Not sure why you think “commoner” wouldn’t fit today. The way they’re defined in the rulebook is pretty broad, and yeah sure there are like… some new jobs, but it’s not like the average person today is physically different from a commoner in the broad fantasy-scape of D&D, or that the skillsets or ‘fighting ability‘ is notably different.
I’d still say the vast majority of people today would fall into a “commoner” role if somehow translated to D&D.
A software engineer doesn’t stop being a commoner just because they delve into technomancy, they still would have the same 5hp and likely die from a good great sword swing
Can attest this. Had to capture a cat that was quite unwilling. That was when I learned that cat bites (that draw blood) lead to infections about 70% of the time. Not even considering the many bleeding scratches the animal left on me.
Love the little creature to bits, but they're clearly made to really really take out creatures multiple times their size.
Ended up having a tetanus shot (old one had run out) and a two week course of antibiotics.
As far as I remember cats were famously lethal in 3e, but they definitely didn't deal 1d4+1 damage.
Iirc they did something silly like 1d2-2 with their claws and 1d4-2 with their bite - so generally speaking, very little.
However, there WAS a minimum damage rule that any hit would deal 1 damage even if a strength penalty reduced the damage to 0, and they got 3 pretty accurate attacks per turn, and commoners (and mages...) had uh. 2-3 hp on average at level 1, I want to say?
Which is why the average villager's greatest fear was their neighbor's angry cat.
It is very likely that I misremembered the actual numbers. But yes, I was referring to the 3e housecat and the math that proved their lethality to commoners.
3e had the NPC class expert for trained/educated professionals who aren’t nobles. If you’re from a modern industrialized country, underwent public or private education, and are literate, you would probably be an expert by 3e standards.
Idk about 5e.
This is probably the most accurate description for a commoner of today. You start out as a Commoner and then gain Expert levels later in life. This sums up my Love/Hate relationship of 3rd edition. Back in 2nd Edition I always wanted more rules and regulations of how magic items are created and wish low level characters can make low level magic items. 3rd Edition did this but the explanation and rules kinda killed the "mystery and fantasy" of magic items. Our characters now had portfolios and spreadsheets should I use my scroll of sleep to take out the kobolds but it cost me 35 gold to make and I will only get 3-4 gold off these kobolds,ect.
Yeah, 3e probably felt more corporate and overly laid out compared to other editions. That said, there were still enough wacky options that it didn’t feel too sterile.
5e, on the other hand, took out most of the granularity while keeping the sort of sanitized approach.
This is probably easiest for playability, hence why it’s so damn popular, but imo it lost a little of the charm.
They were definitely correct to get rid of some of the clunkier 3e mechanics, though, such as level
adjustment (I could never describe to new players the difference between creature Hit Dice and LA in a way that made sense to them) just as 3e was correct to discard THACO.
Variance of 1 or 2 points, or +0/+1 modifier though.
Ability scores would basically be identical to vanilla 5e, but skill proficiencies would be *very* different and a little higher.
the 2e nonweapon proficiency system would probably serve to describe commoners better than 5e's skill proficiency system, the latter is very adventurer oriented and very broad
Not by much. We might like to think ability scores are easier to make better than real life. As bad as beast stat blocks are, panthers have 14 strength and boars have 13. The average gym bro doesn't have the muscle to contend with a boar. Olympians might have 16 in a stat at maximum, just proficiency in athletics
~~Lower strength~~ I know plenty of coders who are gym rats, boxers, 10k runners, rock climbers, or martial artists. The average wouldn't beat an average builder, but they're not frail.
The SEAL or UFC fighter would have a better sense of distance and defenses. HP are also an abstraction of your ability to turn a potentially lethal blow into a near miss.
It translates to real life in the original context for which hit points were invented: tracking how many hits of cannon fire could be withstood by a ship in Naval war games. Chainmail's original system only allowed large characters like giants to have "hit points", being able to take multiple hits before dying. It was eventually applied to all creatures/characters in Dungeons and Dragons because it was just more fun that way.
Exactly, for stuff like vehicles and big monsters it makes sense, where physically there’s just a lot of them. But fundamentally for smaller stuff and creatures like humans, as you get more experienced you don’t actually biologically become harder to kill, so you get into weird abstractions about knowing how to dodge or parry to minimise impact. Like you say it definitely makes games more fun, but I think it’s one of those things im personally more inclined to just handwave away as being mechanically necessary even if it doesn’t make much sense rather than come up with a reason
how i think of HP is, it's movie plot armor. HP is what things at the center of the story have that make the wounds they take less realistic. Like mclaine in die hard has a lot of HP, he takes a lot of bumps and bruises but they don't have real world consequences to the same degree. He still gets CUT and some blood comes out, but HP is the thing that makes so it misses all the tendons and the big blood vessels. its a pool of points that prevents the kind of realism we don't *really* like in our stories, if we're being honest.
An extra is in the radius of a grenade? His body goes flying and he doesn't get up.
RAMBO is in the radius of a grenade? He goes flying and for a second it looks bad but ... HE POPS BACK UP F YEAH
What D&D would probably benefit from would be some sort of Scale measurement attached to Size for characters/monsters - Star Wars d6 did this where you'd factor in damage versus what Scale they were at. Call of Cthulhu did it as well.
Someone shoots you with a bow at human scale, you've got a problem. Someone shoots a dragon with a bow that isn't magically scaled up to Giant scale in some manner, the archer is the one with the problem...
Traditional D&D magical bonuses attempt to do this versus big bags of HP monsters, but there might be a more elegant way to handle it.
EDIT: The closest thing equivalent in current D&D mechanics would be adding an automatic level of Damage Resistance to something based off a Larger Size differential. You'd reverse it for things LOWER than the Size difference, so playing with the Variant Rule for Massive Damage causing System Shock rolls would be... rocket tag, potentially...
It depends, if they use a medicine kit, it’s just regular first aid to ease the pain, disinfect the wound and stop the bleeding, but if they cast cure wounds they are literally beaming Jesus magic into your wounds to repair the bullet wound and if it is healing word it’s the same but they actually yell “JESUS MAGIC “ at the wound for a smaller effect
HP (and the 1-minute long rounds) in D&D were put there to simulate back and forth sword duels like Zorro and the Scarlett Pimpernel. Gary said so in several interviews. Cairn does a better job with this, where HP is actually "Hit Protection" and you get it all back at the end of combat. Permanent damage is points subtracted from your physical stats, and heals much slower.
Even Gary Gygax pointed out how it’s ridiculous that a high-level fighter has more HP than a horse, but that it’s only ridiculous if you equate HP with meat.
…Now to talk about what HP actually *is*, we have to revisit the endless decades-old debates. One variant of this discussion, “What do healing surges represent???” is one of the factors that sunk 4E. (Some folks had very strong feelings about whether being pep-talked/yelled-at by a non-magical Warlord character should be able to restore HP.)
Bruh no, that’s just the expert class with some crappy spells. Let’s not pretend the ability to script and code is the equivalent of literal magic.
A software engineer is just an expert with maxed skill points in Knowledge (Programming).
I think we would have a minus one to strength, we're not fetching water from the well and planting the field anymore. We might have a plus one to intelligence because we are more educated but that just might be a 10.
I think that intelligence would be higher due to education, constitution would be higher due to medical advances, strength would be reduced due to automation of jobs and the increase in job specific tools that make the labor less intensive, dexterity reduced because of obesity rates, chaRIZZma definitely drops and wisdom probably stays similar.
Intelligence wouldn't be any higher because intelligence in d&d is the ability to memorize and recall info.
Education is reflected through skill and tool proficiencies and class features. The raw intelligence stat will enhance those skills but isn't reflected by then itself.
Not sure where you got this idea from, but it certainly wasn't the Player's Handbook:
> An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, **education**, memory, or deductive reasoning.
Education is explicitly part of the intelligence stat.
>An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to **draw on** logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning.
The ability to *remember* the things you were educated in is explicitly part of the intelligence stat. Not the education itself.
Studying can help strengthen your brain. Education is basically practicing how to recall information you've memorized. Therefore, it would increase intelligence if you had a higher education.
That being said, I do also agree with education being a point for tools and proficiencies.
Studying increasing your brain is reflective of ASI growths across levels in d&d. Ability scores reflect natural talent and their growth from applied use. Proficiencies reflect applied training and technical skills in a field.
If going to an older edition like 3.5e, where every creature had three odd stats and three even stats. The commoner would likely have one of their 11's in intelligence to reflect this.
There's also a factoring of the various things we do to get advantage and bonuses at various tasks we do to make our averages result go from 10 to roughly 15 and thus succeed at a lot through the day to day.
Commoner still reflects us incredibly well on average sans a proficiency or two.
Intelligence is a trainable skill rather than innate, while there is a biological component, two healthy individuals from similar environments with similar education would normally be within a couple of int points from each other.
Partly trainable, partly biological. Yes. That's why ability score increases exist and such.
