PDA

View Full Version : What class would you be?



Fualkner Asiniti
2007-06-26, 09:53 PM
What class do you think best fits you? Of course none of us can do magic (If you can, PM me. :smallbiggrin: ) But you might have the characteristics of that class. Oh, make sure it's geshalt, because no one's personality fits in one class.

Me, I'm probably a bard/wizard. I know random stuff, play music all the time, and can do a little of everything. I can also lift a pen off of you without you knowing. Guarenteed. Wizard because I love to learn and read, and magic theory would be something worth learning.

SadisticFishing
2007-06-26, 09:55 PM
Monk/Duskblade, LG, except I'd actually be chaotic, so not really monk, but I like martial arts and have good saves... Hrm.

TheLogman
2007-06-26, 09:59 PM
I have no training in any special skill, I have no military or fighting training, I can't strike at a person's vitals.

Commoner.

Shoyliguad
2007-06-26, 10:01 PM
I'm more along the lines of a genuis so I guess wizard but have a really wide variaty of talents so bard/factotum.

Damionte
2007-06-26, 10:03 PM
Hmmm what class would I be..... Ahhh "Superfreak" The kind you don't take home to MAMA!

Piccamo
2007-06-26, 10:04 PM
Unlike Pinocchio, I'm a real person. I don't have a DnD class.

Call Me Siggy
2007-06-26, 10:05 PM
Oog. Well, I'm smartish, but I prefer abstract thought and concepts-really into philosophy. I'm (generally) a very nice person, not really in a perfect boy scout way, but in a just plain friendly person way. Pretty stubborn as well.

So...Archivist/Paladin.

starwoof
2007-06-26, 10:09 PM
Well Im pretty smart, but not bookish. My main stat is my charisma (I have personality oozing out of me), and my physical stats are abysmal. Im wiser than I am intelligent. Statisically Id be a cleric.

Based on the real me, Im a bard. I tell stories all the time, I like to party, and oh yeah, Im pretty useless in a fight except as moral support. :smallbiggrin: I retain LOTS of useless/useful information. Im basically a good guy, morally. I approach my chaotic tendencies in a very lawful manner. :smallconfused:

So bard/cleric. Alternatively Bard/Rogue, because I have a lot of skills and dont belive in religion.

Delaney Gale
2007-06-26, 10:09 PM
Rogue/swashbuckler. I'm sneaky, a bit unethical, and have a wide range of skills (hence the rogue). I'm poncy, a relatively skilled swordsman who fights with a combination of dexterity, intelligence, and flair, good with people, and a natural-born showman (hence the swashbuckler).

I don't know about the alignment though- I'd either be chaotic neutral or neutral evil, although my brain is reminding me that I do very unethical things sometimes, so I'll toss out a weak neutral evil.

Burrito
2007-06-26, 10:09 PM
Geshalt, huh...Well, I would probably be some sort of City Guard, Paladin, Ranger. Lawful good with neutral leanings. I've had lots of law enforcement and corrections training, and I have been hunting, fishing, camping etc, for much of my life. Commoner though, not noble.

calebcom
2007-06-26, 10:14 PM
I'd be a fighter/Rogue.

backstabbing with a bigass sword!

Raven T.
2007-06-26, 10:17 PM
LN Druid who gave up Wildshaping. I live by a personal code and enjoy my little ordered universe. I would give up Wildshaping because I personally don't consider it part of my personal flavor (and everyone screams about how unbalanced it makes them.)

Roog
2007-06-26, 10:22 PM
Low level Expert

if it gestult I then suppose Expert//Commoner

If I got to a high enough level then I might add levels of Exemplar (CoA)

Krimm_Blackleaf
2007-06-26, 10:28 PM
I think I'm a multiclass rogue/warlock. Charisma out the wazoo, dark reflection on life, I really know where to shank someone(somehow) and I have alot of social skills, especially Bluff.

Another thing I've thought about was comparing myself to my friend Andy. He doesn't have alot of stuff memorised, but he has alot of stuff he can just look up, and I mean alot. I myself have stuff commited to memory, though not as much stuff as he looks up in books. He also looks through books, I don't know, more skillfully than I could. But anyway, I don't know as much, but I can just pull it from my head at any point, all day long.

I'm also convinced, through self-analysis and testimony from more than a few friends that I am very certainly evil. But, as the same way I've always seen warlocks, the most evil-and-not-evil person ever.

(CE Half-elf warlock 6/rogue 3, this is my assumption)

Dhavaer
2007-06-26, 10:43 PM
Barbarian. Possibly Barbarian/Wizard.

bugsysservant
2007-06-26, 10:47 PM
Hmmm... I would have to be... A cleric with the knowledge domain who devotes himself to an ideal (I actually have an atheist streak, but I am a firm believer in the power of Darwinian systems) The knowledge domain grants me the knowledge as class skills, and I have several knowlege skills maxed out. The cleric's decent melee capabilities match my own (in relation to most others.)

As for alignment, I would probably be chaotic neutral, or oddly enough lawful neutral with a really warped system of values. While some would call me evil, I chalk that up to a high mach personality (one that evidences high amounts of machiavellianism).

Setra
2007-06-26, 10:48 PM
Duskblade

I fancy myself intelligent, but also somewhat strong. I love the idea of magic, yet also I love close combat, especially with a sword, or polearm.

Inyssius Tor
2007-06-26, 10:50 PM
Wizard. Either true neutral or neutral evil, I'm not sure which.

greyhoundpoe
2007-06-26, 10:51 PM
Aristocrat/Horizon Walker

blackout
2007-06-26, 10:52 PM
Commoner. Plain and simple.

de-trick
2007-06-26, 10:58 PM
a neautral barbarian

shaddy_24
2007-06-26, 11:02 PM
Probably levels in rogue. More focused on Dex, Wis, and Int (so not really optimized), most likely CG. Str is a little low, same with Con, Cha I really can't tell you (though probably not too high). I'm not really good at fighting, but if I catch people off guard, I can seriously make them hurt (mostly by jabbing my fingers into their kidneys). I'm not sure what else I have, maybe bard? Mostly for the useless information and storytelling parts. I can store loads of useless information.

Wooter
2007-06-26, 11:06 PM
Bard who sunk all his skillpoints into various knowleges.

Behold_the_Void
2007-06-26, 11:29 PM
Smart/Dedicated Hero going Investigator.

By standard D&D, I'd likely end up a Wizard, Cleric or Psion. Preferably Psion, I'm intelligent but don't like to study.

brian c
2007-06-26, 11:43 PM
Hm... as gestalt, one half is definitely at least part Monk. I've done Shotokan karate for about 9 years now, and i've dabbled in some other martial arts also. For the other half, probably some wizard or archivist; geometer would be great as I'm a math major though. Maybe something like factotum, or I would just have to multiclass a lot. I can imagine myself as almost any class, I like to think that means I'm versatile.

Renegade Paladin
2007-06-26, 11:48 PM
Honestly? Expert. With Perform skills. Not being able to work magic with my music (and being lawful), I have to go with the next best thing. Though I did once accidentally reduce a classmate to tears while idly singing a slow rendition of "Amazing Grace" on the bus because I was bored. Apparently the hymn has that effect on her. I suppose things like that are the basis of the magic through music concept.

Callix
2007-06-26, 11:50 PM
Bard//Wizard. More of a sage than a musician. Maxed Knowledges, and a bit of Perform (Oratory) (I do debating). For all this, a surprising amount of Str, but no skill physically. And a few ranks in Bluff (I do debating) :smallbiggrin: .

Damionte
2007-06-26, 11:51 PM
I'd be a half elf Monk/Cleric/Warlock/Eldritch Discple/Sacred Fist.


Or a Druid. That way I could dance around naked in the woods and people wouldn't get al on my case about it. "You're scaring the horses!" :smallmad:

Zeful
2007-06-26, 11:54 PM
Me? Umm... CN Wizard/Psychic Warrior blaster who carries the first gun.

Because I'm smart and can theorize with the best of them (mostly about weapon systems and space travel) and I can understand why people do things and can try break down parts of their personality. I'm pretty observant and spend my time trying to break down where people are from (ancestory and personal history) based on accents and physical features and a little on their personality. But I believe violence is always an option, and would carry a gun once I can get the conceal carry permit. That does not mean I'm a soldier, I don't take orders well, from anyone.

CockroachTeaParty
2007-06-27, 12:28 AM
Sure are a lot of evil people these days... of course, I just got done dating what could have been a CE warlock/hexblade, so this shouldn't surprise me.

Myself? Let's break it down into three categories:

Realistically? I'm a commoner. Possibly an expert. Low level.

Statistically? Bard, beguiler, or a wise-cracking rogue. Miserable physical stats, but smart and charismatic enough to do... stuff. Plus I've got good reflexes and balance.

Ideally? A psion (shaper) or ardent with very balanced mantles. I'm imaginative, enjoy creating things, and love to ponder all manner of philosophies.

InaVegt
2007-06-27, 12:29 AM
Aristocrat//expert

Or, in D20 modern

Smart//dedicated hero

skywalker
2007-06-27, 12:39 AM
Same as brian, definitely part monk due to martial arts training. I'm incredibly enamored of the duskblade, and it's probably the most intelligent fighter there is that doesn't suck(cough, swashbuckler, cough). The other half of me is definitely a charismatic rogue. I'm very intelligent, strong, dexterous, perceptive and charismatic. Con is my dump stat at a 12.

I think I'm the first person to claim a good alignment on this thread. Neutral to chaotic good Rogue1/Monk3:Duskblade 4. Pretty much Heinlein's competent man. Oh, and I'd definitely be an elf.

Quietus
2007-06-27, 01:04 AM
Con is my dump stat at a 12.

Pretty high opinion of yourself, eh?

I'd have to say, just off the top of my head, Monk/Bard. Alignment limitations? Psh. Yeah, I have issues, what of it?

Cha main stat at probably around 14 (though you wouldn't know appearance-wise), physical stats 10-12 at best, good int, wis 10-12 range. Flaw : Shortsighted.

In general, I have delusions of being able to fight by instinct, very introspective, but I get along with people royally and have a smattering of knowledge of everything under the sun. And a love of languages, though I haven't found anyone to teach me how to ACTUALLY speak other languages yet.

Little_Rudo
2007-06-27, 01:18 AM
Cloistered Cleric // Commoner. Yes, my self-image is that high. :smallwink:

Cloistered Cleric comes from my combination of love of knowledge and my faith; I left out Wiz since, as much as I love numbers and knowledge, my Int. is probably a +2 mod. at its very, very best. (I try!) Str and Dex are low, Con is average to high, and the mental stats are pretty decent. (When you work in customer service, you raise Cha or must constantly deal with wretched customers...)

I'd take the feat Improved Unarmed Strike; I've been in and out of Tae Kwon Do for about nine years, so I'd say I have a bit of skill in it, though my poor physical stats don't merit Monk levels.

As for race, I'm 5'2". The tallest member of my immediate family is an aunt at 5'4". My grandma, who I always thought shrunk with age, simply never grew taller than 4'10". I'd guess I'm a gnome or a halfling... probably gnome. :smallbiggrin:

Yes, I did put too much thought into this.

Exarch
2007-06-27, 02:11 AM
This is gestalt? Well, my friends contend I'm a Paladin, but I feel like I'm more of a neutral-good Ranger. I just don't enjoy breaking into stuff.

So, I'd say Ranger because I've been hunting since an early age. I'd probably go with the ranged tree. For my other class? Bard, probably...I'm a very sociable person when I want to, and have ranks in Perform (Debate). Or would it be Perform (Oratory)? Eh, regardless...I can swing a mean staff, have bested my friends with bokken (though that isn't any real challenge) and am definately a good shot.

If not Bard? Fighter or Warblade, because that's what I want. And I do have some military experience...

Seffbasilisk
2007-06-27, 02:21 AM
Gesalt Barbarian/Rogue, then further into Rogue/Sorcerer, Then Further into Barbarian/Ranger.

Focus on Luck feats, and too many skillpoints/level.

F.H. Zebedee
2007-06-27, 02:29 AM
Well, I'd most likely be a Wilderness Rogue/Paladin of Freedom.
I'd have a very high dex (16+), due to great balance, reflexes, and coordination, a good str (14+), good int (12-14), and solid Cha (13-15). My wis would be at 10, since though I'm a good judge of character, sometimes I fail to pick up on stuff. My con would be negative (6-8) since I have heavy allergies and poor stamina.

Wilderness Rogue: I'm very good at being stealthy and catching people off guard, and have a way with destroying locks and working devices through sheer persistance, if nothing else. I'm also an avid hiker/survivalist, and thus know a lot about how to survive in the woods/nature in general.

