Review/critique my "normal person" house rule

[zioth]

I've created an alternative to NPC classes which allows NPCs to be highly skilled without being adventurers in their own right.

http://zioth.com/roleplay/rule/normal_person

Comments are welcome. Does it make sense? Is it worthwhile? Is it abusable?

[SneeR]

You really shouldn't go futzing with basic mechanics like when feats are gained and when hp increases.

What I am saying is: your class is ham-fisted.

My advice is sit down and figure out exactly what is wrong with the peasant class to you, then think of creative solutions. There is no BAB worse than poor (wizard), HP are gained at every level in order to make poison mechanics have verisimilitude, and feats are gained every 3 levels because getting a new feat is supposed to be something amazing for average people.

I believe you may be looking at the peasant class fallaciously.
In D&D, there are no peasants above 10th level. An adventurer should never fear a peasant.
Peasants never max out a skill: they are normal people. Instead, they put a few ranks into something that seems important, then do something else. So, at first level they max out Profession (farming) and maybe Diplomacy. After that, they put another rank into Profession (farming) and a rank into Craft (wooden spoon because they are now into whittling in their free time. Next level, though, they have fallen into a rhythm, and are not shooting to revolutionize farming, just get by, so maybe they put their ranks into Knowledge (local) so they can get an edge in the local market.

See, only freaks that go out looking to get killed (i.e. adventurers) ever hone their skills to maximum capacity. Normal people who dedicate themselves to combat are of the warrior class. Olympians are of the expert class.

To be honest, I think the only thing your class has to salvage is "gain a new class skill every few levels" because normal people can branch out into some pretty weird skills (there has to be someone out their with a spellbook fetish who maxed out Spellcraft for nefarious purposes *shudder*)

[Garryl]

For example, let's say the best chef in the world has a +30 modifier in Profession(chef). Even with Skill Focus and an 18 wisdom, this must be a level 20 character.

If you can reliably cook the nectar of the gods with no tools, no preparation, in the middle of a desert, with minimal investment of feats and other options, I don't think being level 20 is out of line. The character you've described isn't a professional chef, he's a cooking hobbyist.

An accomplished chef with good tools and a couple of good sous-chefs should be able to do that by level 14 tops (17 ranks, +4 Wisdom, +2 masterwork tools, +4 aid another, +3 Skill Focus), and that's still with minimal investment. Add in a bit of magic and you can do that by level 5, easy.

[zioth]

I can appreciate the comments so far, but they don't address the reason I created this class. As things stand, you have to be a 20th level expert to be the best carpenter in the world, but as a side-effect, you're also one of the best fighters in the world (with your high BaB and HP). The ability to take out an army single-handed shouldn't be a prerequisite to building a cathedral.

I could have stuck with basic D&D mechanics, but then I would have ended up with a class that grants a ridiculous number of skill points in a small number of levels, which would make it too appealing to player characters.

My answer is to use slightly different rules for non-adventurers, where skills are accelerated and combat ability is slowed way down.

Does anyone have a better way to deal with this problem?

[Prime32]

I'd just inflict fear conditions on them if they enter combat, or make them roll attacks twice and take the worst of the two rolls, or something.

EDIT:

The ability to take out an army single-handed shouldn't be a prerequisite to building a cathedral.

I think you're looking at in reverse. You're a good fighter because you understand the weak points of physical objects, swing around hammers a lot and do so precisely, etc.

[oslecamo]

I can appreciate the comments so far, but they don't address the reason I created this class. As things stand, you have to be a 20th level expert to be the best carpenter in the world, but as a side-effect, you're also one of the best fighters in the world (with your high BaB and HP). The ability to take out an army single-handed shouldn't be a prerequisite to building a cathedral.

It isn't. Expert 20, you may have +15 Bab, but otherwise you still have 10 AC, and if you didn't invest in Con just around 70 HP. Good enough to make sure you don't die from some random drunk dude, but still far from enough to tacke an army. All your feats and money are invested in carpentry stuff. Flaws and traits can further lower that.

Assuming the best carpenter in the world is level 20 at all. A setting like Eberron has no known NPC over level 15, and those are legendary leaders that aren't in architecture.

Also what Prime32 said. You don't learn how to build a cathedral whitout geting some skills that can be applied to combat.

[zioth]

Also what Prime32 said. You don't learn how to build a cathedral whitout geting some skills that can be applied to combat.

I guess that's often true in fictional fantasy worlds, so it makes sense in D&D. Really, though, do you think Leonardo Da Vinci could pick up a stick and fend off the city guard? I can see a level 20 carpenter holding his own against one or two level 1 fighters using skills picked up in his proffession, but a +15 BaB and 70 HP? Seems kinds of crazy.

I guess I could just apply penalties to BaB, saves and other combat-related stuff, but that seems like it might be more complicated than what I've written. Maybe I'll try something like that ans see how it looks.


I should point out that I'm not really focused on level 20 carpenters. Level 20 illustrates my point well, but the same applies to level 10 or 5.