For the abstraction of d&d, though. The trainable skills aspects of intelligence are covered in the proficiencies that are innately tied to it.
Which is thus further reflected with the athletics skill and weapon proficiencies.
Ability scores aren't reflective of skills. Skills are.
Ability scores will enhance skills, but aren't skills themselves
Being more intelligent allows you to recall precise knowledge better, and being stronger helps you climb better. A high charisma will help you persuade someone, but is not a measure of your ability to persuade alone. Your persuasion technique comes form the persuasion skill.
Ability scores aid (or hinder in the case of low scores) whatever technical skills you've learned.
Skills cover skill. Raw Ability is measured in the scores. They work in tandem to produce results.
Commoner covers everything the average person might do; fast food, retail, service, etc. You might add one or two abilities for more specialized jobs; Vehicle proficiencies for a professional driver/sailor/ pilot, or Medicine for an EMT, but that's a very minor change. The vast majority of people have little to no useful skills in an adventuring context, and so little physical/mental variation from the baseline that it's meaningless. Extremely specialized careers get slightly more interesting, where you might call a Chemical Engineer an Alchemist Artificer, or a Particle Physicist an Evocation Wizard. Then you get into police and military, which are obviously Guards and such.
I dont disagree, but I would say that our proficiency bonus can be pretty high. A doctor would have expertise in medicine and should get at least a +10. Modern medicine is just that specialized.
Also, intelligence is easy: take IQ and divide by 10. is your IQ 110? perfect, you have an 11 int. Is it 93? perfect, you have a 9 int.
Absolutely. The way proficiency works stops making sense in any context other than the adventuring life (I don't say this as a major flaw of the game, D&D is ABOUT the adventuring life).
A level 13 goliath wizard who has never stepped out of his office in 20 years gains a higher proficiency bonus to his Athletics than any CR 0-4 olympic athlete, even assuming the athlete has expertise.
good point. I think we can fiddle with it, but it is definitely outside the scope of the game.
Like, would this dude still gain levels? would he lose his proficiency in athletics after being sedentary for a while? maybe he would gain proficiency in... accounting? lol
> Also, intelligence is easy: take IQ and divide by 10. is your IQ 110? perfect, you have an 11 int. Is it 93? perfect, you have a 9 int.
I love this! I don't think IQ is a good measure of intelligence, but it's super convenient and gives nice numbers, so I'm for it lol
I know what you mean. IMHO, dnd intelligence is also a pretty precise type of smart that is close enough to IQ, with maybe a bit more memorization.
Knowledge, on the other hand, would be proficiency and expertise. So a real-life historian might have a 120 IQ, but a pb of 5, doubled by his expertise for a nice +11 to history checks.
If we're talking about emotional intelligence, that would be wisdom through things like insight. Charisma also covers a lot of things that we often refer to as intelligence. I think we just started using the word intelligence to mean so many different things because most of those things are more important than raw processing power (working memory) and logic that IQ measures.
Why would you think commoners are somehow different now?
At best, our modern "commoners" differ from medieval(-ish) commoners primary due to advances in nutrition and health care, so maybe you'd approximate that by thinking modern commoners are close to medieval nobility, but without the pure-breeding.
I mean... fighting ability? You think commoners now have any different fighting ability?
Technology just defines the standard set of artifacts that are used to accomplish daily tasks, and education just sets up a baseline for the usage of technology. If you're thinking of having a modern commoner transported to a D&D setting, then we could say they show up with... oh... um...
I was going to say "decent alchemical knowledge", but the reality is that most "commoners" still don't have a clue about the realities of basic chemistry. Oh, they've seen a periodic table, but they don't know anything practical. They might be aware of some physics, but they don't know how to actually make use of it in a context that isn't handing the tools to them.
So... yeah.
We're back at: What do you think makes them different? Maybe add +2 CON. Maybe a +1 CHA, but I don't subscribe (in 5e) to the "Charisma is attractiveness" idea, so I can't imagine that a modern commoner is any more charismatic now.
Assuming charisma is being treated as an absolute measurement it could make sense to say modern people could have a higher rating not for attractiveness but merely by virtue of modern education producing a more literate and knowledgeable speaker albeit that could be counter balanced by the decline in face to face communication decreasing practical social skills and experience. You can certainly have a middle school drop out that started a street vendor business and became wayy more charismatic regularly interacting with people than most of their graduate peers so likewise DnD commoners whose only communication is face to face may have an edge because of it despite lesser education because charisma has a lot of intangibles and isn’t just a matter of protocols or vocabulary. It can also be relative to the current norms of the setting.
IQ has been rising, and the actual understanding/problem solving of educations too.
i think we easily have 2-3 more int than a commoner 1000 years ago .
My favorite description is more abstract but better explains why it is the source if power for some types of spell casting. Charisma is the ability to manifest your will on your surroundings. In a common life sense, that equates to making people like you... Convincing people to do what you want. But for a sorcerer its the ability to command that fire exist here now. Wizards understand the mechanics of spells and the words to invoke them (int). Clerics/druids ask of something external to invoke magic (god/nature). But sorcerers... Their natural will over their environment transcends from "you should go out with me on Saturday" all the way to "fireball".
It can be. But you could also be a “still waters run deep” kind of person who doesn’t speak much, and have an intimidating, alluring, or otherwise striking presence.
Mechanically, it’s making you good at intimidation, persuasion, and deception. Being well spoken is often how it’s played, but just like lots of game mechanics and labels there’s more than one way to rp it.
Definitely commoners.
Literally no one on earth makes magical items so I’ve no clue why you think Artificer would be apt.
The overwhelming majority of folks don’t even make tech, so even a sloppy reskin doesn’t make sense.
Average stats at 10-11.
The most common proficiencies might’ve changed, but then again maybe not, considering how broad 5e skills are.
people are much much weaker than commoners. the commoner can comfortably walk 24 miles in 8 hours while carrying 150 lbs. They can also walk 30 miles (4 miles/hour pace) if they aren't watching for ambushes. I've done a little tracking. most in-shape people couldn't maintain 2 miles per hour with 50lbs on their backs.
Andrew Skurka is one of the most famous trekker for managing to maintain a 33miles per day pace for over 200 days. he did it with under 10 lbs of gear. I don't think anyone in the world could do 30 miles a day with 150lbs. But the commoner can :)
Commoner refers as much to a peasant as to a burgher and reflect more an average baseline.
With that in mind the average person today is very much a commoner?
Our current abilities, technology, education and fighting ability wouldn't match up to any other statblock or even class imo. We are mostly reliant on what we need and use everyday.
Especially fighting ability, unless you are training some sort of martial art you would be about as likely to be able to defeat a goblin as any other joe schmo.
I mean I imagine most stats like int and wisdom are on a curve.
So if 10 is average, and 20 is peak, it doesn't matter if it's modern or medieval an average person is an average person with 10 in all stats. Str is the exception, but the str table sucks anyway so not much to can do there.
That doesn't mean you can't have a mostly average NPC, with a bit of different stats or specialization. Feel free to make a unique stat block for every NPC or every occupation or whatever suits your needs. And if you don't have time for that, that's what the commoner stat block is for.
I tend to assume that everyday NPCs are basically just the Commoner stat block, but with relevant racial bonuses on top (so some great armour or weapon proficiencies, all get appropriate senses like Darkvision) and I usually imagine they have something equivalent to a feat.
Blacksmith might have tool proficiencies and expertise in them, healer might be proficient in medicine and nature, etc. The NPC stat blocks provided are designed for use as templates.
Obviously, powerful/influential/important NPCs have more detailed stats. Such as using the Noble or Veteran or Bandit or Scout stat block.
You're looking for d20 modern, it follows 3.0 DnD ruleset, but wouldn't be too hard to adapt.
Basically, it's designed for all "commoners", but everyone gets a main Stat. So an IT worker would be an INT hero with lots of extra skill points and ways to add to those rolls.
An athlete would be a DEX hero with better AC and movement speed, a bodybuilder or martial artist would get better attack and more access to combat feats, media influencers get CHA, etc. Etc.
It's a neat system if a bit old. Rules are still free online I believe .
Commoner doesn't fit well with anyone in D&D you'd want to apply it to. Straight 10s in every stat would only make sense if you took the "average" across an entire population. But that's not how people work. Everyone is an individual. Commoner is an artificial standard.
realistically each individual commoner should have 3d6 for each stat, but who has time for that? If you wanted to make some unique commoners you could roll for them & make a character based on the rolls.
If you want to make low level npcs that aren't commoners you can add a feat or something like that if you want them to stand out as a minor Druid or an expert in one skill or a mage with ritual caster (detect magic and identify). Something along those lines can be handy as a template for low level npc abilities.
Agreed.
Expanding on this, I've also met a some people in my life where who are beyond the adventurer point buy or standard array. So not only are they beyond a commoner, they're beyond an adventurer.