Paladin of Freedom: I'm very grounded in my beliefs and adamant about them, yet do not wish to oppress others. When I see crime or cruelty, it's one of the things that truly provokes me into a rage and gets me ready to attack somebody. Yet, only certain things provoke me, and generally defying just the law of our country is not enough to anger me. Besides, I'm SOOO Chaotic Good.

Race? I'd be a Kender or a Halfling, no doubt. I love wandering and socializing with all sorts of different people.

Ulzgoroth
2007-06-27, 02:29 AM
Out in the real world probably commoner, because experts seem like they have too many different skills.

If someone would introduce me to arcane magic though, wizard all the way...the kind that ends up inventing things like Chuul. Though hopefully a bit less random.

Pestlepup
2007-06-27, 02:31 AM
Cloistered Cleric comes from my combination of love of knowledge and my faith; I left out Wiz since, as much as I love numbers and knowledge, my Int. is probably a +2 mod. at its very, very best.

Hate to rain on your parade, but an intelligence of 14 is borderline brilliant. :smallsmile: Consider, that the IQ-system, as flawed as it is, translates rather beutifully into D&D. Most people have a IQ of around 100 (More likely in the 90-100 range.), which is represented by the average int score of 10. Now, only exceptional individuals even have an IQ of 140 (correlates to int 14), let alone in the 160 or 180 range. (16 and 18 respectively.) I'd likely end up with an int of 13 or 14, with 13 being more likely, and if properly tested, could even be 12 or less. Not under 10 and not over 14 anyway.

Though what I'd be, hard to say. Commoner/Fighter perhaps. I train with a bastard sword (Actually we refer to it as a longsword. The D&D terminology is not quite on the mark, though given that for many historical weapons, swords in particular, an actual name is not even known, it's no wonder.) and plan to do so for the foreseeable future. I'm hoping to become an Expert (blacksmith) one day, though.

Statswise cleric might be a more logical choice for me, and I'd love to be a monk. Not likely to happen, though.

LeeMon
2007-06-27, 02:25 PM
Ranger//Bard, most likely.

But then, I've always viewed gestalt as a combination of training and talent; each usually represented by one class. I grew up on a farm community and helped out my share, but had a quirky combination of talents (knowledge of random things, musical ability, fascination with shiny things that do cool stuff) that ensured that I would find my calling elsewhere.

I've thought about my friends as well... one's obsession with technology makes him a wizard//artificer; one's temper and temptation to take things apart makes him a barbarian//rogue; and so on.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-27, 02:29 PM
Eleventh Level Expert.

Telonius
2007-06-27, 02:31 PM
I suppose I'm technically a government contractor.

So, CW Samurai.

Mordokai
2007-06-27, 02:38 PM
Bard/rogue. I'm good at talking to people, I'm good at bluffing, and while I'm not exactly what you would call pretty face I substitute that with wise cracking jokes and bad puns. You could say I'm Elan, but smarter and less of a looker. Also, I like picking up things that don't belong to me, and I'm good at it. I have pretty good balance and am very good at avoiding things trown my way.

D20 modern, I would probably go deedicated hero.

Piccamo
2007-06-27, 02:39 PM
I have no class, or so I'm told.

Indon
2007-06-27, 02:45 PM
Well, since sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, I'd be a heavily varianted Wizard/Warrior. I may have been a Sorceror at one point, but I traded in the levels with some obscure variant rule.

I'm da Rogue!
2007-06-27, 02:47 PM
I'm good at talking to people, I'm good at bluffing, and while I'm not exactly what you would call pretty face I substitute that with wise cracking jokes and bad puns. Also, I like picking up things that don't belong to me, and I'm good at it. I have pretty good balance and am very good at avoiding things trown my way.


That describes me as well. Put some ranks in Perform (dance) and here i am. I'd say a chaotic good rogue.

SadisticFishing
2007-06-27, 02:55 PM
I changed my mind. Duskblade//Rogue/Monk, with Ascetic Rogue - at 20, I'd look like: Duskblade 20//Monk 2/Rogue 18.

N would really be my alignment, I do good things, but not nearly often enough. Sigh.

Fixer
2007-06-27, 03:10 PM
Rogue or Rogue/Ranger

Ichneumon
2007-06-27, 03:12 PM
I think I would be a Cleric/Paladin with Law and Good domains...

I really am like that...

synnerman
2007-06-27, 03:13 PM
Hrm...probably Warlock/Rogue. There is a nice comfort knowing that my magical arsenal is always at my disposal, and I really really like that Rogues not only make good thieves, but they also make good explorers and academics.

If it happened, I'd so go into hostile environment exploration and...well...dungeon crawling. :)

Deuce
2007-06-27, 03:13 PM
Bard/Wizard, maybe a single level of Ranger.

Day job is as a software engineer in a very high-tech industry. So using the Advanced Tech == Magic, I've got at least a few levels in Wiz.

A growing part of that day job is teaching classes - as I've been singled out as a "people person" (yes, I realize that's small praise from fellow engineers :smalltongue: ). Also gig on nights and weekends with a couple of local bands, well enough to make some money at it, and can bluff, fast-talk and schmooze like mad (trying real hard to only use my powers for good) so some Bard levels.

Qualified "heavy weapons" fighting back in the old days of the SCA, was the Shire archer-marshal for a couple of years, shot bows, threw axe and knife. Still hunt, fish and camp a lot, so I guess a level of Ranger is called for.

Not exactly an optimial build, but hey, I'm chaotic. :smallbiggrin:

Just Alex
2007-06-27, 03:20 PM
Is "jerk" a class? I think I'm one of those.

PaladinBoy
2007-06-27, 03:30 PM
Either Expert//Paladin or Expert//Bard.

My friends and family claim that due to my strident Lawfulness and idealism I am a paladin. (PaladinBoy is my RL nickname given by my family.) I'm not sure though...... I'm not very good at all in a fight and prefer to avoid fights and surround myself with people who can protect me. So maybe Bard due to it's ability to sneak around, combined with inspirational music (which I don't know how to do but I am desperately trying to learn how). The Expert class skills would probably be all Knowledge with perhaps Diplomacy thrown in. I love learning.

Counterpower
2007-06-27, 03:31 PM
In reality, I'm an Expert who has put a good deal of his focus into Knowledge skills. Or so my classmates and report cards indicate.

I'd like to be a cleric of Selune (from FR), although I'm not sure my Wis would support that.

I would have a low Str (4-6 kind of low), average Dex, pathetically low Con (but a feat that makes myself a better distance runner, since I'm good at that), high Int (do I dare say 16? I'd like to believe that's the case.....), average Wis, and just-above-average Cha.

Morgan_Scott82
2007-06-27, 03:36 PM
Bardic Sage, or if you want Gestalt Bardic Sage//Expert, or if you prefer d20 modern Smart Ordinary/Charismatic Hero multiclass.

WhiteHarness
2007-06-27, 04:11 PM
Everyone you know, yourself included, is probably a Level 1 commoner, expert, or just maybe an aristocrat. If you know some SCA-types or survivalists, then you might know a few warriors. To claim that you're anything other than those is probably just wishful thinking. Reality is a much more prosaic place than your imagination...

Wraithy
2007-06-27, 04:14 PM
realistically we're all experts.
but in my dreams?
An "evolved undead" LN Wraith who has learned to live in the sun.
a little less realistic than realistic, but not my dream?

monk/scout (with only 8 wisdom), you laugh now! but eventually I will become the ruler of.... erm.... stuff?
two weapon fighting, skirmish, flurry of blows, and all leaves me with -16 to attack (there is no strength bonus). i can run very quickly...... into walls!

Keledrath
2007-06-27, 04:15 PM
Vagrant homebrew class. It's basicly a chaotic version of the monk.

SurlySeraph
2007-06-27, 04:19 PM
Oog. Well, I'm smartish, but I prefer abstract thought and concepts-really into philosophy. I'm (generally) a very nice person, not really in a perfect boy scout way, but in a just plain friendly person way. Pretty stubborn as well.

So...Archivist/Paladin.

Sounds a lot like me, except that I'm less friendly and more moralizing. I'd say an Archivist/Paladin/Greyguard, but maybe 9 charisma (I'm an unpleasant and unpersuasive person, but not hideously so). Intelligence and Wisdom would probably by around 12-14 each. Strength? 15 when I'm in shape (i.e., wrestling season), 12 right now. Improved Grapple, because I'm pretty good at wrestling. Constitution about 10. Dexterity's hard, because I'm agile and have amazing balance (again, really useful in wrestling) but have bad hand-eye coordination, so I'll say 12. So overall it takes 25-point-buy to represent me when I'm at my best. Doesn't seem too vain of me. As for race, probably dwarf since I'm short and compulsively lawful. I'm not really stocky or bearded enough, but my personality fits.

Katonta
2007-06-27, 04:21 PM
Truly? I'd be a Lawful Good Wizard/Cleric, with domains of Good and Healing. Because there is nothing more satisfying to me than to bring someone who's had a bad day and turn it into a good day for them. I'm certainly smart enough to be a Wizard, smartest in my "smart kids" class and I am certainly devoted and religious enough to be a Cleric. Although my Wisdom is a little low, probably only 11 or 12. But my high Int. makes up for it.

Draz74
2007-06-27, 04:22 PM
Everyone you know, yourself included, is probably a Level 1 commoner, expert, or just maybe an aristocrat. If you know some SCA-types or survivalists, then you might know a few warriors. To claim that you're anything other than those is probably just wishful thinking. Reality is a much more prosaic place than your imagination...

Level 1, I doubt (if above age 18). Commoner, I doubt. Realistically, we're mostly in the 2-4 Level range, and mostly Experts and Aristocrats. (Aristocrats are a lot more common in the Internet-using society than they were in medieval Europe!) Warrior or even Fighter for those with military experience (but still in the Level 2-4 range).

Less realistically? Hmmm. I'm a studious physicist, which hints at Wizard. I'm very religious, so ... Cleric? But I also spend a fair amount of time outdoors, hiking or playing Ultimate, which seems it would be more in line with Scout than anything. I'll say LG Wizard//Scout/Cloistered Cleric.

TroyXavier
2007-06-27, 05:01 PM
I'd be a psion.....if gestalt probably something like psion/cleric or the like.

WhiteHarness
2007-06-27, 05:53 PM
Level 1, I doubt (if above age 18).

I think you're overestimating the abundance of opportunities to earn "experience points" in the modern world. Maybe somebody in the 30-40 year-old range who's been at his profession for a long time and is well-practiced at it and in good health might rate at level two or three, but I still think the overwhelmingly vast majority of people probably go from cradle to grave without ever gaining a level.

I also posit that we modern folk do not receive maximum hit points at first level. That sort of thing is reserved for highly cinematic settings like, say, the average D&D adventure.

And I still think most of us are Commoners. A few extremely driven and talented people might rate as Experts, some of the more adventurous wealthy among us might qualify as Aristocrats, and those of us who've got a background in low-tech combat skills (but not strip-mall martial arts) could claim Warrior status. Only those who fight nearly every day for a living are Fighters--professional active-duty military in combat arms MOS, SWAT team members, and such. Perhaps a small handful of folks are Rogues, but they are few indeed.

Nobody on Earth is an Adept, Wizard/Sorcerer, Cleric, Paladin, Monk, Bard, Druid, Ranger, Psion, etc. no matter how much you might wish it were so...

blackfox
2007-06-27, 06:09 PM
Genius 1/Skillmonkey 4,634.

The first one accounts for high intelligence, the second one accounts for the maxed-out Knowledge (every single textbook I can get my hands on) skill.

But seriously, in D+D terms? Probably some sort of Expert, with that feat from Races of Whateveritis it was that makes all skills class skills... I think it's called Able Learner or something like that.

In d20 Modern terms, some sort of Fast/Smart build with high Int so as to reap the benefits of being a skillmonkey.

Piccamo
2007-06-27, 06:28 PM
I have levels from 3 sources:
Racial HD in Alien
Levels in Space Commoner (homebrewed class)
Levels in Piccamo (homebrewed PrC)

All told I am 8 Alien / 12 Space Commoner / 20000 Piccamo

Yeah, I rock that hard :smallcool:

Call Me Siggy
2007-06-27, 06:35 PM
Sounds a lot like me, except that I'm less friendly and more moralizing. I'd say an Archivist/Paladin/Greyguard, but maybe 9 charisma (I'm an unpleasant and unpersuasive person, but not hideously so). Intelligence and Wisdom would probably by around 12-14 each. Strength? 15 when I'm in shape (i.e., wrestling season), 12 right now. Improved Grapple, because I'm pretty good at wrestling. Constitution about 10. Dexterity's hard, because I'm agile and have amazing balance (again, really useful in wrestling) but have bad hand-eye coordination, so I'll say 12. So overall it takes 25-point-buy to represent me when I'm at my best. Doesn't seem too vain of me. As for race, probably dwarf since I'm short and compulsively lawful. I'm not really stocky or bearded enough, but my personality fits.

