In your case, I would choose a background, and then make them a level 0 [whatever class applies to that background], and give them no class skills, just the proficiencies mentioned in their background.
Level 0 Acolyte, Commoner.
Level 0 Performer, Commoner.
Level 0 Soldier, Commoner.
Whatever. Just proficiencies based on background, but no class skills.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this, but I don't know where else to put it.
Basically, I'm making a character who is really just a commoner, just with some extra powers because of his race. However, I don't know what class I should make him. I figured rogue, fighter, or bard might work, but I'm not sure. So, what do you think? What class would a commoner be?
(By the way, I only have the basic rules, so while I am fine with you discussing classes like the artificer, I would prefer it if it is possible with the basic rules. THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
No problems...
Try imagining what your 'commoner' character does to feed themselves. Are they sustenance farmers? Hunters? Fish mongers? Coopers or etc. In D&D, the concept of 'commoner' is sort of vague. Most human beings in our world live within the shell of a caste system of one sort or another. The 'classes" themselves are sort of vague archetypes... for any given character that you create, the more thought and details you invest in the character, the better (more interesting & easier to role-play) they'll be.
Welcome to the crazy that's Dungeons and Dragons!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Desitutus ventis, remos adhibe” When the Winds fail you, row.
If you were to maybe play a commoner then I would figure out the profession, farmer:Druid, hunter:ranger or fighter, priest:cleric, doctor:cleric or Druid, guard:fighter, librarian: wizard, bard:bard, anything that requires craftsmanship:artificer, soothsayer: rogue or bard, fishermen:Druid, pickpocket:rogue, etc.
Back in the ole 3.5 days, that was a thing. At least in the DM guide. I always wanted to run a full peasant adventure, but my nerd squad was never interested.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“He meditated on the use to which he should put all the energy of youth which comes to a man only once in life. Should he devote this power, which is not the strength of intellect or heart or education, but an urge which once spent can never return, the power given to a man once only to make himself, or even ... the universe into anything he wishes: should he devote it to art, to science, to love, or to practical activities?” ― Leo Tolstoy, The Cossacks
I guess the closest could be a Barbarian with weapon proficiencies removed. Sure there are supernatural elements to DnD rage ability but you could get away with a short tempered dude unaware of the power in their rage. A bard without spells is a troubadour which could be seen as a commoner. The line between a comon thief and a Rogue is kinda murky, but Rogues are one of the most skilled clsses at the beginning so at least a heavy cut to proficiencies should be implemented. A Fighter without weapon proficiencies and other signs of their extensive martial training would work too.
But unmodified none of the level 1 classes as they are would qualify for a commoner, other than "commoner" being a background of an exceptional individual.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?" -Death
Commoners are normally not trained for anything in a class, but you can have a stat block or template for a more trained one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Circle of Hedgehogs Druid Beholder/Animated Armor Level -20 Bardof the OIADSB Cult, here are our rules.Sig.Also a sauce council member, but it's been dead for a while.
Diverging somewhat from whether or not a “commoner”…or rather, the stat block representation as we find here on the website…constitutes it’s own class, let’s try and fit it with a sensible choice from the existing classes.
First off, we must understand what makes a “commoner”:
They are, above all…well…common.
They aren’t your typical “flashy” warriors, and one can assume they aren’t knights, nobility, or anybody of a “highborn” status.
So for yucks, I’m going to reject “Fighter” as their default class, shocking as that might be, simply because I don’t envision a commoner strutting around in forged weapons or armor…by proxy, “Paladin” doesn’t quite fit, either, because that is also somewhat more like the romanticized knights of classical literature, and not commoners.
When I picture a commoner, I envision a person of simple means…and for martial classes, that means unarmored.
That gives us both “Barbarian” and “Monk”!
Barbarian amuses me, solely because the idea of a commoner living in a hostile world filled with otherworldly monsters is PERFECT fodder for a commoner becoming a rage-filled Barbarian.
Commoners die…like, a lot…in D&D.
If a commoner became the sole-survivor of a dragon attack…or, say, a party of murderous adventurers…it isn’t difficult to see them going into a revenge-fueled rage & beefing up.
Alternatively, a commoner who becomes a Monk is also natural…Monks live simple lifestyles, as well, and only use simple weapons…for a commoner, these could be simple farming implements, or smithing tools that have been weaponized in a time of crisis.
Ironically, this is loosely the basis for historical shinobi…basically, ninjas, for which certain D&D Monks are based off of.
On that note, a commoner can make a good “Rogue”…rogues are merely specialists who make use of surprise or ambush tactics & cunning to survive…they are the rats of D&D, living in a hostile world, and a commoner can definitely fit that perspective in a pinch.
Finally, a “Ranger” makes for an interesting class for a commoner…as a hunter.
Especially in a rural village…someone has to hunt for the food, and a commoner can fill that niche very easily.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sir Guy, "The peasants are revolting."