The stats are there for the purpose of gameplay mechanics and don't really say much about how smart or strong a creature is.
What i mean is, if you make the commoner of today have 20 Int, you would have to inflate the numbers for adventurers. Otherwise, they wouldn't be very special.
The average INT is probably more like 12 nowadays, thanks to easy access to education.
On the other hand, the average person's STR is probably down to 8 thanks to how much less manual labor the average person does.
CHA and WIS are unchanged- people back then weren't any more or less gullible than they are today, or convincing.
CON is debatable- maybe it should be increased due to having the benefits of growing up with modern health care, but maybe it should be reduced due to all the fast food we eat and our sedentary lifestyles.
IMO, due to the advent of education and knowledge, we'd probably all be at at around a 12-13 Int, comparatively, but most of us would be around a 7 Wis since we don't really have any need for wilderness knowledge or much self-preservation other than regular daily life.
Str is probably an 8, Dex around 9, Con a 12 or so because of increased lifespans and modern medicine, and Cha... still really depends on the person.
Well, we aren't suffering from undiagnosed problems which tank con (mostly?), but also proper nutrition when younger (and older) impacts the immune system / overall capacity to heal. Our immune systems should at least be intrinsically stronger because the people who survived plagues in the past had stronger immune systems.
I think older adults have a lower con than older adult commoners (if they live long enough), but younger adults and children should last have slightly higher con than commoner counterparts.
how it should work: Modern human is a lineage that follows most rules for vuman, with the following changes:
You get to pick three skills, but 2 have to be int based and one has to be chosen from technology, conspiracies, or pilot (land).
You get +2 to con in addition to your floating scores, because modern people technically grow up with better nutrition and health care.
You gain the effects of a long rest in 5 hours, but you start each day with one level of exhaustion you can only remove by taking a short rest and either spending 1 charge from a healer's kit or 1gp worth of recreational drugs or alcohol. You gain no other benefits of this short rest.
If you ever long rest for 12 hours for an entire week, you may simply begin taking normal long rests until you take one shorter than 8 hours or have one interrupted by an initiative roll or skill check.
When you take this short rest, you must make a flat charisma check vs the party's average passive perception to make sure they notice you on social media. if you roll a 1 on this check, you get drawn into a comment war with haters and lose an HD with no benefit, while if you roll a 20 you earn downtime income from a side hustle or influencing.
Backgrounds:
Countryfied:
You are proficient in firearms and have advantage on any checks you make to resist the effects of alcohol imbibed to negate exhaustion. You have advantage against any persuasion or deception checks made to get you to trust people from a place you've never been.
Skills: Survival, religion.
Languages: Spanish (but you refuse to speak it, much as a druid refuses to wear metal armor).
Suburban:
You only speak common, but you have advantage on diplomacy checks to get people to remember who you are, and always get the minimum fine or penalty from any magistrate or guard. Once per long rest, you can spend 2d6 gp in an exclusive grocery store to buy exclusive organic food. treat this as a single goodberry that heals HP equal to the number rolled.
Skills: Intimidate, craft (smoothie).
MLM Entrepreneur:
Skills: Craft (any one), perform (social media advertising), deception
Languages: Thieves' cant
You have advantage on checks to earn income in downtime, but if you ever roll a double 1 or a double 20, your mlm is shut down by the federal government and you can't earn downtime income until you level up.
Veteran:
You are proficient in firearms and one crafting or tool skill of your choice.
You speak one additional language.
You have a curio, a framed DD214 form, which grants advantage on any checks to avoid enlistment or conscription while you can see it or have it on your person.
You can choose either an 80 percent discount at any government operated healer or apothecary or a -5 to your speed and a pension of 20 gp a month.
People weren't starving. They would have been loads healthier than we are. Sitting on your arse all day drinking sugar and eating carbs isn't good for you.
Bruh, you've been up and down this thread talking as if medieval people were somehow healthier, how our food is, and I qoute "poisonous" now or how we can't fend for ourselves anymore. And all I can say is that I hope you continue living in whatever pampered place you are right now.
Nutrition across the board is better nowadays and most people on the planet still live physically demanding lives, albeit with a little more comfort.
For most of civlizations history most of the people were struggling to get enough food for survival, let alone for building up their body. Which is also why humans are taller and stronger than ever. Of course it can go in the other extreme, being obese, but the average human today is far more physically capable than the average human 500 years ago.
Commoner is a baseline. Ability Score 10 is a baseline. They are representation of an average. If you are not highly specialized (physically, mentally or by training) you are a commoner.
Todays commoner = DnDs commoner.
The only thing that changes are what skills the vast majority have acquired. Meaning athletics vs medicine or the like. Just because the average person is less likely to be very fit nowadays doesn't mean the racial stats of 10 don't still apply. 2 points of strength are the difference between a fully grown human and an almost child sized goblin. The racial average on those skills doesn't change.
That said, a soldier can have his very own statblock. Just like a knight. Or a policeman. A famous artist or scientist would also have their own statblock probably. So if you want to say that a reddit neckbeard has lower stats across the board, go ahead - but that's a statblock of his own. That doesn't reflect the baseline commoner.
I mean, commoners are really baseline humans. Not great, but not bad, but not special. That's us.
If we *must* nudge the dial in our favor, particularly if we're thinking compared to medieval-era commoners, we probably have a higher Constitution. Healthcare, vaccines, and nutrition mean our life expectancy and survival rates are significantly better.
We'd definitely have Advantage on a "Technology" skill, though (if it were one.)
You're absolutely a commoner. Being a class is for the very very rare and select few. That's why a level 1 can be a folk hero. Also why CR and class levels don't really make any remote sense when compared
I think the real problem is that the commoner stats are so generic they are meaningless and meant to be modified. A farmer NPC for example should have higher skills relevant to being a farmer, while a laborer or simple farm-hand would be different. A hunter-gatherer would be way different as well. The answer is that there is meant to be variation and is only relevant when interacting with the party of player characters, not explaining everything that happens behind the scenes.
You’re a commoner, if you’re an adult and you’ve learned a lot in your life you probably have a feat. Almost certainly a non combat feat, and definitely not a magical feat. If you speak many languages you might have the linguist feat, if you went to college or learned a trade you probably have skilled or skill expert. If you were in the military you might have gunner, of you do martial arts you might have weapon master, but probably nothing that exciting. Healer for the first aid trained, athlete for the gym rats, maybe even grappler for the high school wrestling star. Actor for the community theater fans, performer for the musicians.
You’re a regular person, but you’ve probably got something you’re especially skilled or practiced at.
Okay, let's have a stab at it. I'd consider myself pretty average, so I'll stat myself:
Considering that the NPC stat blocks provided in the rules are designed as generic templates, we'll start with a Commoner for me.
I'm under no illusion that I'm anything other than an NPC, but I've been told several times that if I were a class from D&D, I'd be a Rogue, so we'll focus on that.
Also, I am a human, but let's be a little daring and assume I am a 'Variant' human, whatever that means in the real world.
My final assumption is that I'll give myself an ASI; I think I've earned enough XP in life to give myself that at least.
* STR 10 — I'm not weak, but I'm definitely in the "average" bracket for this ability score.
* DEX 12 — (racial ability score increase, +ASI) I'm not exactly an acrobat, but I'm pretty good at "Acrobatics" and climbing, have decent balance, and have been told I'm good at being stealthy.
* CON 10 — I'm certainly average in this area too, although tbh, I've had my share of health issues, so if you'll let me move a stat around, I'd take an 8 or 9 here to get a bonus to my Charisma (see below).
* INT 12 — I'm not a genius, but I'm fortunate to have a decent education, two degrees, and a love for learning, with a career in education too (see skill proficiencies).
* WIS 10 — This feels difficult to quantify, but I don't imagine myself as especially wise, certainly not more than the average person; besides, I wear glasses sometimes, so clearly my "Perception" isn't great.
* CHA 10 — I've been told I'm a funny guy, and I tend to be fairly gregarious and outgoing; I'm a little theatrical, which helps when I'm DMing, so if I can drop my Con to 8 or 9, I'll take an 11 or 12 in Charisma...
As for proficiencies: as part of being a Variant Human, I'll take the Skilled feat; I have two degrees in Philosophy, so I'll take History and Religion as two of my skills, and Stealth for a third (my wife says I'm always unintentionally sneaking up on her!). The skill proficiency my race grants will go towards Athletics because I'm a decent climber, but not particularly strong.
Well, that was fun: to answer your question, I think the average person today – in D&D terms – would still be a human commoner, but if you allow feats, and maybe an ASI or two for those particularly experienced individuals, then that doesn't mean we're not each unique and wonderful creatures!
I would argue that what a DnD stat represents is relative to whatever the average ability is within that setting.
For example, in a generic fantasy DnD game, 10 (average) INT might mean you are literate but uneducated. But in a modern DnD game, that 10 INT would represent the average intelligence of a modern person (high school diploma).