WHOA. I was just about to post that if PrCs were allowed, I'd probably go Grey Guard. Has someone cloned my personality without permission? <_<;;

For race:Human.


Race? I'd be a Kender or a Halfling, no doubt. I love wandering and socializing with all sorts of different people.

Kender? Get it, quickly, before it gets on everyone's nerves! :smallamused:

Anxe
2007-06-27, 07:18 PM
Definitely a neutral Rogue. One time I was larping without character classes and ended up just doing Roguey stuff. Backstabbing Orcs, hiding, pickpocketing, tumbling. All the good stuff.

tobian
2007-06-27, 07:21 PM
I'm probally an expert with most of my ranks in Sense Motive, Knowledge(technology) and a negative modifier in Profession(cooking) :smallbiggrin:

Bit less realistically...

Well, I love the flavor of arcane casters, but honestly I would probally be a divine caster; most likely cleric dovoted to a cause (travel and probally weather or trickery) or a druid or (possibly) an archivist. I think my wisdom score is my best, followed by int. Strength and dex are right out (see cooking skill above, I assume it is a dex based skill), constitution is so-so and its hard to rate ones own charisma in my opinion.

Actually, if it was not for the fact that druids lack teleport spells other than the tree based ones it would most likely be my "not so realistic but fits the best" class.

Edit: grammar error

bugsysservant
2007-06-27, 07:40 PM
I think you're overestimating the abundance of opportunities to earn "experience points" in the modern world. Maybe somebody in the 30-40 year-old range who's been at his profession for a long time and is well-practiced at it and in good health might rate at level two or three, but I still think the overwhelmingly vast majority of people probably go from cradle to grave without ever gaining a level.

I also posit that we modern folk do not receive maximum hit points at first level. That sort of thing is reserved for highly cinematic settings like, say, the average D&D adventure.

And I still think most of us are Commoners. A few extremely driven and talented people might rate as Experts, some of the more adventurous wealthy among us might qualify as Aristocrats, and those of us who've got a background in low-tech combat skills (but not strip-mall martial arts) could claim Warrior status. Only those who fight nearly every day for a living are Fighters--professional active-duty military in combat arms MOS, SWAT team members, and such. Perhaps a small handful of folks are Rogues, but they are few indeed.

Nobody on Earth is an Adept, Wizard/Sorcerer, Cleric, Paladin, Monk, Bard, Druid, Ranger, Psion, etc. no matter how much you might wish it were so...

While I will agree with you in terms of the people who give themselves epic levels merely out of their own high opinions of themselves, I also think you underestimate the ways we gain experience points.

Think for a moment. People get experience for practicing or doing what they do best. For D&D characters that's generally killing things, but for others, its not so restrictive. It is for this reason that in most campaigns you can buy high level spell scrolls from archmages who spend all their time studying. If they are gaining experience, and they are continuously selling items that require it, how do they keep from plunging back to first? (or the lowest possible value for their current level. I don't think you can drop a level from create items or casting spells.)

The answer: they get XP for studying. In theory your character could do the same for any profession, but their is no point to a game where the characters devote their lives to a career and struggle over the course of decades to earn a living. We already do that.

Also, the fact that people can increase their strength, intelligence, etc. through diligent work clearly indicates that you can gain levels without that much trouble since abilities only increase with a level. (excluding magic)

Joltz
2007-06-27, 08:20 PM
as to the "what level is everyone really" debate I recommend this -> [link] (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html) basically it says we're all 1st level, maybe 2nd and nobody's gone over 5th in recorded history (maybe someone reached 6th, but they didn't do anything with it). Aaanyway...

I'm a rogue/duskblade. My first response was rogue/wizard, but I like melee too much for that.

My str is in the low to average range (8-10)
dex is good (13-15)
con is low (7-9)
int is also good (13-15, 13 if you believe the 10 IQ/int point thing)
wis is so low I don't wanna estimate (I put ranks in every wis based skill but it still shows)
cha is similarly low

If I had to guess my race, I'd say human or halfling. Human because I learn quickly (which is the only reacial trait humans get). Halfling is because I'm on the short side of average, rogue is my favorite class, and I like halflings a lot.

Cade Shadow
2007-06-27, 08:26 PM
Beguiler, Sorcerer, Rogue, Bard, Commoner. Pick any two.

geez3r
2007-06-27, 09:19 PM
IF I wasn't such as lazy slouch that didn't like doing much, I would probably be a wizard/shadow caster. I'm nerdy enough to be a wizard, and weird enough to have a serious interest in an alternate reality. But I am, so I am in fact a commoner/commoner.

02youeng
2007-06-27, 11:20 PM
What I would be: bard/wizard - I sing all the time, in my sleep sometimes, I'm charismatic, and I enjoy a good longsword. Wizard - I'm intelligent, and I have a good imagination - helps with killin' stuff

If I was what I would want to be - multi-classed wizard/rogue/bard/swashbuckler. Cos I like it all

Pestlepup
2007-06-28, 01:50 AM
I think you're overestimating the abundance of opportunities to earn "experience points" in the modern world. Maybe somebody in the 30-40 year-old range who's been at his profession for a long time and is well-practiced at it and in good health might rate at level two or three, but I still think the overwhelmingly vast majority of people probably go from cradle to grave without ever gaining a level.

So in your opinion, most people go through their lives without learning a *single* thing? I must honestly say that is a very, very depressing view. While I agree that most of us likely exaggerate our personal capabilities, this thread is more about whimsy than an actual realistic analysis of ourselves. We *are*, after all, talking about ourselves as game characters. :smallsmile:



And I still think most of us are Commoners. A few extremely driven and talented people might rate as Experts, some of the more adventurous wealthy among us might qualify as Aristocrats, and those of us who've got a background in low-tech combat skills (but not strip-mall martial arts) could claim Warrior status. Only those who fight nearly every day for a living are Fighters--professional active-duty military in combat arms MOS, SWAT team members, and such. Perhaps a small handful of folks are Rogues, but they are few indeed.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Though I think you're either overestimating Warriors or overestimating Fighters, and I can't quite put my finger on it which it would be. I wholeheartedly agree, that likely none of us would have high levels in fighting classes (I'd rate myself as level 1, if that.), but the main difference between a warrior and a fighter is the presence or absence of structured training and combat system. If you've trained historical martial arts, for example, you know that it involves a lot more than just swinging a sword and hoping for a hit. You train stances, guards, footwork, grappling, movement in general, your posture, eyesight (the term "battlefield vision" should be a familiar one at least to SCA fighters), accuracy, strength, speed, evaluation of distance, techinques, counter-techniques and so on. A fighter fights with training, techinque and wit. A warrior fights with instinct, physique and whatever practical experience he/she has accumulated. And wit, true, but warriors rely more on their natural capabilities, while fighters rely on their training. Some SCA heavy fighters might likely qualify as warriors, while those who've trained under a martial arts master are more likely to be fighters. Assuming they have sufficient experience and training, that is. Just attending classes and hanging about won't cut it.

Heck, where I train they won't even let anyone do freefighting until they're good enough. Which is as it should be. Even with the required protection swinging a steel hand-and-a-half sword at someone can hurt, break bones or even kill. It requires a great deal of self-control to fight without risking serious injury. And though it would be the most effective way of learning, only masters train unarmored and with sharpened swords. For obvious reasons.


Nobody on Earth is an Adept, Wizard/Sorcerer, Cleric, Paladin, Monk, Bard, Druid, Ranger, Psion, etc. no matter how much you might wish it were so...

Ah, technically speaking you would be correct, but this isn't as much about which of us are capable of wielding magic in real life than it is about which of us would, by natural or psychological inclination, be drawn to aforementioned classes if in a fantasy world. Though as far as non-magical monks go, ever heard of those shaolin blokes? :smallsmile:

Besides, many classes are modeled after real-world examples, even if most are long gone by now, and have been given a more magical twist. Knights Templar or the crusaders, druids of the British isles, religious holy men and women in general, occultists, shamans, psychics, skalds and hunters etc., have existed at one point or another, regardless of whether or not they actually had the capabilities that games attribute to their more fantastic counterparts.

Danin
2007-06-28, 02:25 AM
Actually, my friend's and I are going to play a campaign as ourselves and eventually take class levels. We've collectively determined that I would be a Ranger / Bard. I have a good strength, average dex, good con but with the meager fortitude flaw (I get sick a lot), fairly good int, I'm wise beyond my years but very... excentric and lacking in judgment, bringing my wisdom down to an average level and charisma out the wazoo (Or so says my friends, but there too nice to give anyone a bad score).

I also don't play an instrument, but I talk alot and have some cool stories, so I have ranks in perform oratory.

Abbott
2007-06-28, 02:36 AM
I'd guess I'd be a neutral good bard/cleric. The bard's there because I'm a good actor and speaker, ok poet and although I have a mediocre, untrained singing voice and can't play an instrument to save my life, I tend to pick up lots and lots of lore and keep myself posted on various little useful tidbits of information.

As for the cleric, heck, I'm a practising occultist. Good with Tarot cards and I even took a Reiki course.

As for what we are in real life, of course this thread can't convey it. Higher levels simply aren't realistic. For instance, a fifth-level barbarian could take a greatsword hit in a vital are of the body (i.e. a critical hit) and still be standing, which is impossible. However, I think that some of the caster classes come into play, because of my beliefs.

The_Chilli_God
2007-06-28, 02:52 AM
Well, it depends on what angle you're coming from.

If we want to base my class purely on my past experiences and likely occupation, I'd say that I'm a 2nd-3rd level Lawful Neutral Expert with skills shoved into Profession (Bookkeeper), Knowledge (Geography), Knowledge (Nature), Perform (Strings), Diplomacy, Craft (Painting), and other miscellaneous skills.

If we want to base my class purely on personality, I'd say that I'm a True Neutral mix of Druid and Rogue. Druid because of an elemental affinity and a fondness for nature in general, Rogue because of a crude mischievousness and a quick tongue.

If we want to base my class on my internet persona (The Chilli God), I'd say that I'm a Lawful Neutral Fighter/Tempest. But that's hardly the sort of thing that I think we're basing my class on, so I'll leave it at that.

Vuzzmop
2007-06-28, 03:47 AM
In real life, I'm probably a bardic sage. But stat and personality wise, I'm abysmally low on con or str, but I'm intelligent and have been told I am charismatic, and would probably be a telepath/beguiler. I have a strong emotional empathy with other people, but am also good at manipulating them when I need to.

Jarchh
2007-06-28, 04:14 AM
I think i'd probably be Swashbuckler/bard I'm more for talking my way out of sticky situations but when it comes down to it i'm not that bad when things get hairy. Stat wise 16 charisma, I have a likable personality.14 int I'm above average intelligence but I'm by no means a genius. Average strength 10-12, low to average dex 8-10, I'm clumsy but i'm use to being clumsy so I stumble and usually manage to recover without looking too silly, and similar wisdom 8-10, common sense isnt really my strong point.

Lavidor
2007-06-28, 06:21 AM
By Personality: Archivist/Wizard with a strength of about 3. Not kidding.

The Prince of Cats
2007-06-28, 06:25 AM
A bard...

I am a fountain of the most useless information and tales known to man, with lots of skills and no real specialisation. Maybe a few ranks in duellist, since I am fairly handy with a rapier and dagger.

Call Me Siggy
2007-06-28, 06:27 AM
Surprising amount of Bards here.

brian c
2007-06-28, 11:07 AM
Ah, technically speaking you would be correct, but this isn't as much about which of us are capable of wielding magic in real life than it is about which of us would, by natural or psychological inclination, be drawn to aforementioned classes if in a fantasy world. Though as far as non-magical monks go, ever heard of those shaolin blokes? :smallsmile:

I'm with you here, about monks. If you look at what a level 1 monk gets (improved unarmed strike, better unarmed damage, improved grapple, good saves), I think that might be the most common PC class that people in the real world have. Approximately everyone who is a black belt or equivalent expert in a martial art probably has 1 or 2 levels of monk.

I posted before, but if you want to get "realistic", then I'm probably Commoner 1/Monk 1 // Expert 2 with a lot of skill points in Knowledges (or at least one in each so I'm considered "trained").