[oslecamo]

Also what Prime32 said. You don't learn how to build a cathedral whitout geting some skills that can be applied to combat.

I guess that's often true in fictional fantasy worlds, so it makes sense in D&D. Really, though, do you think Leonardo Da Vinci could pick up a stick and fend off the city guard? I can see a level 20 carpenter holding his own against one or two level 1 fighters using skills picked up in his proffession, but a +15 BaB and 70 HP? Seems kinds of crazy.

Leonardo Da Vinci? Go at him bro!

(click to show/hide)

Also Abraham Lincoln could solo vampire covens or so I heard.

So yeah, D&D is a fantasy world after all, and thus indeed great people are automatically great (or at least competent) at combat regardless of their specialization.

[Tarkisflux]

I can appreciate the comments so far, but they don't address the reason I created this class. As things stand, you have to be a 20th level expert to be the best carpenter in the world, but as a side-effect, you're also one of the best fighters in the world (with your high BaB and HP). The ability to take out an army single-handed shouldn't be a prerequisite to building a cathedral.

I could have stuck with basic D&D mechanics, but then I would have ended up with a class that grants a ridiculous number of skill points in a small number of levels, which would make it too appealing to player characters.

My answer is to use slightly different rules for non-adventurers, where skills are accelerated and combat ability is slowed way down.

Does anyone have a better way to deal with this problem?

If your problem is that you want the possibility of being a really good carpenter without having to also be a level 20 character, then you should just dissociate those two things. Remove the level cap and change the way that people get craft or profession points so that it has nothing to do with level at all and be done with it. Getting new "ranks" (if you even call them that) can just take time or background points or whatever.

Then you can use the commoner or expert classes, or the slightly worse humanoid hit die if you want, and have a bunch of 1 hit die carpentry gurus. You open the door to PCs being fantastic blacksmiths at level 1 as well, but if you're willing to do some economic hole plugging as well (or are fine with high starting wealth PCs) I don't think that's a problem.

[brujon]

Human adulthood starts at 15 years old, and i guess the maximum age for ordinary peasants can't surpass 75  or so.

Make it so that at 15 peasants are level 1 Commoners, and each decade they live, they go up a level. Like that, maximum commoner level would be 7. But let's stop leveling at 55 - at that age, most people don't improve on their trades, so that maximum commoner level is level 5.

Make it so very extraordinary commoners level once every 5 years, and very impressive artisans level once every 10 years, but on the Expert class instead of the Commoner class.

If that's still too powerful for you, houserule that commoners have a -1 hp penalty per level (minimum 1 hp gain per level), maximum skill rank of 3 + level instead of 4 + level, can only have 1 skill maxed at a time, and take a -1 penalty to hit and AC while in combat, and have to pass a Will Save DC 10 + level/CR of the foe he's about to tackle (Double that if it's a PC class character or a non-animal monster) -1 for each peasant joining in the battle (So that mobs don't fear as much) or flee.

Assuming the previous penalties:
With the standard array, the most powerful peasant, at level 10 (and middle aged, so -1 penalty to strenght, dex & con), would have AC 10 (no armor items), strenght 10, dex 10, con 10, wis 11, int 11, cha 11, 4 to hit, and 30 hp (rolled max every level). He wouldn't have acccess to a good weapon, at the most a longsword, and even that's a stretch, because they cost too much gp (and peasant earning is measured in SP)... So assuming a lvl 1 barbarian PC with a breastplate & a wooden shield, and dex 16 & strenght 16, and thus 20 AC, the commoner would only hit the PC on a 16, or a 20% chance, whereas the PC would hit him on a 6 (10 AC - 4 attack bonus), or a 70% chance to hit. If he raged he could take him out quickly enough before the peasant even got a hit on him, although he has a chance of being downed before the peasant if he hits him often enough, or gets lucky damage rolls.

at level 2 the peasant wouldn't even have a chance anymore, or even at level 1, if his opponent played smartly and safely, using a bow, for instance. Sounds good enough?

[veekie]

Leonardo Da Vinci? Go at him bro!

(click to show/hide)

Da Vinci WOULD make a fine Artificer, methinks.

[brujon]

Leonardo Da Vinci? Go at him bro!

(click to show/hide)

Da Vinci WOULD make a fine Artificer, methinks.

Yeah, in a world with magic, he could have made the stuff of legends... Mostly, the reason why he couldn't realize most of his projects is because the right tools haven't been invented yet, and he didn't have the hours or the competent workforce to make most of his projects go... everything was too expensive and took too much time, so he couldn't experiment enough, and most of his writings were just that, and never really gone to reality. Magic would've changed all that, he could've just popped things in and scrapped them if it didn't work, putting in hundreds of workers worth of man-hours just by himself using conjuration magic, not counting the application of elemental binding for generating steam power, and eventually, even electricity...

It's scary to think where we would be if magic was commonplace in a world with Leonardo.

[zioth]

Brujon's system doesn't do what I want, because you can't ever have a true master of a skill who isn't an adventurer. All the penalties also make things complicated, and what happens when a commoner multiclasses?