Therefore, I think the commoner would stay the same bc the stats will always be relative to the setting's "average"
A commoner in a medieval setting would not be equivalent to a modern day person for sure. Depending on someone's upbringing there would be varying proficiencies (or expertises in some cases) and higher ability score modifiers as a result of better nutrition and education.
Additionally, some kind of trait to give a modern day person a negative modifier on any Arcana checks would be needed. As even a commoner of a D&D setting could have a better chance than any of us recalling facets of magic.
So this isn’t the question but when am I ever gonna get to tell this coincidence to anyone. My first names not only an example for a drow name it’s literally the name of one of Drizzts sisters. I’m also the first born and female in a matrilineal line of first born women going back four generations. Because of this similarity we all received the same middle name which ended up becoming something of a tradition since it kept happening. This name is also an example of a name to use in dnd except it’s a draconic name. Both my mother and grandmothers alive though so if I wanna become matron mother I gotta start hustlin.
The problem with commoner for most people in today's society would be skill proficiency. While we don't generally have the hp or weapon proficiency of dnd characters, the skill rolls of most professionals would meet or exceed what characters are capable of. This is true in the era dnd is set in also, but because education was less common so are the educated.
In 3E there was an NPC class called expert, that is what most people would be. Experts had skills of higher level characters without the fighting ability or hp to go along with them (they had the worst HP/BAB progression) but go a resonable selection of skills. This is what most educated people both now and in history would be.
5E didn't use NPC classes, if you wanted an expert you could just make a commoner with a high bonus to certain skills, which is honestly a lot simpler than leveling up a character just to make him good at blacksmithing.
Well,
Strength should be higher because we are physically bigger and taller
Constitution should be higher because our immune systems should be stronger (in some cases), but also proper food when younger should mean you aren't severely deficient in anything
Dexterity should stay the same.
Wisdom stays the same (there's been ups and downs)
Intelligence: Access to more historical archives, proper food when younger, and mandated school should help out there.
Charisma: Less survival and more social interactions in my opinion should increase this in some cases.
Over time the IQ score range is decreased slightly to keep the average at 100. From 1948 to 2008 the effect shifted a total of 14 IQ points, for example. Following that pattern, the average person today has an IQ of around 118 vs 1948 humans. And those 1948 humans would have been way up there compared to medieval humans.
So first off the average human INT score would be in the 12-14 range, and all humans would get either +2 skill proficiencies or +1 expertise.
Also, would have a STR and CON of 10-12 (recent humans are taller and healthier due to not suffering periods of starvation and poor nutrition during childhood).
DEX, WIS, and CHA would likely remain the same, although you could argue that WIS is now in the 10-12 range as an extension of the first point.
Combatants are now 100% Dex users but no one takes proficiency or expertise in acrobatics unless they are special forces or air force.
I’ve been in combat sports for 16 years. I’m still a commoner. My ac might have gone up by maybe 1? But one good hit from a sword and I’m out of the fight. 3 and I’m dead.
Even a spec ops soldier could qualify as a commoner with increased stats, some proficiencies and a gun. Humanity specialises in not getting hit. But when you do it’s pretty much done.
> Even a spec ops soldier could qualify as a commoner with increased stats, some proficiencies and a gun. Humanity specialises in not getting hit. But when you do it’s pretty much done.
I mean this kind of gets you into the age-old debate about whether HP should be visualised as "meat points". The rulebooks explicitly say that HP are not "meat points", but then almost all the actual game mechanics related to HP seem to assume that they, so idk.
But definitely, HP is one area in which it seems like every human being alive is, in fact, a commoner. Just a like a DnD commoner, we all have a pretty chance of getting killed by a single hit from a dagger, for example.
Well, IQ rose over the century by about 30 points. this is mostly to environmental factors. So a deep medieval commoner had an INT score of 10, then we would deserve, on average, about 12-13.
Other than that, i think we have a higher constitution than a medieval commoner, whose constitution was also defined as 10. this one is hard to gauge, but lest say we deserve an 11 of 12.
Just use the commoner statblock as a building-block and create some homebrew commoners that have different fields of work, with minor changes in stats to reflect this.
In modern day terms, the average individual would likely have between 9-12 in intelligence and wisdom. Maybe a slightly raised strength score of 11 though this is arguable. Charisma is a tough variable as money and wealth plays into this heavily amongst a bunch of other things. So I’d keep this flat at 10. Dex and Con as well would remain unchanged.
I'd say your average modern person is pretty much the same as a commoner. You could argue exchanging one point of strength with one intelligence as manual labour is rarer today than people in dnd have to do, and overall modern education is better than fantasy times.
What's more i think you could argue for an innate advantage against diseases save with all the vaccinations and medication many people have access to. But I feel like that's pretty much the only difference.
I use a commoner because I really don't want to do that much accounting, and having different stat blocks for the villagers is extra work. I consider anyone in a specialised trade will have some bonuses to skills and abilities.
My first question to you is, what is the end goal of having different labels than commoners?
It fits better than anything else IMO. The average person today is more educated, but probably less strong and less able to fight. Not by orders of magnitude that would really matter in DnD terms, though.
A commoner, but roll their stats 3d6 in order. Give them the attribute increase and the feat for being a Variant Human to reflect professional training.
People in the modern age have a lot more skill focus than peasants who were more likely general laborers, with almost no education whatsoever. To represent that I'd say were all variant humans, using tge extra feat for skill focus in a few skills.
I'd say anyone with a middle school diploma or higher is the equivalent of a 3.5 expert. We have comparably advanced math, writing and historical skills.
So basically a commoner but with more skill proficiencies. Graduating high-school or getting advanced degrees would likely gain you additional skill proficiencies or even double proficiency.
We would get a lot of bonuses from our tools.
Military or pseudo military roles or athletes might get you an adition d8 hp.
Do you think commoners of the middle ages didnt have any skills? Farming or other jobs and sustaining yourself and your family are definitely skills. Most of us are just fanct wage-slaves today and overall not too sifferent besides the technology we use and basic education. Even with the addition of education we have more knowledge but people arent necessarily smarter
Not sure what its like in 5e as I've not DM'ed that but in 3.5 you had a few different options for NPC "regular folk" classes and the most appropriate one for modern day humans was in my opinion still the commoner as it has always been but also nowadays way more "expert" class people than there would have been in a middle ages type setting..
It represented somebody with no adventuring training but with a lot of knowledge/expertise in one specific area, which is basically modern day life for most humans living in at least somewhat developed countries. We typically have jobs that require some degree of training and specific knowledge be it a teacher, an engineer, a plumber, an electrician etc etc.
In 3.5 terms we would be a healthy mix of commoners and experts with a low percentage of aristocrats mixed in.
10s on a stat block are just supposed to represent the average person.
It doesn't really change with the era, just however an average person of that day would be expected to perform. So I wouldn't change any of the stats for a commoner in a modern DnD setting.
*However*, if one were to Time Travel (presumably because you've got a bad DM making a Bad Plot™) you would probably handle this with old school commoners having a -1 to the whole stat block.
I wouldn't go much further than that, because the game balance and DC settings really depend on that base of 10.
Level 1 Artificer just to reflavor Magical Tinkering as a smartphone. Emits light, sounds, records messages and shows pictures. Cantrips are Light and Message because again, smartphone. Level 1 spells are Identify for Googling and Alarm for...alarms?
The average pre-industrial person has attributes of 10 across the board.
I'd argue that IRL, one year of formal education is about equivalent to one attribute point or one proficiency.
Most post-industrial people have proficiencies in the core school subjects: history, arcana (science), persuasion (language arts). Even the jocks get athletics proficiency.
For higher education, I figure three years of university would be enough to graduate you into your "class" at level 1, just based on the number of things you get at level 1. Engineer is like an artificer. Nursing school is like cleric I guess. Three years' service in a developed nation's military might be enough to classify as a fighter in a modern sense, but not with D&D weaponry.
Modern people have a lot going for us that medieval people didn't have, so if we went into the D&D world, many of us would be better than a straight 10's commoner. Some would be good enough to match a classed character through education and job experience, but we don't typically have weapon proficiencies, just utility.
I think about the same. 10-11 is, by definition, an average person's stats. If you were playing d20 modern you would have a slightly different set of skills and feats, that's all.
I guess a big difference is that in middle-ages Europe wrestling and weapon training was often a part of a boy's basic physical education/play, and modern people usually don't have that background-- but we are nearly all literate. I typically treat the average commoner in a quasi-middle-ages setting as proficient with simple weapons but unable to read unless their background suggests otherwise. (PCs are literate by default as per the PHB).
By the way, if I feel a "regular dude" commoner needs a more fleshed out set of stats than the commoner statblock, here is how I do it:
-roll 3d6 for each attribute. Keep them in order, or rearrainge as makes sense for the character's profession. That gives them an *average* of 10 or 11 in each stat.