X15lm204
2007-06-28, 12:00 PM
Hmm. In D&D, I'd probably be a LG Archivist(Deneir or Lathander)//Psion(Seer); Smart(Linguist)//Fast(Speed) in D20 Modern. I've always had a hard time figuring out what my abilities are, since a lot of my talents and flaws contradict each other in d20 terms. I have impressive but not extraordinairy strength (11-13). While I'm a good shot and have uncanny reflexes when in actual danger, I'm normally quite clumsy (9-13, maybe low with Lightning Reflexes and some sort of Zen Archery-like feat). I must have a very low constitution to be sick so often and to be so exhausted after so little physical activity, but I heal quickly and have never had a serious illness (6-9). Intelligence is undoubtedly my best attribute, judging by my grades, test scores, and ability to outwit almost everyone I know (14-16). Wisdom is again ify: I'm into introspection and philosophy, and generally understand other people, but I don't notice things two feet from my nose and have the attention span of a goldfish when not really focussed on something. Charisma is below average, though I would be good at dealing with people if I weren't so gosh-darned terrified of them (8-9).
For alignment, I would like to think that I'm Good, but know I'm Lawful despite wanting to be Neutral or even Chaotic. My chosen Psion discipline is based on my experiences: I have deja-vu almost daily (whether you buy into the pre- or hypercognition theories, both fall under clairsentience), when I try to predict events, I'm almost always right, and I'm sure, beyond any hint of doubt, that the events of some of my more lucid dreams have or will have come to pass, though I've never had any proof of this. Whether or not this translates into any real-world paranormal talent, I'm sure I would have it on a world where it definately does exist.

skywalker
2007-06-28, 12:59 PM
Again, I'm with Brian, there should be plenty of people with at least a couple of monk levels. Remember that monks aren't even that good at hitting things at first level, so realistically, a black belt might actually be 2-3 monk levels(enough to negate the flurry penalties) but not enough to get any thing mystical. I see myself as having 2-3 levels(enough to get improved grapple as a bonus, from ju-jutsu) of monk(My school was old, old school. Everyone I know is afraid to fight me) and a level of rogue, because I'm such a damned rogue. There's no reason why there shouldn't be any rogues in the world, lots of people know how to pick locks, tumble, stab other people in the kidneys, etc.

As for having a high opinion of myself, I'm 6'2" with very little fat on me, STR is naturally higher than average, I say 13. My WIS varies widely between a 6 and a 14, but my sense motive, spot and listen and Will saves are all high, so I picked 14. INT-wise, I have a 145 IQ(probably a couple ticks higher, only took a group test) so 14-15. I'm very dexterous, my friends have me pegged at DEX 16. I'm a very healthy person, excepting my asthma, which doesn't particularly affect me anymore, but still gonna call CON an 11-12(I should take that feat that allows you to make will saves instead of fortitude saves). My CHA has been deemed to be an 18 by most who know me, those people doing the math say that there should be one person with an 18 out of every 206. That sounds about right to me.

weenie
2007-06-28, 01:02 PM
Hmmm. Well, I study computer science and am quiet fascinated with math, which are the closest things to magic that we have, so I guess the first class should be wizard.

On the other hand I like to cook and am also quiet proficient in it, I know my way around in nature, I am a bit stronger than average, ride my bike a lot, and have many other minor skills scattered all around. But this could be explained by a good int modifier(:smallredface: ) and some cross-class skill picking. I'm also reasonably fluent in two foreign languages, but I guess that's another int bonus consequence.

The only other thing I can think of is Barbarian, because I do get involved in fights from time to time, but have never had any official training and I guess you don't need much to piss me off.

So there you have it, Wizard/Barbarian.

Everyman
2007-06-28, 01:25 PM
Honestly? An expert (college graduate).

Given a more "fantasy-fullfilled" lifestyle, likely a multiclassed rogue/barbarian with a NG alignment. I enjoy clever thinking, am driven by my emotions, and prefer guerilla tactics to straight-out fighting. I'm also very tough (I don't get sick easily) and capable of bearing VERY heavy loads (maximum was around 300 pounds).

Oh, and I am an Eagle Scout turned Scoutmaster.:smallbiggrin:

truemane
2007-06-28, 01:28 PM
As it turns out, I'm a Chaotic Neutral Elven Bard!

Check it out!

What D&D Character are You? (http://www.twinrose.net/dandchar.php)

Daedo daShoegod
2007-06-28, 01:45 PM
I'm short, sneaky, prone to anger so I figure:
CN Halfing Barbarian 3/Rog 3

Swooper
2007-06-28, 02:02 PM
As gestalt in a fantasy world, I'd likely be a Swashbuckler//Wizard. I'm an olympic sabre fencer (in fact, I'm writing this on my laptop from a hostel room in Denmark where I've been participating in the Nordic Championship) and have been for nearly twelve years, so that's got to count for something. I also like to think of myself as smart (you have to be to understand all the D&D rules, heh) and have with few exceptions done well at school. I'm starting BS-level computing science in september, and sometimes I've wondered if scribing spells isn't really similar to writing code...

Roderick_BR
2007-06-28, 02:19 PM
Fighter. Yes - Tactician at heart.
Ranger. No - Simply not an outdoorsman.
Barbarian. A little - A bit on the enraged side ;)
Paladin. Yes - Good two-shoes, and that likes to follow rules. My friend's words, not mine.

Wizard. A little - A tiny bit. I like to read and plan
Sorcerer. No - I don't have that much energy

Cleric. No - I'm more paladin-esque
Druid. No - Like with ranger, not very outside person

Rogue. A little - I do have some good hand coordination (but not feet coordination) :p
Bard. A little - More for artistic sense. I suck at social interations :\

I'd put paladin, barbarian, and fighter together, and rogue and bard together also. If I can put bard and wizard together, I can say I'm a paladin/bard.

Keiichi
2007-06-28, 02:22 PM
bard/factotum Charismatic and intelligent, musically inclined, lots of skills and leadership capability, and simply through speaking to people I can reassure them.

Friends say I'm a pally because I'm fair, I sacrifice what I want for what is good for other people and am organized and follow rules.

LotharBot
2007-06-28, 02:42 PM
Cloistered Cleric // Wizard - Loremaster.

Love of God, love of knowledge, and I'm uncoordinated.

Rincewind
2007-06-28, 02:43 PM
Scout / Sorcerer

D Knight
2007-06-28, 04:00 PM
for me i probably be a Fighter/Dervish because i love living and dancing life on the edge no matter what is going on around me. but thats just me in one of my forms. if i was not that i might be a specilaist in the feild of burning or blowing up the enemy with no remorse what so ever. but like i said befor thats just me.

Piccamo
2007-06-28, 04:15 PM
I think I'm probably commoner//commoner :smalltongue:

SurlySeraph
2007-06-28, 04:18 PM
^ Never! Smite reality!

Paladin. Paladin, paladin, paladin, paladin, paladin. With maybe a level or two in wizard. But mostly paladin. I always get paladin on the alignment tests, except for wizard once and ranger twice. The only time I got an alignment other than Lawful Good was once when I got Chaotic Neutral, oddly enough.

Prometheus
2007-06-28, 05:03 PM
Studious Physics major -> Lawful/Neutral Good Wizard. The closest thing to magic in this world HAS to be science.

WildBill
2007-06-28, 10:00 PM
Depending on how you would define scientist in DnD I would either be a skillmonkey of some type (all the knowledge skills required to work in a multidisciplinary chem lab) or an INT based prepared caster (scholarly journals are my spell books). Or maybe some blend of those. I'm a pretty good scrapper, but I doubt enough to even get warrior levels even with my martial arts experience. but I have some wild empathy like ability.
I have really good int, good cha, average wis, con is my dump stat (severe health problems) dex a bit above average and average str (good for my size, but there is only so much muscle a 135lb frame can support)

Pestlepup
2007-06-29, 12:11 PM
As it turns out, I'm a Chaotic Neutral Elven Bard!

Check it out!

What D&D Character are You? (http://www.twinrose.net/dandchar.php)

And I'm... Neutral Good human Barbarian? :smalleek: Wasn't really expecting that one. Neutral Good, likely so. Human, undoubtedly, but Barbarian strikes me as a bit odd. I'm not exactly big on the rage department, as anyone I know can testify. Still, interesting. :smallsmile:

Grey Watcher
2007-06-29, 12:23 PM
If we're going for an idealized, player character version of myself, I'd say Bard, and just Bard. Yeah, I have a knack for a lot of different skills. I can hold my own in a philosophy debate and know a thing or two about fast-fold screens, but I'd say my other talents are probably better reflected by the Jack of All Trades feat from Complete Adventurer than by any second class. If you really force me to choose, I'll say Wizard, because I'm more of an academician than anything else....

If we're going for a more realistic version of myself... Expert, with ranks primarily spent in Knowledges and Performs.

Wolf_Shade
2007-06-29, 12:51 PM
Decker. Definitely decker.

Dean Fellithor
2007-06-30, 01:13 AM
Rogue 7 / Ranger 2 / Samurai 4.:wink:

Armads
2007-06-30, 01:24 AM
I'm a Commoner!

I have no special skills, just generic ones.

Tellah
2007-06-30, 01:39 AM
In this thread: internet tough guys brag about being geniuses and martial arts masters. Every one of us is a commoner or expert.

Hadrian_Emrys
2007-06-30, 04:06 AM
Fighter/Bard

I come to this conclusion seeing as how I am all but useless in a fight unless I'm grappling or using weapons (gods have mercy on my foes if I am both armed AND grappling). I also seem to be physically impossible to hate in the true sense of the word. No matter how upset people get with me, or how intense the fights I get into... nope, no hate. I don't know what it's like to have an enemy and I always seem to have allies.

So... Wis is my dump stat for sure. Momma always said I had the common sense of a turkey. :smallbiggrin:

Drascin
2007-06-30, 06:28 AM
Mmmm... I'd probably end up archivist, maybe with a few levels paladin of freedom. You see, I'm hardcore CG, like to help others to a fault, and have quite a philosopic bent. And while I'm an atheist IRL, I'd most likely have little problem with helping some deities' agenda in a D&D world, given there are some that share a lot of my outlook. The only problem is that I'm quite a pacifist, so I'm not sure about those paladin levels... I have the code, but not teh skillz :smalltongue: .

The other possibility would be psion. I am thoroughly fascinated by the mind, and would jump at any chance of understanding it better. So, were I to live in such a world, if I heard of any psion accepting trainees, you can bet I'd be first in the line.

So I guess it would be left to chance which of those careers I'd follow. Which one would I find first?

mikeejimbo
2007-06-30, 08:10 AM
I think I'm an Expert with decent Int. So yeah, I have skills, but nothing special. :smalltongue:

Or I'm a Computer Programmer, a homebrew class much like Expert, but more specialized.

Lost Outrider
2007-06-30, 08:19 AM
Ranger.

Dex over Str as well as an aversion to being hit with sharp metal things would put me as an archer with max ranks in sneak, hide, and rope use/climb. I'd really want my animal companion to be a monkey, but likely would end up with a black lab that I would longingly name Monkey.

My highest stat would, oddly enough, be Intelligence even though I'm not quite the Mensa candidate that everyone else here professes to be. I'd go for the skill points and somewhere in the metagamingverse my player would grumble several times about how they should've put those points in Dex.

hewhosaysfish
2007-06-30, 08:47 AM
According to various quizzes I'm either a halfling bard, a half-elf spellthief or a dragon soulknife... Make of that what you will. I'd have pinned myself as some sort of Wizard...

EDIT: I just took one of those quizzes again, after a year or so, and it still pegs me as a CG halfling bard...

Thanatos 51-50
2007-06-30, 08:59 AM
I'm tempted to peg myself as either a low-level expert or a low-level fighter with a high INT and a lot of Cross-Class skills, like move silently, hide, spot, listen, etc.

brian c
2007-06-30, 09:22 AM
In this thread: internet tough guys brag about being geniuses and martial arts masters. Every one of us is a commoner or expert.

I'm no martial arts master, but with 9 years of training and a black belt in Shotokan karate, I don't think it's exaggeration to say that I have better unarmed damage than the average person (excluding strength modifier) so that's best translated in D&D terms as a level or two in monk. If you look back, I said that I'm probably Commoner 1/Monk 1//Expert 2 (since OP asked for gestalt)

Leush
2007-06-30, 10:34 AM
Stuff...

To be fair, all the NPC classes were created just to make low level PCs feel special. (As for higher than average int, i'd say we have a higher than average proportion of geeks here- although you're right, human beings, by virute of being sentient have an ego) Nobody in modern day society is a commoner because there's no friggn feudal system. That and we can hold our own against housecats, thankyou very much. Besides, level one commoner should have two HP (since they don't get maximum at first level) or letes say 4. An average punch to the face s a critical hit and thus deals 2d3 deals 1d3 damage. So on average a roughly 2/3 barfights would end in the first punch (people have no AC so any punch that connects should deal non lethal damage). Since fights seldom last one punch (and boxing matches often last a large number of punches (although boxes are not average people but rather tough stub-nosed people) I hereby conclude that people are not on average level one commoners. So stop diminishing yourselves you maggots!:smallbiggrin:

But back on track, after all I love hearing myself talk, and especially, I love hearing myself talk about myself... Funky internet tests put me as a Lawful Neutral Druid/ Cleric of Nature. I put myself as a Chaotic Neutral Barbarian 1/Wizard 1. Hmm... I feel like another internet test.....