King, "They certainly are."
/bah da, bum
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
In your case, I would choose a background, and then make them a level 0 [whatever class applies to that background], and give them no class skills, just the proficiencies mentioned in their background.
Level 0 Acolyte, Commoner.
Level 0 Performer, Commoner.
Level 0 Soldier, Commoner.
Whatever. Just proficiencies based on background, but no class skills.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
No problems...
Try imagining what your 'commoner' character does to feed themselves. Are they sustenance farmers? Hunters? Fish mongers? Coopers or etc. In D&D, the concept of 'commoner' is sort of vague. Most human beings in our world live within the shell of a caste system of one sort or another. The 'classes" themselves are sort of vague archetypes... for any given character that you create, the more thought and details you invest in the character, the better (more interesting & easier to role-play) they'll be.
Welcome to the crazy that's Dungeons and Dragons!
“Desitutus ventis, remos adhibe”
When the Winds fail you, row.
If you were to maybe play a commoner then I would figure out the profession, farmer:Druid, hunter:ranger or fighter, priest:cleric, doctor:cleric or Druid, guard:fighter, librarian: wizard, bard:bard, anything that requires craftsmanship:artificer, soothsayer: rogue or bard, fishermen:Druid, pickpocket:rogue, etc.
insert original witty signature here:
fighter
Everything is true, but not all is canon.
Everything is canon, but not all is true.
Back in the ole 3.5 days, that was a thing. At least in the DM guide. I always wanted to run a full peasant adventure, but my nerd squad was never interested.
“He meditated on the use to which he should put all the energy of youth which comes to a man only once in life. Should he devote this power, which is not the strength of intellect or heart or education, but an urge which once spent can never return, the power given to a man once only to make himself, or even ... the universe into anything he wishes: should he devote it to art, to science, to love, or to practical activities?”
― Leo Tolstoy, The Cossacks
A commoner with class levels is just a regular NPC.
If you're going to modify anything, I think 4 hit points is laughable for an average human.
I guess the closest could be a Barbarian with weapon proficiencies removed. Sure there are supernatural elements to DnD rage ability but you could get away with a short tempered dude unaware of the power in their rage. A bard without spells is a troubadour which could be seen as a commoner. The line between a comon thief and a Rogue is kinda murky, but Rogues are one of the most skilled clsses at the beginning so at least a heavy cut to proficiencies should be implemented. A Fighter without weapon proficiencies and other signs of their extensive martial training would work too.
But unmodified none of the level 1 classes as they are would qualify for a commoner, other than "commoner" being a background of an exceptional individual.
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?" -Death
Commoners are normally not trained for anything in a class, but you can have a stat block or template for a more trained one.
The Circle of Hedgehogs Druid Beholder/Animated Armor Level -20 Bard of the OIADSB Cult, here are our rules. Sig. Also a sauce council member, but it's been dead for a while.
This is a fascinating question!
Diverging somewhat from whether or not a “commoner”…or rather, the stat block representation as we find here on the website…constitutes it’s own class, let’s try and fit it with a sensible choice from the existing classes.
First off, we must understand what makes a “commoner”:
They are, above all…well…common.
They aren’t your typical “flashy” warriors, and one can assume they aren’t knights, nobility, or anybody of a “highborn” status.
So for yucks, I’m going to reject “Fighter” as their default class, shocking as that might be, simply because I don’t envision a commoner strutting around in forged weapons or armor…by proxy, “Paladin” doesn’t quite fit, either, because that is also somewhat more like the romanticized knights of classical literature, and not commoners.
When I picture a commoner, I envision a person of simple means…and for martial classes, that means unarmored.
That gives us both “Barbarian” and “Monk”!
Barbarian amuses me, solely because the idea of a commoner living in a hostile world filled with otherworldly monsters is PERFECT fodder for a commoner becoming a rage-filled Barbarian.
Commoners die…like, a lot…in D&D.
If a commoner became the sole-survivor of a dragon attack…or, say, a party of murderous adventurers…it isn’t difficult to see them going into a revenge-fueled rage & beefing up.
Alternatively, a commoner who becomes a Monk is also natural…Monks live simple lifestyles, as well, and only use simple weapons…for a commoner, these could be simple farming implements, or smithing tools that have been weaponized in a time of crisis.
Ironically, this is loosely the basis for historical shinobi…basically, ninjas, for which certain D&D Monks are based off of.
On that note, a commoner can make a good “Rogue”…rogues are merely specialists who make use of surprise or ambush tactics & cunning to survive…they are the rats of D&D, living in a hostile world, and a commoner can definitely fit that perspective in a pinch.
Finally, a “Ranger” makes for an interesting class for a commoner…as a hunter.
Especially in a rural village…someone has to hunt for the food, and a commoner can fill that niche very easily.