobat should have a better jump check than a fighter. A scholar should have a better knowledge check than a wizard. An architect should have a better craft check than a rogue.

A baseball player should be better at baseball than a monk?

The same could be said for many other skills, perhaps even things like Spellcraft and the Knowledge skills. I know my knowledge of my own discipline in real life was definitely taken to new levels by lots of experimental work, as opposed to just studying things in textbooks, papers, and classrooms.

Here's another point: Maybe the best jumper in the world really is an acrobat turned 20th level fighter, but why is tat person also the best climber, swimmer and intimidator in the world? Why is a 20th level rogue the best at a ton of skills that he might not even use very often?

But why is he superhumanly good at jumping? It's because he's strong, motivated and knows his body's abilities. That stuff is transferable.

I have done a "scholar" class before.

[zioth]

But why is he superhumanly good at jumping? It's because he's strong, motivated and knows his body's abilities. That stuff is transferable.

True. That works for jump, but not as well for some other skills.

I have done a "scholar" class before.

Interesting. I like the divination use. I've made a scholar class too, which one of my players used for a while (very low-magic, low-combat campaign, so it was viable on a PC).

[brujon]

Maybe houserule a flaw that all noncombatant NPC's have: "Noncombatant: This NPC wasn't made for fighting. Whenever facing a nonanimal monster, or non-npc class intelligent creature, this NPC takes a penalty on saves & attack bonus equal to the opponent's ECL or CR, and, in addition, takes double damage from all their attacks."

With this approach, you can keep all the NPC classes, and amongst them, they work great. A 20th level Commoner still has the BAB of a 10th level fighter - but against that fighter, it's as if he had a BAB of +0. Against a Wizard that level, it's as if he had a -3 penalty on his saves. One power attacked hit and he'd be down, because he takes double damage. Similarly, it explains why big cities don't just give a  shortbow for every peasant and take down the dragons that come to plunder them... It's because everyone would just get one-shotted by everything and couldn't even mass up without being wiped out near instantly. Yes, even the higher level ones. Only the town guard would resist a bit more, but they wouldn't have the numbers to deal enough damage to kill the dragon... (only hitting on a 20, most likely, there would have to be hundred's attacking at once to muster the DPS to bring it down, all while the dragon would wipe them out, and flee swiftly if too threatened, probably giving enough time for the adventurers to step in)c
...

With that one flaw, you basically take all the OOMPH out of the noncombatant NPC classes, and so, you could level them side by side with the PC's without wondering why the peasants don't fight back(fear of instant death). Now you can have 20th level commoners, experts, adepts & nobles that could fight the town guard (they don't have the penalties vs NPC classes), but squirm at the thought of even fighting a lvl 1 barbarian... (that could take them down if raging and power attacking because of double damage).

EDIT: of course, that would require another addition: noncombatant NPC's give no experience if killed. That makes them so weak, they can't be worth anything , except as a  mob(when you apply the Cityscape Mob template and get a whole  different thing, closer to a Swarm).

[Prime32]

Maybe houserule a flaw that all noncombatant NPC's have: "Noncombatant: This NPC wasn't made for fighting. Whenever facing a nonanimal monster, or non-npc class intelligent creature, this NPC takes a penalty on saves & attack bonus equal to the opponent's ECL or CR, and, in addition, takes double damage from all their attacks."

So this is basically "killing intent"?