Miraqariftsky
2007-06-30, 10:34 AM
Monk/Bard

I am a martial artist who loves telling stories, declaiming poetry and spouting insights mundane and arcane--- be they useful or useless, as somebody mentioned awhile back. However, my singing attracts storms--- yes, horribly off-key.

mikeejimbo
2007-06-30, 10:37 AM
That and we can hold our own against housecats, thankyou very much.

I dunno, I have a cat, and I think he could take me if he really wanted to.

Leush
2007-06-30, 10:49 AM
I dunno, I have a cat, and I think he could take me if he really wanted to.

So, to answer this, I will have to fall back to asking my supermutant adviser on how to best handle the situation, so supermutant, what do you say to that?


Human, you are weak.

brian c
2007-06-30, 12:32 PM
To be fair, all the NPC classes were created just to make low level PCs feel special. (As for higher than average int, i'd say we have a higher than average proportion of geeks here- although you're right, human beings, by virute of being sentient have an ego) Nobody in modern day society is a commoner because there's no friggn feudal system. That and we can hold our own against housecats, thankyou very much. Besides, level one commoner should have two HP (since they don't get maximum at first level) or letes say 4. An average punch to the face is a critical hit and thus deals 2d3 deals 1d3 damage. So on average a roughly 2/3 barfights would end in the first punch

Hm... I disagree.

If the person has 1 hp: 100% chance to end with one punch
2 hp: 67% chance
3 hp: 33% chance
4 hp: 0% chance

So assuming you're a commoner with no Con modifier, you have a (1/4)(1)+(1/4)(2/3)+(1/4)(1/3)+(1/4)(0) = 12/ = 50% chance to be knocked out with one punch, from a person with no Str modifier.

I'd say that's not far from being realistic. Realize also that most people who get into bar fights have better than average Con and Str, and that just because you punch someone in the face doesn't mean it's a "hit" in D&D- AC allows for glancing blows that do no damage.

And about housecats... has anyone here actually fought a housecat? With the cat using lethal force, clawing you all over the place? That would be pretty wicked, especially with how quick cats are, and hard to grab on to.

DreamOfTheRood
2007-06-30, 12:52 PM
http://www.twinrose.net/dandchar.php

According to this thing, I'm a Lawful Good Human Paladin, although I kinda saw myself as a sorcerer.

Thanatos 51-50
2007-06-30, 01:04 PM
<Blahblahlahbadyblah snip> I hereby conclude that people are not on average level one commoners. <More ranting, followed by more snippage>

Bolding is my doing.
Who said we were level ONE commoners? I, personally, would like to think of myself as, at the VERY least, a level two commoner/level one expert (I'm in the military, after all, thats gotta multiclass me or SOMETHING)

PlatinumJester
2007-06-30, 03:11 PM
Barbarian/Wizard - I'm smart but have many characteristics of a barbarian.

TheAlmightyOne
2007-06-30, 03:23 PM
Rogue/wizard/assassin

basicly my d&d character

WhiteHarness
2007-06-30, 03:48 PM
In this thread: internet tough guys brag about being geniuses and martial arts masters. Every one of us is a commoner or expert.

Yep. However, I am prepared to allow that a very few folks here might be able to claim Warrior status, if only because the DMG's description of the class says that it can be used to represent "thugs, toughs, bullies, and even regular people who have learned to defend their homes with some ability. Now, obviously not every couch potato slacker with a stainless steel sword he bought at the mall, qualifies, but I think I'd let someone in good shape with a few years of say, SCA combat under his belt call himself a Level 1 Warrior.


9 years of training and a black belt in Shotokan karate..that's best translated in D&D terms as a level or two in monk.
The Monk class describes several abilities that do not work in reality. Thus, there are no monks. At best, you're a Warior with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.


...all the NPC classes were created just to make low level PCs feel special.


...and not a single one of us here is a PC. NPC classes are the only classes we qualify for. It's a tough pill to swallow, but 90%+ of the people here, just like the rest of the world, are commoners (yes, in spite of the absence of a feudal system) or experts. Nobody's a bard, or a sorceror, or a spellthief, or a monk, or any sort of gestalt character, no matter how much we might wish it were so.

While I despise much of what Justin Alexander has to say about politics, I think he is absolutely spot-on in this essay:

http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html

Yes, I know it's been posted here before, but it's good enough to repeat. I like the "Average Array" of ability scores, too. I'd say it's a good bet that most people here (or anywhere, for that matter) would most accurately be represented in D&D terms as first-level commoners or experts with something like those ability scores.

SurlySeraph
2007-06-30, 03:53 PM
In this thread: internet tough guys brag about being geniuses and martial arts masters. Every one of us is a commoner or expert.

This is more about the personality/behavior archetype we fall into. I'd call myself a paladin even though I'm not much of a fighter, not fanatically religious, can't call down miracles, and definitely not immune to terror. Stat-wise, yes, we're all experts and commoners. Behavior-wise, we're not.


And about housecats... has anyone here actually fought a housecat? With the cat using lethal force, clawing you all over the place? That would be pretty wicked, especially with how quick cats are, and hard to grab on to.

I fought a kitten when I was ten. I guess I won, since it backed off. You're right that cats are surprisingly good fighters, though. The damn thing was named Tiger for a reason...

Quincunx
2007-06-30, 04:24 PM
Crunch:
Fort save good, will save good, reflex save bad.
Dump Strength, favor mental stats.
Spontaneous Detect Evil (or been on the bad end of a RL-equivalent Unholy Blight, but that's outside the scope of this exercise ((on second thought, not--that explains away one instance only)) ).

Fluff:
Chaotic; Neutral with potential for Evil.
No declared deity.

If the adept didn't require prepared spells, or if 'preparing spells' from a decade-old flirtation with [religion] carried over as the spells went unused, I might go for it.

mikeejimbo
2007-06-30, 05:05 PM
Bolding is my doing.
Who said we were level ONE commoners? I, personally, would like to think of myself as, at the VERY least, a level two commoner/level one expert (I'm in the military, after all, thats gotta multiclass me or SOMETHING)

Surely you'd have at least a level of Warrior, if not Fighter.

Leush
2007-06-30, 05:39 PM
Brian C: NPC classes do not add con to hp, and according to SRD commoners have 2hp, if I recall correctly-I could ofcourse be wrong., (unless you bother to roll- i took the assumption that I did not.) therefore a 1d3 punch does 1, 2 or 3 damage, on a 2 or 3 knocking you out, therefore indeed giving a 2/3 chance of knocking one out- and even if there's a 50% chance of being knocked out in a single punch by a guy of average strength if you're an average guy- it may sound right to you, but not to me. For cats, I'm unsure, since I've never had to fight one, but I assume that as long as you're not using your unarmed attack which gives AOOs you shouldn't have a problem.


Lots of stuff

You mean that I'm not a wizard/barbarian?? That I can't fly into rage and become tougher... That I don't have sapient little rat following me... That I can't fry people by looking at them funny... I'm... I'mm.... My delusions... My self deceptions... Gone... All gone....

But seriously.. Or half seriously...

Ok, ok, with a vague trace of not being completely sarcastic....

If you're going to be pedantic, then everyone under fifteen doesn't even have a class full stop- they're too young for D&D. Does everyone have lets see.... Climb, Handle Animal, Jump, Listen, Ride, Spot, Swim and Use rope (along with profession and craft) as skills that they're 'naturally good at picking up with less training than other skills?' I will answer this for you: No they do not. Therefore they are not commoners as you describe. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we all aren't maggots crawling in the dirt of our squalid, petty little fantasies, or that you haven't learned the truth of the universe and are trying to save us from our egos and delusions, I agree whole heartedly about average scores as opposed to elite array scores- because you know, 10s and 11s are defined as average and therefore most people will have them, but your attempt to constrict us to the lowest denomination of D&D just doesn't do justice to people who, you know, might just got up off their asses and have done something with their lives and yeah...

That and for the point of the thread, I think that Surly Seraph has the more accurate idea of the thread here- No one will have any exact weapon proficiencies or magical powers, or anything else, for that matter, after all, warriors and fighters aren't proficient with guns. Therefore they must be commoners. I'm not sure what the point of posting any of this is, but really, saying that you're a level 10 sorcerer is as silly as saying as the person who is a level ten sorcerer isn't. 1stly it's just a game, secondly there's a lot more variety to people out there than your 99.999% commoners. PCs are 'special' characters, after all, and almost everyone is special to someone or other in their own special way...:smalltongue:

Quincunx
2007-06-30, 06:27 PM
Actually, you've hit the problem with cat-wrasslin' precisely. You do go in unarmed and unarmored, the cat does take many AaOs with its claws and teeth, and you do get shredded. (Cats also get Bluff as a Cat skill, and possibly Improved Feint to add to Combat Reflexes. . .pet me, pet me, pet me, kill you!)

Galathir
2007-06-30, 07:38 PM
I would be an elf ranger/rogue. I already have low-light vision (near enough) have pretty good tracking skills, archery skills, and I am pretty good at sneaking around and other stealthy stuff.

tis_tom
2007-06-30, 08:13 PM
Weeeell I have a very strict moral code which I will keep too unwaveringly, however it's not exactly -for- an establishment :-s so I guess I'm a chaotic paladin, in that I am very into the whole, destroying evil and eliminating evil, but I don't believe in patriotism :-\

Atanuero
2007-06-30, 09:54 PM
I'm not sure about gestalt, but I'm definetly a large part Beguiler. That said, I think that my highest stats are (in order) Charisma, Wisdom, Constitution, Intelligence, Dexterity, and Strength.

Soniku
2007-07-01, 02:41 PM
Either a commoner with skill points in the sneaky things, or a rogue.

Most likely NE, but that's because the D&D system tends to label most real people as evil since it's made for heros. More realistically I would be half way between neutral and evil.

I just have a way of disappearing and appearing behind people, just a little knack I have. Not so good at sleight of hand when someone's watching me, but I have suspected from time to time I have a couple of skill points in bluff :smallsmile:


Saved my life so many times... or, at least, saved me from detention :smallbiggrin:

Atanuero
2007-07-02, 11:12 AM
To add to the whole argument, practically everyone here has said 'I'm generally a sneaky person'. You have to remember that your mom generally has a low Spot skill for noticing you scrambling for the cookies, or doing other minor mischief. I'm not saying that the only people who should be saying that are people who have stolen Da Vinci paintings using only a Stickit notepad, but the thing is generally Spot vs. Hide and Listen vs. Move Silently are done to differentiate people who are staring in your general direction completely focused on finding you, and people who are walking down Main Ave. not even noticing your existence.

KingGolem
2007-07-02, 11:39 AM
Lawful Neutral Paladin/Wizard! And I mean the new type of paladin where you can be any alignment you want and just change the class abilities acordingly (in my case, smite evil to smite chaos, etc). I say this because I'm about as lawful as I can possibly be; plenty of NEUTRAL (on the law/chaos scale) people bother me, thus lending me to the whole paladin scene. Second of all, I like reading/learning and I believe I did much more than the kids around me when I was in school. So yeah, that's me. Correcting injustice with lightning bolts. :smallbiggrin: :smallcool:

skywalker
2007-07-02, 12:34 PM
The Monk class describes several abilities that do not work in reality. Thus, there are no monks. At best, you're a Warior with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.


Ah ha, yes, you are correct my friend, however, if you will notice, those of us describing ourselves as monks have almost all stopped at lvl 2 or 3, giving us none of the supernatural abilities you trumpet. Improved unarmed damage, improved grapple, Combat Reflexes, a speed bonus of 10ft.(from those years of training running) and your WIS to AC(this is a no-brainer) are all perfectly acceptable in the real world. I know a lot of people with these abilities, none of which are supernatural in the slightest.

As for cats, they suck. I have not fought a cat, but I have come close. Their sneak attacks are deadly(and I think coated with mild injury poison).

AtomicKitKat
2007-07-02, 12:56 PM
Fighter(Army trained), with Weapon Proficiency: Firearms, Bayonet(Dagger), and possibly Weapon Focus(Machine Gun). Solid Int/Dex and semi-decent IT knowledge puts me as possibly an Adept, maybe a level in Rogue(It's obvious that I sneak around incredibly well. My Move Silently even lets me jump and land with minimal noise)

Rogue1/Fighter1/Adept1.