Tarkisflux's idea is closer, but I don't want adventurers starting with 20 ranks in a skill.

I could combine the two ideas with a feat, which could replace my class:

Master of a Skill [General]
The rank cap on one craft, profession or knowledge skill is removed. Taking this feat also gives a permanent -2 penalty to base attack bonus, and -1 HP per level. This feat may be taken multiple times. Its effects stack.

[linklord231]

Couple of ideas.  Give a stacking +1 bonus to a skill for every few years spent developing that skill - For example, Bill the Farmer has is a 1st level Commoner, but has been practicing Farming for 20 years.  He has 4 ranks in Profession: Farmer, plus a +4 untyped bonus gained from farming for a long time.  Ideally, he never gains XP (because he never fights monsters), but he still practices his Farming skill, so he gets better at it.

Another idea would be to make a "professional" template that imposes a penalty to HP, attack and damage rolls, and other things that Commoners are not supposed to be good at, equal to 1/2 their Hit Dice (can't reduce below 0).  People with this template would still level up as normal, but the penalties from the template would offset the gains from leveling up.

[ImperatorK]

Play some other system. D&D isn't about normal people.

[zioth]

Play some other system. D&D isn't about normal people.

Joe Wood disagrees.

Anyway, I still want to play D&D. I just, as a DM, want to have skilled non-adventurerers.

linklord: Your ideas work pretty well. I think I'll keep the "Normal Person" class on my web site, but add a few of these alternate ideas at the end.

[ImperatorK]

Why does it matter that a 10th level Commoner has BaB like a 5th level Fighter? He's a commoner. He won't fight, he will run in terror. Just because the rules say he has +5 to attack doesn't mean he has to fight.
AC doesn't increase unless you make it increase. Don't give him any armor. Give him low Dex.
Too much HP? Put the lowest score in the ability score array into Con and give him the Frail and Pathetic (Con) flaws.
Don't forget about age categories. A 20th level Commoner will probably be already venerable. That'll make him suck at combat even more.
Done. you have skillful NPCs that suck at combat. Was that so hard?

[Tarkisflux]

Tarkisflux's idea is closer, but I don't want adventurers starting with 20 ranks in a skill.

1) You don't have to let profession ranks go to 20. You can stop them at 10 or wherever you like if they're not following the normal skill rules. Holding yourself to normal progressions and other skill rules when you're not using other parts of them is a handicap you don't need. Alternately, you can just write up rules for how people acquire those ranks (time, training, etc.), and then set you campaign starting conditions such that players don't have more ranks than you want them to. Like starting gold or whatever.
2) Why don't you want adventurers to start with 20 ranks in Profession (cook) or Profession (sailor) at level 1? It just means they were actually good at doing something less interesting before their town was raided and they picked up a sword or they lost it all in a storm and became a pickpocket. So what if they happen to be nice to have around a campfire at night before you start magicking up your food or can pull their weight during a sea transport when things get crappy? I have a really hard time caring about 20 ranks in those sorts of things (and some other skills too, but they need a bit more finesse).

As to your feat, I do not understand your desire to make "normal" people suck more. If you can already advance whatever professions you want without also advancing your level, then you can just leave all of your "normal" people at level 1. They suck just fine on their own at that point, and the feat is entirely redundant.

[zioth]

As to your feat, I do not understand your desire to make "normal" people suck more. If you can already advance whatever professions you want without also advancing your level, then you can just leave all of your "normal" people at level 1. They suck just fine on their own at that point, and the feat is entirely redundant.

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. Just removing the cap doesn't fix this, because a level 1 expert doesn't have enough skill points to get 23 ranks in the multiple skills required for some professions, to compare with a level 20 adventurer.

My feat doesn't really fix the problem. Neither do most of the suggestions here. Those that do seem arbitrary to me, and abusable by PCs (+1 for every 3 years of practice, for example). My Normal Person class has some problems, as people have rightly pointed out, but it does correct this skill disparity in a way that's mostly in-line with the standard rules. It's usable by PCs, but with disadvantages that will make it unatractive to most, except in certain very-low-combat campaigns.


I'm not trying to be adversarial here. I've read some useful comments, including yours, and I appreciate the help.


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.

[phaedrusxy]

As to your feat, I do not understand your desire to make "normal" people suck more. If you can already advance whatever professions you want without also advancing your level, then you can just leave all of your "normal" people at level 1. They suck just fine on their own at that point, and the feat is entirely redundant.

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. Just removing the cap doesn't fix this, because a level 1 expert doesn't have enough skill points to get 23 ranks in the multiple skills required for some professions, to compare with a level 20 adventurer.

I don't really even think that's a good premise, though. Robin (you know, Batman's bitch sidekick) started out as an Acrobat. Do you think he got better or worse at being an acrobat by applying his acrobat skills in odd ways while fighting crime? I'd say he almost certainly got better, because he had to learn to function under even more pressure, and learn to adapt on the fly, instead of only performing heavily-rehearsed routines.

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.

I know what you're saying, and agree to a certain extent. I guess I'm just playing devil's advocate.