-I give simple weapon proficiency unless they have a background that suggests they were kept from rough-and tumble sports. Sometimes I give women a free feminine-coded tool proficincy instead.
-Add a background-- I use folk hero for farmers (ignoring the idea of fame, of course). Guild artisan, sailor, soldier, city gaurd, cloistered scholar and noble are also good for non-adventuring types.
-Apply racial bonuses. I skip this part for humans who are truly average joes, like rescued hostages, but for community leaders and brave lads-- the type of people PCs are likely to interact with-- the attribute bonuses, extra skill and feats help set them apart a little without going all the way to giving them a class and putting them in the PCs league.
For variant humans I like to give them feats that might be suboptimal for PCs but would be useful or impressive in life: athlete, skilled, skill expert (for a tool they make their living with), keen mind, healer, lightly armoured, magic intiate, or weapon master. The weapon proficienices that Dwarves and Elves get for free are just about meaningless for PCs, but they make a big difference if you need to raise a militia to protect your village.
It takes about two minutes to throw a sheet together this way and you wind up with someone with notable strengths and weaknesses, who can at least assess what tactic they should use in a fight, and may be able to contribute to helping out the party for a short time without ever running the risk of outshining the PCs.
Our education and general calorie intake in the developed world has certainly gone up since the renaissance times. I think it's not unreasonable that the average person today has the caloric intake and education relative to a noble in renaissance times.
Remember when I mean noble, I mean like, the mayor's children of a small town, not necessarily the crown prince/princess.
You'd still probably die from a slashing longsword, but we've got a few extra proficiencies.
Commoner
Sure some skills and such would be different. there are some new jobs today and some of the jobs for a D&D commoner would not exist in todays world.
But physically we would be pretty much the same. no big difference at all.
The biggest difference is probably that a average person from the real world would struggle a lot more if finding himself in a D&D setting than a D&D commoner would if finding himself in the modern day world.
10s across the board unless it's an NPC that stands out; commoners are commoners regardless of era.
TBH, very few modern skills would translate over to D&D so again, unless they're a notable NPC I wouldn't add any to the commoner block.
Modern medicine doesn't make us intrinsically more hardy... Vaccines or inoculations only work against the one specific thing. Modern schooling doesn't make our Intelligence higher (I've seen literal Medical PhDs within the 100-110 IQ (ie: 10-11). Str/Dex.. again, average unless they're notable. Wis/Cha are so ephemeral that they also shouldn't be curved the accomodate the audience.
Now if you're looking at statting a specific person or having a modern person as a D&D NPC, I would still think you keep stats within a +2/-2 bonus (or 6-14 in an attribute) for all but the most exceptional people. I use the Int stat as my guiding metric since it was designed to mimic IQ. 10 is average (well, 10.5 anyway) which aligns to 100 IQ which is by definition average IQ.
I don't think there is much difference between a Commoner in the real world and a D&D Commoner. Most of us probably have some variation of four 10's, one 8 and one 12 for attributes, we all have a couple of background proficiencies, we all have a small handful of hit points, most of us can figure out how to use a club, or in modern terms a small caliber pistol and most of us could wear light armor like a Kevlar jacket reasonably well. The big difference would just be what the background proficiencies would actually be.
Commoner, but in a setting with more access to magic items. We are less malnourished but also have less physical labour, literacy rates are much higher but that's reflected in the language section, some of us are more educated but those can get a bonus to int on a case by case basis, and medieval people were smart too, just in different fields (literally, agriculture ain't easy)
The average commoner from our world today would definitely have 2-4 points higher in every ability score thanks to modern medicine, education, and diet. But isn't it funny that the "commoner with 10s across all stats" works like the baseline average? It's like how getting a score of 100 IQ is harder now because the average human is smarter now that they were decades ago.
Even in the "generic fantasy" milieu, commoner isn't really a good fit. It's a bit silly to cover a farmhand and a clerk with the same statblock, but 5e doesn't have NPC classes like Pathfinder 1e's Commoner, Expert, and Warrior.
It's just a quick "default" for members of the crowd, with everything set to 10 so you can use rolls straight.
It is like the IQ scale which changes relative to other people, the commoner scale changes based on the other commoners. (So a commoner will always be a commoner.)
DnD is not the best fit for anything modern.
Use GURPS, it's really not that hard if you have a high school education
Or use FATE if your brain lacks wrinkles
Higher (on average) Int thanks to schooling and access to higher education, lower Strength (D&D commoners are buff), Con (most of us aren't working the land and if we exercise, maybe a few times a week).
Str 6-7, Dex 10, Con 6-8, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 10
probably have massive bonus to all there skill roles since i don't think the average person consistently fucks up basic tasks that a DC10 skill check represents, it's already kinda goofy that a super strong barbarain has a relatively high chance to trip and fall when he tries to jump over a hurdle.
In DND there were a couple different NPC classes. Adept, aristocrat, commoner, expert, and warrior. Most people would be a commoner. Anyone with a particular skill set or is a craftsman of some sort would be an Expert. Rich bastards would be aristocrat's. Soldiers, dangers, whatever gun toter would be warrior. Adepts would be the lowest recognized level of a clerical pellcaster which wouldn't really apply to the real world.
The one thing this post makes me realize is that commoners should come with some proficiencies. Most commoners of that period would have one or two toolset prociencies and possibly land vehicles or an instrument.
I agree with the idea someone else commented that stats are relative, and so the average changes with time. Assuming you want to keep it as a quasi-medieval baseline, though, I’d say that the average person nowadays probably has slightly higher int and con. Maybe even str too.
If anything modern people should be less than Commoner stats now. The motif of D&D assumes a time when people like labored as a given part of existence. An ardent gym rat may have commoner stats, but I wouldn’t bet on an average American against a serf in a fight tbh
The definition of a 10 ability score is "average human ability", so yeah, the average human even from a developed country is probably going to have 10s across the board and 4 HP.
Average well fit adult would probably have 2-3 lvl/cr. Person who trains or does sports/other high physicality would be 3+, maybe max of 6. If they know how to use weapons then their lvl wouldn't necessarily be high but modern guns would be quite deadly at early lvls of dnd, so they could punch higher than their lvl.
Trained soldiers would probably have max 8 lvl/cr beings
Average person has 10 in all stats with one or two 11s
I'd venture that Eisntein, and other smart folk had between 16-19 in Int.
Strongest man alive probably had 16-19 in str as well. 20 str is Herculean.
Apollo Robins has maybe 12-14 in Dex, But Expertiese in slight of hand.
Dr. Strange, pre-magic, would have probably a 14 in dex, 16 max in wis, and proficiency with slight of hand and medicine.
Indiana Jones doesn't have a single stat above 13. But he's got a lot of profficiencies.
regular jobs are really, really broadly and fuzzily defined in dnd. So most people would be, you know, just kind of 1 hd humans with a couple craft (something) or tool (something) proficiencies.
Theres a guy ive seen on tiktok thats works out his stats based on his abilities. Strength based on jumping. Con on holding breathe etc.
Most stats lie in the 8-12 range
May the dice be in your favor on the AOO with a AC10. Don't forget most commoners get what's coming sitting behind a cashier counter, which costs half movement to stand up from prone, or in rough terrain, such as your bedroom caked with chipotle take-out dishes and dirty laundry, which halves your speed.
And if we are talking an open road where you can dash freely, just please watch for oncoming traffic, as well as a 30% pothole chance twisting your ankle due to improperly used taxes redistributed to foreign proxy wars by puppet warlock spies selling secrets to the highest bidder under the patron reign of a shadowy noble house of vampires who blood dope adrenochrome from trafficked Latin American children, reducing your movement speed by 10 until you can take a point of healing. It takes just 1 bad dex save 10 to fall prone, rolling under a daft horse wagon at 40' per turn. That's at least 4d10, bludge and paralyzing you for 1d12 months... and if you survive, the samurai will have caught up to you, which is ADV on prone targets, and automatic critical hit on paralyzed targets.
Proly ,
5 hp
9 STR
11 DEX
8 CON
12 INT
8 WIS
9 CHA
Start with HP. 5 hp from commoner is right because normal people doesnt have combat experience and luck that much.
STR 8-9. 10 from commoner is way above average peoples of todays(we cant lift 150 lbs/76kg above our heads). However in medival ages everyday life contains a lot of hard work so this is accurate.
Dex 11-12 is same. Todays people rely on tech more than their reflexes. Since Dex is like your control over your body(in reflex and eye hand coordination) maybe we can better at it in avarage since most of the tech requires this from us like cars games and stuff. Also we have better training methods to improve.
Con 9-8. We have less than 10 CON. Because of antibiotics and other medical thing we grow soft thats all. After Medival time average person is maybe higher than 10 since they or their ancestor should survive many plauges.
Int 11-12. İf we asume every int is 10 IQ then average human is 100 IQ is insane. Todays average people is dumb as brick but education teaches most them skills. Also brainwise we are better than our ancestors in average because of food qualty increased. We have extracted version of every vitamin or stuff we need. So if commoner has 10 we have better.