Pestlepup
2007-07-02, 01:55 PM
Had a rant way up there on the Warrior/Fighter debacle, won't reiterate. Real life monks above third level, yes. Supernatural gizmos, no. Drop critical class abilities, solve problem. Rejoicing commences, will root for the underdogs when inebriated. Contentious comments met with bubble-wrap and croutons.

brian c
2007-07-02, 02:47 PM
It's obvious that I sneak around incredibly well

Shouldn't the opposite be true? The better you are at sneaking, the less obvious it is? :smalltongue:

TempusCCK
2007-07-02, 03:48 PM
Well, I learn like a Sorceror, no studying, just tell me the basics or let me figure it out and I've got it, but have the highest INT of anyone I know, good STR (I'm a bigger guy and I have a penchant for chopping wood), higher than average CON, but not by much, low DEX, but good Balance, I've been told I move quietly for someone my size, but I wouldn't say I'm a Rogue by any stretch. I figure I have a decent CHA score, and low WIS.

I figure I'm probably a level of fighter or so, with Improved Grapple to reflect my mad wrestling skills. Maybe with a little Weapon Focus (Spear) or Weapon Focus (QuarterStaff), since those are my favorite weapons to "duel" my friends with, and I'm not bad...

Smiley_
2007-07-02, 04:09 PM
LN Monk/Rouge, definitely.

Average STR
Good CON (you wouldn't believe the amount of pain the martial arts regimen makes you go through, and I've built up a pretty good resistance)
Good DEX
Above average INT
Good WIS
Average CHA

Maxed out Move Silently and Hide skills, and a few ranks in diplomacy, sense motive, and tumble.

WhiteHarness
2007-07-02, 04:21 PM
Ah ha, yes, you are correct my friend, however, if you will notice, those of us describing ourselves as monks have almost all stopped at lvl 2 or 3, giving us none of the supernatural abilities you trumpet. Improved unarmed damage, improved grapple, Combat Reflexes, a speed bonus of 10ft.(from those years of training running) and your WIS to AC(this is a no-brainer) are all perfectly acceptable in the real world. I know a lot of people with these abilities, none of which are supernatural in the slightest.


I must disagree.

If the class grants access to supernatural abilities at any level, then it doesn't exist in reality. Thus, no Wizards, Adepts, or Monks, etc. On top of that, I have a hard time believing that you can prove that adding Wisdom to AC is a "no-brainer" in the real world. All the other abilities you list are available to other classes or through certain feat chains.

I reiterate: Apart from active-duty, combat arms military folks, nobody on this board is anything but a Commoner or an Expert, with a handful of Warriors thrown in. And the overwhelming majority of us are no more than level one. To believe that you're anything better than these is self-flattering and self-deluding to the point of fatuousness...

Rasilak
2007-07-02, 04:56 PM
TN Ranger (slight bias towards CG), maybe with some levels in Barbarian, Druid or even Rouge (too bad I'd have to be lawful to get Monk-levels...)
Except for my kinda sub-average DEX, the abilities fit quite well (but would even better for a Druid with some levels in Barbarian).
Well, of course only as a D&D-Character :P
IRL I'm probably just an Expert, if I'm really stretching it with a level of Barbarian on top of it (yep, I like to rage).:thog:

Piccamo
2007-07-02, 05:59 PM
I figured out my true calling:
Druid / Planar Shepherd // Archivist

Its really because I'm that badass (read: Overpowered, hideously) :smallcool:

AtomicKitKat
2007-07-02, 09:10 PM
I don't buy the whole "You're all just Commoners and Experts!" argument. There's plenty of Rogues around(see the sheer number of people who can pick locks, hotwire cars, etc.)

It's only obvious to me that I can sneak better than most.:smalltongue:

I'd also argue that being able to withstand mad pain is more a sign of high Willpower than high Constitution.

WhiteHarness
2007-07-03, 12:01 AM
I don't buy the whole "You're all just Commoners and Experts!" argument. There's plenty of Rogues around(see the sheer number of people who can pick locks, hotwire cars, etc.)


But being able to do those things doesn't make you a Rogue anymore than having a black-belt from some McDojo makes you a Monk. All it means is that you're a Commoner or Expert with ranks in those skills.

AtomicKitKat
2007-07-03, 12:49 AM
But being able to do those things doesn't make you a Rogue anymore than having a black-belt from some McDojo makes you a Monk. All it means is that you're a Commoner or Expert with ranks in those skills.

Expert maybe, but you insult me with your constant demotion of me to the ranks of someone who would die to a Housecat!:smallyuk: *slaps WhiteHarness with a gauntlet* I challenge you to a duel, suh!:smalltongue:

In all seriousness, I definitely invested several "points" into being Rogue-y in my youth, and I am fully justified in considering myself as such. Now please don't make me break out the Chopsticks of Blinding to prove to you that I know Sneak Attack.:smalltongue:

WhiteHarness
2007-07-03, 02:37 AM
*slaps WhiteHarness with a gauntlet* I challenge you to a duel, suh!:smalltongue:


Okay, let me get ready--I have gauntlets of my own:

http://www.mediumaevum.com/josh/Miscpics1%20033b.jpg

Have at thee!
:smalltongue:

Heh, heh.

Returning to seriousness now, I have no problems with admitting that there are a very few people out there who might qualify as Rogues, but, like Fighters, they are rare. 99.99% of people in the world are still Commoners, Experts, and Warriors.

AtomicKitKat
2007-07-03, 05:36 AM
Well, let's see. With more than 1 HD in the following classes,

Fighters: Boxers, wrestlers(Come on, it's partially scripted, but let's face it, they're still tough mofos. Maybe with some ranks in Perform: Kayfabe.), MMA competitors, specialised soldiers(Snipers, Commandos come to mind)

Rogues: Lifelong criminals(non-technological, means more bust into the bank, less bust into the bank's security system) would probably fall into this.

Expert: Mechanics, watchmakers, fall into this category.

Aristocrat: Most politicians, royalty, etc.

Commoner: Most people who do fairly repetitive jobs. This includes office workers. On the other hand, if you have enough interests outside of work, you probably manage to burn up enough XP to avoid getting saddled with this POS class.

Hmm. How thick is that armour of yours? I'm calculating how much force I will need to buckle it in the right places, until you're immobilised.:smalltongue:

brian c
2007-07-03, 07:00 AM
But being able to do those things doesn't make you a Rogue anymore than having a black-belt from some McDojo makes you a Monk. All it means is that you're a Commoner or Expert with ranks in those skills.

Alright, I take offense at this comment. It's one thing to say that most people aren't special, but it's another thing to disrespect my dojo. I'd be the one challenging you to a duel now, and a good old fashioned one with no armor or weapons. Besides the fact, what skills would I have ranks in that would make me better at unarmed combat? I stand by the earlier argument that lots of martial arts training is roughly equivalent to 1 or 2 levels in Monk- enough to get Improved Unarmed Strike, better damage, Improved Grapple, good saves and a crappy flurry.

Pestlepup
2007-07-03, 07:40 AM
But being able to do those things doesn't make you a Rogue anymore than having a black-belt from some McDojo makes you a Monk. All it means is that you're a Commoner or Expert with ranks in those skills.

Ahh, the infamous Improved Unarmed Strike skill. Had three ranks, then ran out of skill points. A bummer, that. Remind me to pick up Skill Focus (Kicking Ass) the next time I gain a level.

I sure hope you have a way of explaining how people train for their professions their entire lives, without ever becoming any more proficient, i.e. gaining ranks. You'd slap us all off as level 1 to 2, but a surgeon with heal/profession (surgery)/knowledge (medical science) at five ranks would be a rather sorry excuse, even presuming artificially low DCs.

As for the warrior thing, *points up at post pointing up at a previous post*. So you have perhaps done fighting in the SCA. Glee. Then the distinction between fighter and warrior could even interest you.


Found here for convenience's sake.

And I completely understand brian c's being a mite miffed. If your views differ drastically from those others have presented here, clear and concise argumentation will prove more effective than provocation. At least in terms of having a good clean debate.

Piccamo
2007-07-03, 08:15 AM
For our modern times we should probably be using d20 Modern to begin with.

As for DnD PC classes,
Most people just aren't special. Leveling does not model our world very well and a point-based system would probably do it better. In a leveling system, most people are not that high a level. Even if you disagree with the Alexandrian, you must see that the DCs are not artificially low; they are preset and are abstracted in such a way as to be comparable to someone else. I think the major problem most people have with it is from a slightly elitist view where they cannot be merely mundane in nature.

All of my other replies in this thread have been ridiculous in nature because the premise of this thread is ridiculous. We aren't PCs. We don't have DnD PC classes. We are real people. Model similarities however you want, but don't complain when someone models you worse than you model yourself.

Xuincherguixe
2007-07-03, 08:54 AM
Prestige Class. Unnerver.

edit: Right. Gestalt. Bah. Okay so Unnerver/Programmer.

Indon
2007-07-03, 09:17 AM
I reiterate: Apart from active-duty, combat arms military folks, nobody on this board is anything but a Commoner or an Expert, with a handful of Warriors thrown in. And the overwhelming majority of us are no more than level one. To believe that you're anything better than these is self-flattering and self-deluding to the point of fatuousness...

I see no reason to think that there would be any substancial amount of commoners in a modern society in which everyone actually recieves an education.

Mind that a commoner has never recieved a formal education. They are unlikely to have points in more than 1 knowledge skill and chances are, they were apprenticed into their field.

While on the other hand, people in industrialized nations have recieved a well-balanced education easily spanning over a decade of time (with some going into 2-2.5 decades). The overwhelming majority of individuals in an industrialized society are probably experts or rogues (Mind that the major differences between a level 1 expert and rogue are focus of abilities and the ability to hit someone where it hurts when they aren't on their guard).

Similarly, I'd say level 1 does not properly model the degrees and varieties of skills of most educated individuals. Even a Bachelor's degree, a very common thing in our society, may well rate a second character class level.

We in our industrialized society are, simply put, superior to our ancestors (and definitely the fictional NPC's of your average D&D campaign), in terms of the things that define class levels such as martial and skill training.

And Piccamo; I imagine most here know that. But thought exercises keep us entertained while we're at work, now don't they?

brian c
2007-07-03, 10:01 AM
I see no reason to think that there would be any substancial amount of commoners in a modern society in which everyone actually recieves an education.

Mind that a commoner has never recieved a formal education. They are unlikely to have points in more than 1 knowledge skill and chances are, they were apprenticed into their field.

While on the other hand, people in industrialized nations have recieved a well-balanced education easily spanning over a decade of time (with some going into 2-2.5 decades). The overwhelming majority of individuals in an industrialized society are probably experts or rogues (Mind that the major differences between a level 1 expert and rogue are focus of abilities and the ability to hit someone where it hurts when they aren't on their guard).

Similarly, I'd say level 1 does not properly model the degrees and varieties of skills of most educated individuals. Even a Bachelor's degree, a very common thing in our society, may well rate a second character class level.

We in our industrialized society are, simply put, superior to our ancestors (and definitely the fictional NPC's of your average D&D campaign), in terms of the things that define class levels such as martial and skill training.

And Piccamo; I imagine most here know that. But thought exercises keep us entertained while we're at work, now don't they?

It could also be argued that, despite the less physical nature of everyday life in modern society, improved nutrition and medical care would mean average Constitution and Strength (at least; maybe other stats) are higher.

If I had to make a conservative estimate, I'd say that most people in first-world countries are Experts or Adepts (technology replacing magic). Third world countries still have mostly commoners, but it's innaccurate to say that "99.999% of people are commoners" in general. Of course, people who can fight well are Warriors, people with extensive martial training have a level or two of Fighter or Monk, very talented thieves might have a level of Rogue, and very talented musicians might have a level of Bard.

Notice that I said very talented; not everyone has PC levels, only people with certain skills that can't possibly be modeled by the weaker NPC classes. Like I said before, the majority of people in the world are Experts, Commoners and Adepts.

There's really two questions here:

1) What class would you want to be, if you were a D&D character?

2) How would you be classified, strictly applying D&D rules to real life?

For #1, it's mostly about your personality and what you enjoy doing; if you like sneaking around, you would be a rogue. If you like getting angry and smashing things, you'd be a barbarian, etc. That doesn't mean that's your answer to #2 though, because real people usually aren't quick enough, strong enough, smart enough, or magical enough to do that. I think the OP was really asking question #1 here, and that's what many people answered. #2 is not as much of a fun imaginative question as it is an intellectual exercise; many people answered that way.

If someone says "Oh I'm sneaky so Rogue" and you think they're a commoner, you're both right. You're just answering different questions.

WhiteHarness
2007-07-03, 11:06 AM
You'd slap us all off as level 1 to 2, but a surgeon with heal/profession (surgery)/knowledge (medical science) at five ranks would be a rather sorry excuse...

Well, someone that specialized would likely have Skill Focus. Also, I'd certainly allow that a good surgeon, given that medical school is very in-depth training indeed, might very well be of a higher level. Moreover, since a healer's kit gives a +2 circumstance bonus, I'm sure a modern, fully-equipped OR and the scrub crew that goes with it give a correspondingly higher bonus.


With more than 1 HD in the following classes,

Fighters: Boxers, wrestlers(Come on, it's partially scripted, but let's face it, they're still tough mofos. Maybe with some ranks in Perform: Kayfabe.), MMA competitors, specialised soldiers(Snipers, Commandos come to mind)

Rogues: Lifelong criminals(non-technological, means more bust into the bank, less bust into the bank's security system) would probably fall into this.

...and all such people are very, very uncommon. Everybody else is a Commoner, Expert, or Warrior.


Hmm. How thick is that armour of yours? I'm calculating how much force I will need to buckle it in the right places, until you're immobilised.


Well, it's thick enough to keep from buckling when struck at full-force with an SCA rattan stick, so I think I'm pretty safe. :smalltongue:


Besides the fact, what skills would I have ranks in that would make me better at unarmed combat?
I meant the Rogue. Since Improved Unarmed Strike/Grapple is a feat, not a skill, I should have typed something along the lines of "Being able to pick locks, etc. doesn't necessarily make you a Rogue any more than martial arts training makes you a Monk" for greater clarity.


I stand by the earlier argument that lots of martial arts training is roughly equivalent to 1 or 2 levels in Monk- enough to get Improved Unarmed Strike, better damage, Improved Grapple, good saves and a crappy flurry. We'll have to disagree. Nobody is a Monk. All the martial arts training means is that you've got Improved Unarmed Strike and/or Improved Grapple. I don't think any amount of it will grant you better saves. Get used to it; you aren't a Monk. Monks live apart from the rest of the world, cloistered in monasteries, so they can focus on nothing but their martial arts skills. You obviously spend at least some time at the computer--a Monk wouldn't bother. You're not a Monk.



We in our industrialized society are, simply put, superior to our ancestors...
That's Temporal Chauvinism. I'll bet our pre-industrial ancestors were physically stronger than the average modern person, given the greater amount of physical labor they had to do. I'm sure we're, on average, healthier and better-educated--but we're still mostly Commoners. ;)


It could also be argued that, despite the less physical nature of everyday life in modern society, improved nutrition and medical care would mean average Constitution and Strength (at least; maybe other stats) are higher....and it could also be argued that, because of the prevalence of obesity and general couch-potato-hood, members of modern society are weaker than their ancestors.


As for the warrior thing, *points up at post pointing up at a previous post*. So you have perhaps done fighting in the SCA. Glee. Then the distinction between fighter and warrior could even interest you.
Look, as much as I'd like to be a Fighter, I know I'm not. At best, I'm a first-level or second-level Warrior. At the very least, I think I can make a good case that I have heavy armour proficiency. ;)

brian c
2007-07-03, 11:27 AM
Well, WhiteHarness, I guess you're taking the minimalist side of this debate while me and Indon are a little bit more generous.

About physical stat comparisons in different times though- obesity and "couch-potato-ism" is very prevalent in the US, but not every country is so bad. The average height of a D&D man is 5'9" (PHB page 109, 4'10" = average of 2d10). That's probably a bit higher than average height in the middle ages that D&D is supposed to represent. The average height of a man in the US (modern) is about 5'10". The average height of a man in the Netherlands is about 6'3". The reason for increased height is because of better nutrition, better medical care, and hormones in processed meats. I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that, based on environmental factors, the average human being in 2007 is stronger than the average human being in 1507 (or whatever year you'd like to pretend D&D society is emulating). I'm not a nutrition expert or a medieval historian so I'm not qualified to make the argument, but I'm sure it's there.


As for me being a monk: let's look at the game rules and see what 2nd level monks have:

BAB +1: a little bit better than average at hitting things

Improved Unarmed Strike, and improved damage (d6): Can do more damage without weapons than most people can, but not by a whole lot

Improved Grapple: can grapple without AoO, beter grappling techniques than an untrained person would have

Combat Reflexes: good at taking advantage when opponents leave themselves open

Flurry of Blows: able to hit repeatedly in a short amount of time at the expense of accuracy

Wis to AC: able to use Wisdom, the same ability powering Sense Motive and Spot/Listen, to decrease the chance of getting hit


I think my martial arts training has given me all of those things. There's nothing in the class abilities that says "unable to use computers" or "must stay away from the rest of society and meditate". I know I don't do those things; however, real Shaolin monks do, so if nothing else you must agree that there are people in the world who are very nicely modeled by D&D monks.

Also, I'm still annoyed by the "McDojo" comment; there's no reason to be throwing mud, just make your point nicely.

Dusk_Rider
2007-07-03, 11:30 AM
Bard or rogue (or maybe bard/rogue).

Martok
2007-07-03, 11:39 AM
I'd definitely be a wizard and/or bard.

I've always been sort of the bookish & studious type, and I also like to read a lot. These attributes would have obviously applications in the learning of large numbers of spells.

I'm also a good singer and (according to my friends & family, at any rate) a decent storyteller. I also know a little about a lot of subjects, as well as having an appetite for obscure knowledge & trivia. :smallamused:

Fhaolan
2007-07-03, 12:03 PM
Hrmmm. Realistically? And *gestalt*? Okay, fine. Commoner//Expert. Maybe as much as 2nd or 3rd level overall, depending on exactly how much 'levels' really map to reality.

My skill-set revolves around computer operation (I work for the Evil Empire), crafting (I've been a professional homebuilder, leatherworker, and furniture maker in previous jobs), and some performance skills (singing, acting, and stage combat).

Some of the people in my stage combat group qualify for Warrior, and perhaps even Fighter, as they are former police officers, ex-military, etc. One guy used to be an Army Ranger, with lots of special forces training. I do believe he might qualify as a Fighter. :)

I don't, however. I have a fair knowledge of weapons and armor, but my actual skill in their use is purely performance-based, not real fighting. And the fact that I used to get into real knife-fights many years ago doesn't count in my opinion. It wasn't trained, and I had enough skill to survive the experience, not excel at it.

lukelightning
2007-07-03, 12:05 PM
Not good enough to be a paladin.
Not religious enough to be a cleric.
Not outdoorsey enough to be a druid, barbarian, or ranger.
Not agile or streetwise enough to be a rogue.
Not disciplined/scholarly enough to be a wizard.

Guess I'm destined to be a lackluster sorcerer.

Aurion
2007-07-03, 12:17 PM
Monk fits me really well because I have a black belt in Tae-Kwon-Do which is all unarmed fighting based, but if it's gotta be a gestalt then probably Monk/Rogue because I'm sneaky

Pestlepup
2007-07-03, 01:40 PM
Well, someone that specialized would likely have Skill Focus. Also, I'd certainly allow that a good surgeon, given that medical school is very in-depth training indeed, might very well be of a higher level. Moreover, since a healer's kit gives a +2 circumstance bonus, I'm sure a modern, fully-equipped OR and the scrub crew that goes with it give a correspondingly higher bonus.

Well, someone naturally adept would have Skill Focus, though I admit that it is somewhat a matter of interpretation. And yes, modern equipment would likely give significant circumstantial bonuses, but to say that surgeons operate with minimal skill and maximal equipment could be, with the right inclination, be construed to imply that almost anyone with minimal training could perform a cardial bypass.


...and all such people are very, very uncommon. Everybody else is a Commoner, Expert, or Warrior.

That much might even be true, to an extent, of course. I would have to day that I agree with those voices pointing out that in modern society training is much more readily available, and given the specialized nature of the capitalistic economy, experts would be a lot more common than in a pseudo-medieval society.


Well, it's thick enough to keep from buckling when struck at full-force with an SCA rattan stick, so I think I'm pretty safe. :smalltongue:

Yes... With a stick. Besides, if you swing with muscle, you'll never get a good hit. That's why inexperienced fighters, even if very muscle-bound, can't make that much of an impression. It's really a matter of technique. Care to make a wager if I could leave a dent in your helmet? With a sword, not a wooden stick, that is. :smallsmile:


I meant the Rogue. Since Improved Unarmed Strike/Grapple is a feat, not a skill, I should have typed something along the lines of "Being able to pick locks, etc. doesn't necessarily make you a Rogue any more than martial arts training makes you a Monk" for greater clarity.

Well, you'd be correct if the those two were comparable in a meaningful sense. True, anyone can learn skills, even in D&D, so knowing how to pick locks doesn't automatically make you a rogue. In game, I even enjoy the idea of having a bunch of NPCs with class Thief (Expert) instead of Rogue, since not all crime-type people are the same. Most, after all, wont want to backstab random grannies. However, a Monk's unarmed combat system is a bit too complex (not mechanics-wise in the game, though) to be reduced into a simple Improved Unarmed Strike.


We'll have to disagree. Nobody is a Monk. All the martial arts training means is that you've got Improved Unarmed Strike and/or Improved Grapple. I don't think any amount of it will grant you better saves. Get used to it; you aren't a Monk. Monks live apart from the rest of the world, cloistered in monasteries, so they can focus on nothing but their martial arts skills. You obviously spend at least some time at the computer--a Monk wouldn't bother. You're not a Monk.

Once again with the shaolin. Yes, very likely none of us here at the board are shaolin monks, but that doesn't make them nonexistent. Granted, this was aimed more at your previous comments, more than this quoted bit, but you work with what you have.


That's Temporal Chauvinism. I'll bet our pre-industrial ancestors were physically stronger than the average modern person, given the greater amount of physical labor they had to do. I'm sure we're, on average, healthier and better-educated--but we're still mostly Commoners. ;)

Well, the peasantry was. Aristocracy shunned unsightly muscle growth. And the point about Experts stands, even if there still are Commoners. Just fewer of them.


...and it could also be argued that, because of the prevalence of obesity and general couch-potato-hood, members of modern society are weaker than their ancestors.

This, I agree with wholeheartedly. Having longer life-spans doesn't automatically imply a fitter physique. Just better health-care and hygiene, I'm afraid...


Look, as much as I'd like to be a Fighter, I know I'm not. At best, I'm a first-level or second-level Warrior. At the very least, I think I can make a good case that I have heavy armour proficiency. ;)

Well, good for you, but that wasn't the point. If you're an SCA fighter, that most likely means you're either self-taught, or have trained with other fighters. That most likely makes you a warrior, given the lack of a structured combat-system. THIS was the distinction I hoped to make.

I've trained longsword-fencing (To clarify, longsword is what D&D recognizes as bastard sword) and fighting with a dagger (And unarmed and grappling. Comes with the system.). I've dabbled into backsword, sword-and-buckler and poleaxe. I've discussed the differences in each of the styles with a sidesword-instructor and a very capable and experienced rattan-fighter, which was actually very fun. Could have spent the entire day (and almost did) babbling on about the differences in techniques and so forth. Nevertheless, the point was, that fighting with a wooden stick is a tad different from swinging an actual sword. Most of the stuff about swordsmanship just starts to make sense when you actually hold and handle a real steel blade. Rattan is a rather poor approximation, and SCA fighting bans grappling, pommel-strikes, disarms (I'd imagine. Not sure really.) and joint-locks.

Indon
2007-07-03, 01:57 PM
That's Temporal Chauvinism. I'll bet our pre-industrial ancestors were physically stronger than the average modern person, given the greater amount of physical labor they had to do. I'm sure we're, on average, healthier and better-educated--but we're still mostly Commoners. ;)


It's entirely possible that there were statistical distinctions in terms of physical fitness which would be transferrable to D&D terms; we are, after all, talking about periods of human history in which being fat was sometimes considered a sign of health, rather than gluttony as it is often regarded today.

But you appear to be missing my point. Being educated means that the Commoner class can no longer accurately model an individual's abilities. This means that, because we are on average better-educated, we are no longer commoners. If you were to try to model even someone who passed High School with a B average, no college, you would run out of skill points as a Commoner 1 with 10 int.

Look at the Commoner class skills. Which Knowledges are on it? Every one that isn't costs double for the rank, maybe two, required to pass a high school course with a fair grade (because you can not pass a Knowledge check with a DC over 10, which is common knowledge, without ranks). A foreign language costs 2 skill points (or an int bonus). A 10-int commoner at level 1 has what - 12 skill points, if Human?

Basically, to model an average human _witout_ using Expert, rather than Commoner, would require more hit dice than is viable.

Piccamo
2007-07-03, 03:21 PM
This is why d20 Modern classes model the modern world better than DnD classes.

WhiteHarness
2007-07-03, 04:08 PM
If you were to try to model even someone who passed High School with a B average, no college, you would run out of skill points as a Commoner 1 with 10 int.


...required to pass a high school course with a fair grade...

I still say this person would probably be a Commoner. Passing High School does not guarantee that the person actually retained any of that knowledge he had to memorize temporarily in order to pass a test or two. The class description of the Commoner notes that they "famr the fields, staff the shops, build the homes, and produce the goods in the world..." It's not intended to represent only feudal-era serfs; this is everyone who doesn't qualify for Expert, Warrior, or something better.