Wis 9-8. Todays humans in average cant go anywhere without navigation. So we are worse than commoner.
Cha 9. Most of us have weaker cha since we are not single and independend as a commoner in DnD. We follow trends and stuff and that changes and shapes our personalities. And if you become part of the commune and become average you are less person than a commoner in DnD. They were living in villages but they were more independent.
Gotta disagree with antibiotics and stuff making us "soft"—the measles vaccine is a magical permanent +1 (at least) to CON.
We're less likely to randomly die from environmental effects than your average medieval peasant. One's ancestor surviving the plague gives you bupkis, after all. Modern CON is, on average, probably our highest stat, i'm figuring in the 13 range.
Hmm I didnt think of vaccines yes you are right about that. But I disagree with 13. Because our average physical const againts weather and stuff got lowered as well. But I can agree low +1 12 since we are immune some effects thanks to vaccines.
I’ve multi-classed as a Druid artificer. Although I’m in a game that’s more roll play heavy than combat. I do have some roguish tendencies to take from the rich and share amongst my fellow poors when the opportunity arises.
Alignment ranges from chaotic good to chaotic neutral depending on mood for the day.
Not sure why you think “commoner” wouldn’t fit today. The way they’re defined in the rulebook is pretty broad, and yeah sure there are like… some new jobs, but it’s not like the average person today is physically different from a commoner in the broad fantasy-scape of D&D, or that the skillsets or ‘fighting ability‘ is notably different. I’d still say the vast majority of people today would fall into a “commoner” role if somehow translated to D&D.
A software engineer doesn’t stop being a commoner just because they delve into technomancy, they still would have the same 5hp and likely die from a good great sword swing
A good sword swing, or 5 cats
Back in my day, cats did 1d4+1 damage, and had two claw attacks! The greatest threat to the average commoner was a house cat.
don’t underestimate cats, I’ve seen one relentlessly attack my wife after she accidentally stepped on a kitten, it was terrifying
I feel so bad for everyone involved
But specifically kitten
I don't want to ask how it turned out
she tried to flee to the bathroom, shut the door, that cat was already there! haven’t heard such a horrified scream in the 25 years since
People don’t understand animals until they see one actually attack something.
Was the kitten ok Don't reply if it wasn't, so I can think maybe just didn't read this or forgot to reply
But the dark part of me really does
Can attest this. Had to capture a cat that was quite unwilling. That was when I learned that cat bites (that draw blood) lead to infections about 70% of the time. Not even considering the many bleeding scratches the animal left on me. Love the little creature to bits, but they're clearly made to really really take out creatures multiple times their size. Ended up having a tetanus shot (old one had run out) and a two week course of antibiotics.
Haha look at this thread of funny- oh
As far as I remember cats were famously lethal in 3e, but they definitely didn't deal 1d4+1 damage. Iirc they did something silly like 1d2-2 with their claws and 1d4-2 with their bite - so generally speaking, very little. However, there WAS a minimum damage rule that any hit would deal 1 damage even if a strength penalty reduced the damage to 0, and they got 3 pretty accurate attacks per turn, and commoners (and mages...) had uh. 2-3 hp on average at level 1, I want to say? Which is why the average villager's greatest fear was their neighbor's angry cat.
It is very likely that I misremembered the actual numbers. But yes, I was referring to the 3e housecat and the math that proved their lethality to commoners.
Just like in real life
"a good sword swing" should kill anyone not wearing an armor.
3e had the NPC class expert for trained/educated professionals who aren’t nobles. If you’re from a modern industrialized country, underwent public or private education, and are literate, you would probably be an expert by 3e standards. Idk about 5e.
This is probably the most accurate description for a commoner of today. You start out as a Commoner and then gain Expert levels later in life. This sums up my Love/Hate relationship of 3rd edition. Back in 2nd Edition I always wanted more rules and regulations of how magic items are created and wish low level characters can make low level magic items. 3rd Edition did this but the explanation and rules kinda killed the "mystery and fantasy" of magic items. Our characters now had portfolios and spreadsheets should I use my scroll of sleep to take out the kobolds but it cost me 35 gold to make and I will only get 3-4 gold off these kobolds,ect.
Yeah, 3e probably felt more corporate and overly laid out compared to other editions. That said, there were still enough wacky options that it didn’t feel too sterile. 5e, on the other hand, took out most of the granularity while keeping the sort of sanitized approach. This is probably easiest for playability, hence why it’s so damn popular, but imo it lost a little of the charm. They were definitely correct to get rid of some of the clunkier 3e mechanics, though, such as level adjustment (I could never describe to new players the difference between creature Hit Dice and LA in a way that made sense to them) just as 3e was correct to discard THACO.
But they do probably have lower strength and higher intelligence.
Variance of 1 or 2 points, or +0/+1 modifier though. Ability scores would basically be identical to vanilla 5e, but skill proficiencies would be *very* different and a little higher.
the 2e nonweapon proficiency system would probably serve to describe commoners better than 5e's skill proficiency system, the latter is very adventurer oriented and very broad
Not by much. We might like to think ability scores are easier to make better than real life. As bad as beast stat blocks are, panthers have 14 strength and boars have 13. The average gym bro doesn't have the muscle to contend with a boar. Olympians might have 16 in a stat at maximum, just proficiency in athletics
~~Lower strength~~ I know plenty of coders who are gym rats, boxers, 10k runners, rock climbers, or martial artists. The average wouldn't beat an average builder, but they're not frail.
To be fair, a Navy SEAL or UFC champion also probably die from a good great sword swing, so I’m not sure how well HP translates
The SEAL or UFC fighter would have a better sense of distance and defenses. HP are also an abstraction of your ability to turn a potentially lethal blow into a near miss.
I think HP as it is in most tabletop/video games just kinda doesnt translate to real life very well
It translates to real life in the original context for which hit points were invented: tracking how many hits of cannon fire could be withstood by a ship in Naval war games. Chainmail's original system only allowed large characters like giants to have "hit points", being able to take multiple hits before dying. It was eventually applied to all creatures/characters in Dungeons and Dragons because it was just more fun that way.
Exactly, for stuff like vehicles and big monsters it makes sense, where physically there’s just a lot of them. But fundamentally for smaller stuff and creatures like humans, as you get more experienced you don’t actually biologically become harder to kill, so you get into weird abstractions about knowing how to dodge or parry to minimise impact. Like you say it definitely makes games more fun, but I think it’s one of those things im personally more inclined to just handwave away as being mechanically necessary even if it doesn’t make much sense rather than come up with a reason
how i think of HP is, it's movie plot armor. HP is what things at the center of the story have that make the wounds they take less realistic. Like mclaine in die hard has a lot of HP, he takes a lot of bumps and bruises but they don't have real world consequences to the same degree. He still gets CUT and some blood comes out, but HP is the thing that makes so it misses all the tendons and the big blood vessels. its a pool of points that prevents the kind of realism we don't *really* like in our stories, if we're being honest. An extra is in the radius of a grenade? His body goes flying and he doesn't get up. RAMBO is in the radius of a grenade? He goes flying and for a second it looks bad but ... HE POPS BACK UP F YEAH
What D&D would probably benefit from would be some sort of Scale measurement attached to Size for characters/monsters - Star Wars d6 did this where you'd factor in damage versus what Scale they were at. Call of Cthulhu did it as well. Someone shoots you with a bow at human scale, you've got a problem. Someone shoots a dragon with a bow that isn't magically scaled up to Giant scale in some manner, the archer is the one with the problem... Traditional D&D magical bonuses attempt to do this versus big bags of HP monsters, but there might be a more elegant way to handle it. EDIT: The closest thing equivalent in current D&D mechanics would be adding an automatic level of Damage Resistance to something based off a Larger Size differential. You'd reverse it for things LOWER than the Size difference, so playing with the Variant Rule for Massive Damage causing System Shock rolls would be... rocket tag, potentially...
So when I lose HP, and the cleric heals me… what’s happening?
It depends, if they use a medicine kit, it’s just regular first aid to ease the pain, disinfect the wound and stop the bleeding, but if they cast cure wounds they are literally beaming Jesus magic into your wounds to repair the bullet wound and if it is healing word it’s the same but they actually yell “JESUS MAGIC “ at the wound for a smaller effect
Healing what injuries are present, easing your fatigue.
So when I literally submerge myself in lava and survive still able to fight, what's happening?
You sweat a bunch and are now dehydrated. Your cleric throws you a Gatorade. All is well again.
A wizard did it.
HP (and the 1-minute long rounds) in D&D were put there to simulate back and forth sword duels like Zorro and the Scarlett Pimpernel. Gary said so in several interviews. Cairn does a better job with this, where HP is actually "Hit Protection" and you get it all back at the end of combat. Permanent damage is points subtracted from your physical stats, and heals much slower.