Care to make a wager if I could leave a dent in your helmet? With a sword, not a wooden stick, that is. Okay. I dabble in WMA, too. A real steel sword has totally different mass-distribution than an SCA rattan club, due to distal taper, plus, for reasons of balance, most of the mass of a real sword will be concentrated in the pommel, not the striking end. Thus, swords don't dent plate as well as rattan clubs--sword dents tend to be very narrow, while rattan clubs will move much more material around. Steel's denser, but the rattan still has more mass in its striking portion. My harness is covered with the marks of both. But not the armet; nothing has yet been able to dent it, rattan or steel--it's 6mm thick through the brow. You might dent a thinner piece, like a greave or something...


Aristocracy shunned unsightly muscle growth. Where do you get this from? Do you have any primary source documentation to back this up? Or is this just more of the sort of pop-culture "everyone knows" sort of thing? As a student of medieval history, I've never yet come across any evidence of any such attitude among the medieval warrior elite.


I'm not a nutrition expert or a medieval historian so I'm not qualified to make the argument, but I'm sure it's there. I think modern medicine and nutrition might give us an advantage that's best reflected in terms of Constitution, but not Strength. I still say that someone who engages in daily manual labor on the level of your average medieval person is going to be stronger than your average modern person. The medieval fellow might not live as long, due to poorer hygiene and medical care, but I think he'd still beat most folks today in arm-wrestling...


I think my martial arts training has given me all of those things.

I don't. The "Wisdom to Armour Class" item in particular is difficult to quantify and translate into the real world. I suspect it's just a feature the game designers built into the system so that Monks wouldn't suck compared to other classes with better access to AC enhancing items.


...so if nothing else you must agree that there are people in the world who are very nicely modeled by D&D monks. Not so. The class description is very clear that Monks are cloistered. They spend every day meditating and training. If you don't do that to the exclusion of all but the most basic other things in everyday life, then you probably don't qualify for Monk status. Heck, even if you do, I don't think you'd be best represented as a Monk in D&D terms. The class grants access to stunts that we know don't exist in reality. You can't just say "Well, only two or three levels of Monk exist, then." There are no Monks. Even those Shao-lin guys are just Warriors or Experts(Performers) with a couple of feats. Nobody on Earth is, or ever has been, a D&D Monk.


This is why d20 Modern classes model the modern world better than DnD classes. Too true, but this is fun. Besides, I think GURPS does better job than even D20 Modern does at modeling the real world. Still, whether it was intended to do so or not, as the Alexandrian article points out, D&D can reasonably approximate reality, so long as one sticks to low levels and a handful of sensible classes. I think a fun campaign could be run with all the players as Commoners, Aristocrats, Experts, and such.

Pestlepup
2007-07-03, 04:55 PM
Okay. I dabble in WMA, too. A real steel sword has totally different mass-distribution than an SCA rattan club, due to distal taper, plus, for reasons of balance, most of the mass of a real sword will be concentrated in the pommel, not the striking end. Thus, swords don't dent plate as well as rattan clubs--sword dents tend to be very narrow, while rattan clubs will move much more material around. Steel's denser, but the rattan still has more mass in its striking portion. My harness is covered with the marks of both. But not the armet; nothing has yet been able to dent it, rattan or steel--it's 6mm thick through the brow. You might dent a thinner piece, like a greave or something...

That it does. And granted, a sword isn't exactly designed to batter its way through armor. Though I'd still be tingling for the opportunity to take swing at your helmet. No offense or hostility intended, though. Just idle curiosity. :smallsmile:


Where do you get this from? Do you have any primary source documentation to back this up? Or is this just more of the sort of pop-culture "everyone knows" sort of thing? As a student of medieval history, I've never yet come across any evidence of any such attitude among the medieval warrior elite.

From the wrong time-frame? :smallredface: I admit, in retrospect, that I was thinking more along the lines of the renaissance, rather than the medieval period. As a great thinker once put it, whoops.


I think modern medicine and nutrition might give us an advantage that's best reflected in terms of Constitution, but not Strength. I still say that someone who engages in daily manual labor on the level of your average medieval person is going to be stronger than your average modern person. The medieval fellow might not live as long, due to poorer hygiene and medical care, but I think he'd still beat most folks today in arm-wrestling...

Perhaps not so. Constitution represents the ability to withstand physical trauma and the body's capacity to handle toxins, diseases and infections. In a modern world it is not too difficult to be brought up in a sterile enough environment as to hamper the development of the body's natural immune system. Granted it's so far limited to a few of the most overzealously hygienic families, but we get, by and far, exposed to far less bacteria. Though we compensate the fact with food additives... Go figure.

Not at all bad arguments, though you have failed to address some of the more crucial points. Hope you'll get back to them sometime.

WhiteHarness
2007-07-03, 05:24 PM
Though I'd still be tingling for the opportunity to take swing at your helmet. No offense or hostility intended, though. Just idle curiosity.
No problem. Lord knows I put that suit through plenty of abuse. Every time I put it on, I expect to have to perform some maintenance on it. Tinkering with it, pounding out dents, replacing rivets & straps, etc. is part of the fun of owning such a suit of armour. If you're ever in my neighborhood, you're more than welcome to take a swing at the helmet.


Not at all bad arguments, though you have failed to address some of the more crucial points. Hope you'll get back to them sometime.

I will if I can. It's a long thread, and it seems like I'm the only one taking this side of the debate--everyone else wants to be Fighters, and Bards, and Sorcerers, and such. :smallwink: I try to quibble with the points in others' posts that really stick in my head, but I can't quote and try to refute everything...

brian c
2007-07-03, 05:34 PM
I don't. The "Wisdom to Armour Class" item in particular is difficult to quantify and translate into the real world. I suspect it's just a feature the game designers built into the system so that Monks wouldn't suck compared to other classes with better access to AC enhancing items.

I don't recall asking for your opinion on my martial arts abilities, as I suspect you've never met me or seen me demonstrate any of these abilities in any way. Since you're disbelieving though, I'll explain the Wis to AC, how I see it.

Armor class in D&D has a few components, numerically: 10 is the base for medium size, an attacker has to hit your general area. The only other component for an unarmed Commoner is dexterity modifier (of course armor and shields would affect AC in other cases). This represents your ability to react to an incoming strike and move yourself out of the way.

Wisdom adding to AC is a different sort of idea than just moving away. Wisdom in D&D, as I pointed out, deals with the ability to perceive important things from our surroundings. In terms of Armor Class, this means that a "monk" can somehow notice attacks coming at him earlier. It's well-known, at least among fighters and particularly boxers and martial artists, that most people "telegraph" their movements before they strike. Usually this is some smaller movement that always precedes the attack, such as a shift in body weight or, the most common in boxing, a twitch in pectoral muscles right before a punch. The same idea helps a poker player find a "tell" from his opponent, and lets the runner at first base know if the pitcher is throwing home or trying to get a pickoff. My theory is that the Wisdom to Armor Class benefit that Monks and Swordsages get is best modeled by the ability to notice, recognize and react to telegraphed signals.


As for your other argument that I'm not a monk because I don't live in a monastery and meditate, I'm fully aware of the class description in the PHB. However, when I'm looking to model real world people with D&D classes, I concentrate on the abilities and ignore the fluff. For example, I think the Adept would be good at modeling some people if you switched out magic for technology. The monk is decent at modeling martial artists mechanically, even if the fluff is a bit out of place.

Fhaolan
2007-07-03, 05:41 PM
That it does. And granted, a sword isn't exactly designed to batter its way through armor. Though I'd still be tingling for the opportunity to take swing at your helmet. No offense or hostility intended, though. Just idle curiosity. :smallsmile:

I have a helm very close to what WhiteHarness has (Mine isn't tempered, is yours, WhiteHarness?). If you're ever in the Redmond, WA area feel free to drop me a line. I'm not 100% sure I'm willing to sacrifice my helm to a full-force straight on blow from a crowbar, but I've weathered a lot of strikes from arming swords and the like. [And I mean steel blades, not rattan ones. It's annoying when my fight partner doesn't pull his/her blow in show, but it happens, which is why I was wearing the harness in the first place.]

WhiteHarness
2007-07-03, 05:48 PM
I don't recall asking for your opinion on my martial arts abilities, as I suspect you've never met me or seen me demonstrate any of these abilities in any way. Nothing personal. You're not the only person in the thread to have claimed to be a Monk.


It's well-known, at least among fighters and particularly boxers and martial artists, that most people "telegraph" their movements before they strike. Yes, and it's common to all fighting disciplines, armed and unarmed, and is not best modeled by the Monk's "Wisdom to AC" class feature. The description of the ability notes that the Monk retains the Wisdom bonus to AC even if flat-footed and unaware of the attack. Clearly, this means that the ability is some sort of superhuman power, which--I'm pretty sure--nobody in reality truly possesses. Also, note that the Wisdom to AC thing is an Extraordinary Ability, which, according to pg.180 of the PHB often do break the laws of physics. Thus, adding your Wisdom modifier to your Armour Class is not possible in reality. Again, there are no monks. What's so wrong with being a Warrior with a short feat chain specializing in unarmed combat? It beats being a Commoner... :smallwink:

Matthew
2007-07-03, 07:59 PM
Interestingly, there is some evidence for Aristocrats during the Medieval period shunning 'unsightly' Muscle growth. They were very into the body perfect (much like us now), and their ideas revolved around symmetry and Classical interpretations. That said, they also expected true born Aristocrats (in literature anyway) to be evident from the common man, by both their personality and 'warrior shape' - to paraphrase, basically, 'well formed and shapely'. To judge from the manuscript evidence, that didn't mean Rambo, but nor did it mean slight of build. Anywho, they definitely shunned Aristocratic women with unsightly muscle growth!

AtomicKitKat
2007-07-03, 10:43 PM
Yes, and it's common to all fighting disciplines, armed and unarmed, and is not best modeled by the Monk's "Wisdom to AC" class feature. The description of the ability notes that the Monk retains the Wisdom bonus to AC even if flat-footed and unaware of the attack. Clearly, this means that the ability is some sort of superhuman power, which--I'm pretty sure--nobody in reality truly possesses. Also, note that the Wisdom to AC thing is an Extraordinary Ability, which, according to pg.180 of the PHB often do break the laws of physics. Thus, adding your Wisdom modifier to your Armour Class is not possible in reality. Again, there are no monks. What's so wrong with being a Warrior with a short feat chain specializing in unarmed combat? It beats being a Commoner... :smallwink:

I prefer to think of it as an extension of how you can "feel" somebody behind you. Doesn't work well in a crowd(but then if you're in a crowd, you're sort of grappling, since there's usually less than a foot of space between, nevermind 5 feet.) It's like how I can tell someone "big" is behind me. He exudes an ever so slight gravitational pull, blocks the breeze, shades me from the sun, etc. Combine all of these together, train till you can detect a small part(like an incoming fist), and voila, Wis to AC.

Indon
2007-07-03, 11:46 PM
I still say this person would probably be a Commoner. Passing High School does not guarantee that the person actually retained any of that knowledge he had to memorize temporarily in order to pass a test or two.


D20 has no system for forgetting things, now does it. :P

But, seriously, if you can always answer basic questions in a field of Knowledge, you have a modifier of +14 to the applicable knowledge skill. That requires 7 HD, given an Int of 18.

History buffs are gods among men. Ditto with anyone who can do that sort of thing in a knowledge field.

Pestlepup
2007-07-04, 01:20 AM
No problem. Lord knows I put that suit through plenty of abuse. Every time I put it on, I expect to have to perform some maintenance on it. Tinkering with it, pounding out dents, replacing rivets & straps, etc. is part of the fun of owning such a suit of armour. If you're ever in my neighborhood, you're more than welcome to take a swing at the helmet.

Thank you kindly! Though I must admit to feeling ever so slightly bad about pummeling others' equipment, intentional or not. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that armor isn't exactly cheap. Well, what's actually strange is that the same protectiveness doesn't extend to swords. It's not like they both aren't intended to get a bit beat up in a fight. Go figure.


I will if I can. It's a long thread, and it seems like I'm the only one taking this side of the debate--everyone else wants to be Fighters, and Bards, and Sorcerers, and such. :smallwink: I try to quibble with the points in others' posts that really stick in my head, but I can't quote and try to refute everything...

No rush, good fellow. Besides, it's not like you have to refute everything. Even if someone makes a good point in a debate every now and then, it's okay to say so. :smallsmile:

And yes, I'd like to be a monk. Aren't, but that's okay. I'm not really the monastery-type anyway. Though the whole concept of converting real people into a game system always should involve deciding on some basic guidelines, mostly concerning what level of depressing are people willing to implement. Given that most people aren't exactly gluttons for psychological punishment, it's natural to model yourself after what you'd like to be. Kind of like an ideal self, I suppose.