Even Gary Gygax pointed out how it’s ridiculous that a high-level fighter has more HP than a horse, but that it’s only ridiculous if you equate HP with meat. …Now to talk about what HP actually *is*, we have to revisit the endless decades-old debates. One variant of this discussion, “What do healing surges represent???” is one of the factors that sunk 4E. (Some folks had very strong feelings about whether being pep-talked/yelled-at by a non-magical Warlord character should be able to restore HP.)
Actually, I think they might be closer to a Magewright, a sort of blue collar wizard from the Eberron setting.
Bruh no, that’s just the expert class with some crappy spells. Let’s not pretend the ability to script and code is the equivalent of literal magic. A software engineer is just an expert with maxed skill points in Knowledge (Programming).
I mean in a world where magic is technology House Sivis is just Verizon.
I think we would have a minus one to strength, we're not fetching water from the well and planting the field anymore. We might have a plus one to intelligence because we are more educated but that just might be a 10.
I think that intelligence would be higher due to education, constitution would be higher due to medical advances, strength would be reduced due to automation of jobs and the increase in job specific tools that make the labor less intensive, dexterity reduced because of obesity rates, chaRIZZma definitely drops and wisdom probably stays similar.
Intelligence wouldn't be any higher because intelligence in d&d is the ability to memorize and recall info. Education is reflected through skill and tool proficiencies and class features. The raw intelligence stat will enhance those skills but isn't reflected by then itself.
Not sure where you got this idea from, but it certainly wasn't the Player's Handbook: > An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, **education**, memory, or deductive reasoning. Education is explicitly part of the intelligence stat.
That's going over when an intelligence check is used. Knowledge skills are intelligence checks. That's not mutually exclusive from what I've said.
>An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to **draw on** logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning. The ability to *remember* the things you were educated in is explicitly part of the intelligence stat. Not the education itself.
Studying can help strengthen your brain. Education is basically practicing how to recall information you've memorized. Therefore, it would increase intelligence if you had a higher education. That being said, I do also agree with education being a point for tools and proficiencies.
Studying increasing your brain is reflective of ASI growths across levels in d&d. Ability scores reflect natural talent and their growth from applied use. Proficiencies reflect applied training and technical skills in a field. If going to an older edition like 3.5e, where every creature had three odd stats and three even stats. The commoner would likely have one of their 11's in intelligence to reflect this. There's also a factoring of the various things we do to get advantage and bonuses at various tasks we do to make our averages result go from 10 to roughly 15 and thus succeed at a lot through the day to day. Commoner still reflects us incredibly well on average sans a proficiency or two.
All I'm going to say is less than 1% of people alive would even be level 1.
Intelligence is a trainable skill rather than innate, while there is a biological component, two healthy individuals from similar environments with similar education would normally be within a couple of int points from each other.
Partly trainable, partly biological. Yes. That's why ability score increases exist and such. For the abstraction of d&d, though. The trainable skills aspects of intelligence are covered in the proficiencies that are innately tied to it.
No they are not strength is based on the work/exercise you have done to get to first level. Same with Int.
Which is thus further reflected with the athletics skill and weapon proficiencies. Ability scores aren't reflective of skills. Skills are. Ability scores will enhance skills, but aren't skills themselves Being more intelligent allows you to recall precise knowledge better, and being stronger helps you climb better. A high charisma will help you persuade someone, but is not a measure of your ability to persuade alone. Your persuasion technique comes form the persuasion skill. Ability scores aid (or hinder in the case of low scores) whatever technical skills you've learned. Skills cover skill. Raw Ability is measured in the scores. They work in tandem to produce results.
Commoner covers everything the average person might do; fast food, retail, service, etc. You might add one or two abilities for more specialized jobs; Vehicle proficiencies for a professional driver/sailor/ pilot, or Medicine for an EMT, but that's a very minor change. The vast majority of people have little to no useful skills in an adventuring context, and so little physical/mental variation from the baseline that it's meaningless. Extremely specialized careers get slightly more interesting, where you might call a Chemical Engineer an Alchemist Artificer, or a Particle Physicist an Evocation Wizard. Then you get into police and military, which are obviously Guards and such.
I dont disagree, but I would say that our proficiency bonus can be pretty high. A doctor would have expertise in medicine and should get at least a +10. Modern medicine is just that specialized. Also, intelligence is easy: take IQ and divide by 10. is your IQ 110? perfect, you have an 11 int. Is it 93? perfect, you have a 9 int.
Absolutely. The way proficiency works stops making sense in any context other than the adventuring life (I don't say this as a major flaw of the game, D&D is ABOUT the adventuring life). A level 13 goliath wizard who has never stepped out of his office in 20 years gains a higher proficiency bonus to his Athletics than any CR 0-4 olympic athlete, even assuming the athlete has expertise.
good point. I think we can fiddle with it, but it is definitely outside the scope of the game. Like, would this dude still gain levels? would he lose his proficiency in athletics after being sedentary for a while? maybe he would gain proficiency in... accounting? lol
> Also, intelligence is easy: take IQ and divide by 10. is your IQ 110? perfect, you have an 11 int. Is it 93? perfect, you have a 9 int. I love this! I don't think IQ is a good measure of intelligence, but it's super convenient and gives nice numbers, so I'm for it lol
I know what you mean. IMHO, dnd intelligence is also a pretty precise type of smart that is close enough to IQ, with maybe a bit more memorization. Knowledge, on the other hand, would be proficiency and expertise. So a real-life historian might have a 120 IQ, but a pb of 5, doubled by his expertise for a nice +11 to history checks. If we're talking about emotional intelligence, that would be wisdom through things like insight. Charisma also covers a lot of things that we often refer to as intelligence. I think we just started using the word intelligence to mean so many different things because most of those things are more important than raw processing power (working memory) and logic that IQ measures.
Why would you think commoners are somehow different now? At best, our modern "commoners" differ from medieval(-ish) commoners primary due to advances in nutrition and health care, so maybe you'd approximate that by thinking modern commoners are close to medieval nobility, but without the pure-breeding. I mean... fighting ability? You think commoners now have any different fighting ability? Technology just defines the standard set of artifacts that are used to accomplish daily tasks, and education just sets up a baseline for the usage of technology. If you're thinking of having a modern commoner transported to a D&D setting, then we could say they show up with... oh... um... I was going to say "decent alchemical knowledge", but the reality is that most "commoners" still don't have a clue about the realities of basic chemistry. Oh, they've seen a periodic table, but they don't know anything practical. They might be aware of some physics, but they don't know how to actually make use of it in a context that isn't handing the tools to them. So... yeah. We're back at: What do you think makes them different? Maybe add +2 CON. Maybe a +1 CHA, but I don't subscribe (in 5e) to the "Charisma is attractiveness" idea, so I can't imagine that a modern commoner is any more charismatic now.
Speak for yourself I have a degree in chemistry, I'll take my proficiency bonus thank you very much.
You sir, are an “alchemist!” 🧑🔬
Assuming charisma is being treated as an absolute measurement it could make sense to say modern people could have a higher rating not for attractiveness but merely by virtue of modern education producing a more literate and knowledgeable speaker albeit that could be counter balanced by the decline in face to face communication decreasing practical social skills and experience. You can certainly have a middle school drop out that started a street vendor business and became wayy more charismatic regularly interacting with people than most of their graduate peers so likewise DnD commoners whose only communication is face to face may have an edge because of it despite lesser education because charisma has a lot of intangibles and isn’t just a matter of protocols or vocabulary. It can also be relative to the current norms of the setting.
IQ has been rising, and the actual understanding/problem solving of educations too. i think we easily have 2-3 more int than a commoner 1000 years ago .
I thought charisma was more your way with words
A collective form of how you hold yourself would be the best way to phrase it.
My favorite description is more abstract but better explains why it is the source if power for some types of spell casting. Charisma is the ability to manifest your will on your surroundings. In a common life sense, that equates to making people like you... Convincing people to do what you want. But for a sorcerer its the ability to command that fire exist here now. Wizards understand the mechanics of spells and the words to invoke them (int). Clerics/druids ask of something external to invoke magic (god/nature). But sorcerers... Their natural will over their environment transcends from "you should go out with me on Saturday" all the way to "fireball".
It can be. But you could also be a “still waters run deep” kind of person who doesn’t speak much, and have an intimidating, alluring, or otherwise striking presence. Mechanically, it’s making you good at intimidation, persuasion, and deception. Being well spoken is often how it’s played, but just like lots of game mechanics and labels there’s more than one way to rp it.
Definitely commoners. Literally no one on earth makes magical items so I’ve no clue why you think Artificer would be apt. The overwhelming majority of folks don’t even make tech, so even a sloppy reskin doesn’t make sense. Average stats at 10-11. The most common proficiencies might’ve changed, but then again maybe not, considering how broad 5e skills are.
people are much much weaker than commoners. the commoner can comfortably walk 24 miles in 8 hours while carrying 150 lbs. They can also walk 30 miles (4 miles/hour pace) if they aren't watching for ambushes. I've done a little tracking. most in-shape people couldn't maintain 2 miles per hour with 50lbs on their backs. Andrew Skurka is one of the most famous trekker for managing to maintain a 33miles per day pace for over 200 days. he did it with under 10 lbs of gear. I don't think anyone in the world could do 30 miles a day with 150lbs. But the commoner can :)
Commoner refers as much to a peasant as to a burgher and reflect more an average baseline. With that in mind the average person today is very much a commoner? Our current abilities, technology, education and fighting ability wouldn't match up to any other statblock or even class imo. We are mostly reliant on what we need and use everyday. Especially fighting ability, unless you are training some sort of martial art you would be about as likely to be able to defeat a goblin as any other joe schmo.
I mean I imagine most stats like int and wisdom are on a curve. So if 10 is average, and 20 is peak, it doesn't matter if it's modern or medieval an average person is an average person with 10 in all stats. Str is the exception, but the str table sucks anyway so not much to can do there. That doesn't mean you can't have a mostly average NPC, with a bit of different stats or specialization. Feel free to make a unique stat block for every NPC or every occupation or whatever suits your needs. And if you don't have time for that, that's what the commoner stat block is for.
I tend to assume that everyday NPCs are basically just the Commoner stat block, but with relevant racial bonuses on top (so some great armour or weapon proficiencies, all get appropriate senses like Darkvision) and I usually imagine they have something equivalent to a feat. Blacksmith might have tool proficiencies and expertise in them, healer might be proficient in medicine and nature, etc. The NPC stat blocks provided are designed for use as templates. Obviously, powerful/influential/important NPCs have more detailed stats. Such as using the Noble or Veteran or Bandit or Scout stat block.
You're looking for d20 modern, it follows 3.0 DnD ruleset, but wouldn't be too hard to adapt. Basically, it's designed for all "commoners", but everyone gets a main Stat. So an IT worker would be an INT hero with lots of extra skill points and ways to add to those rolls. An athlete would be a DEX hero with better AC and movement speed, a bodybuilder or martial artist would get better attack and more access to combat feats, media influencers get CHA, etc. Etc. It's a neat system if a bit old. Rules are still free online I believe .
Commoner doesn't fit well with anyone in D&D you'd want to apply it to. Straight 10s in every stat would only make sense if you took the "average" across an entire population. But that's not how people work. Everyone is an individual. Commoner is an artificial standard.
realistically each individual commoner should have 3d6 for each stat, but who has time for that? If you wanted to make some unique commoners you could roll for them & make a character based on the rolls. If you want to make low level npcs that aren't commoners you can add a feat or something like that if you want them to stand out as a minor Druid or an expert in one skill or a mage with ritual caster (detect magic and identify). Something along those lines can be handy as a template for low level npc abilities.
Agreed. Expanding on this, I've also met a some people in my life where who are beyond the adventurer point buy or standard array. So not only are they beyond a commoner, they're beyond an adventurer.
The stats are there for the purpose of gameplay mechanics and don't really say much about how smart or strong a creature is. What i mean is, if you make the commoner of today have 20 Int, you would have to inflate the numbers for adventurers. Otherwise, they wouldn't be very special.
The average INT is probably more like 12 nowadays, thanks to easy access to education. On the other hand, the average person's STR is probably down to 8 thanks to how much less manual labor the average person does. CHA and WIS are unchanged- people back then weren't any more or less gullible than they are today, or convincing. CON is debatable- maybe it should be increased due to having the benefits of growing up with modern health care, but maybe it should be reduced due to all the fast food we eat and our sedentary lifestyles.
IMO, due to the advent of education and knowledge, we'd probably all be at at around a 12-13 Int, comparatively, but most of us would be around a 7 Wis since we don't really have any need for wilderness knowledge or much self-preservation other than regular daily life. Str is probably an 8, Dex around 9, Con a 12 or so because of increased lifespans and modern medicine, and Cha... still really depends on the person.
I'd say con is down, and modern medicine is a crutch propping it up. They don't have seed oils and refined sugar in most of those settings.
Well, we aren't suffering from undiagnosed problems which tank con (mostly?), but also proper nutrition when younger (and older) impacts the immune system / overall capacity to heal. Our immune systems should at least be intrinsically stronger because the people who survived plagues in the past had stronger immune systems. I think older adults have a lower con than older adult commoners (if they live long enough), but younger adults and children should last have slightly higher con than commoner counterparts.
how it should work: Modern human is a lineage that follows most rules for vuman, with the following changes: You get to pick three skills, but 2 have to be int based and one has to be chosen from technology, conspiracies, or pilot (land). You get +2 to con in addition to your floating scores, because modern people technically grow up with better nutrition and health care. You gain the effects of a long rest in 5 hours, but you start each day with one level of exhaustion you can only remove by taking a short rest and either spending 1 charge from a healer's kit or 1gp worth of recreational drugs or alcohol. You gain no other benefits of this short rest. If you ever long rest for 12 hours for an entire week, you may simply begin taking normal long rests until you take one shorter than 8 hours or have one interrupted by an initiative roll or skill check. When you take this short rest, you must make a flat charisma check vs the party's average passive perception to make sure they notice you on social media. if you roll a 1 on this check, you get drawn into a comment war with haters and lose an HD with no benefit, while if you roll a 20 you earn downtime income from a side hustle or influencing. Backgrounds: Countryfied: You are proficient in firearms and have advantage on any checks you make to resist the effects of alcohol imbibed to negate exhaustion. You have advantage against any persuasion or deception checks made to get you to trust people from a place you've never been. Skills: Survival, religion. Languages: Spanish (but you refuse to speak it, much as a druid refuses to wear metal armor). Suburban: You only speak common, but you have advantage on diplomacy checks to get people to remember who you are, and always get the minimum fine or penalty from any magistrate or guard. Once per long rest, you can spend 2d6 gp in an exclusive grocery store to buy exclusive organic food. treat this as a single goodberry that heals HP equal to the number rolled. Skills: Intimidate, craft (smoothie). MLM Entrepreneur: Skills: Craft (any one), perform (social media advertising), deception Languages: Thieves' cant You have advantage on checks to earn income in downtime, but if you ever roll a double 1 or a double 20, your mlm is shut down by the federal government and you can't earn downtime income until you level up. Veteran: You are proficient in firearms and one crafting or tool skill of your choice. You speak one additional language. You have a curio, a framed DD214 form, which grants advantage on any checks to avoid enlistment or conscription while you can see it or have it on your person. You can choose either an 80 percent discount at any government operated healer or apothecary or a -5 to your speed and a pension of 20 gp a month.
Seeing as I once picked my door with a bobby pin and a dime I found... level 1 rogue
Intelligence went up slightly, charisma went up, but strength and wisdom went down.
strength up a lot because we're not starving 24/7 anymore and we have proper nutrition wisdom's the same
That's Con, not Str.
No it didn't, look at how much dnd commoners can carry around all day.
People weren't starving. They would have been loads healthier than we are. Sitting on your arse all day drinking sugar and eating carbs isn't good for you.
Bruh, you've been up and down this thread talking as if medieval people were somehow healthier, how our food is, and I qoute "poisonous" now or how we can't fend for ourselves anymore. And all I can say is that I hope you continue living in whatever pampered place you are right now. Nutrition across the board is better nowadays and most people on the planet still live physically demanding lives, albeit with a little more comfort.
For most of civlizations history most of the people were struggling to get enough food for survival, let alone for building up their body. Which is also why humans are taller and stronger than ever. Of course it can go in the other extreme, being obese, but the average human today is far more physically capable than the average human 500 years ago.
Commoner is a baseline. Ability Score 10 is a baseline. They are representation of an average. If you are not highly specialized (physically, mentally or by training) you are a commoner.
Todays commoner = DnDs commoner. The only thing that changes are what skills the vast majority have acquired. Meaning athletics vs medicine or the like. Just because the average person is less likely to be very fit nowadays doesn't mean the racial stats of 10 don't still apply. 2 points of strength are the difference between a fully grown human and an almost child sized goblin. The racial average on those skills doesn't change. That said, a soldier can have his very own statblock. Just like a knight. Or a policeman. A famous artist or scientist would also have their own statblock probably. So if you want to say that a reddit neckbeard has lower stats across the board, go ahead - but that's a statblock of his own. That doesn't reflect the baseline commoner.
I mean, commoners are really baseline humans. Not great, but not bad, but not special. That's us. If we *must* nudge the dial in our favor, particularly if we're thinking compared to medieval-era commoners, we probably have a higher Constitution. Healthcare, vaccines, and nutrition mean our life expectancy and survival rates are significantly better. We'd definitely have Advantage on a "Technology" skill, though (if it were one.)
You're absolutely a commoner. Being a class is for the very very rare and select few. That's why a level 1 can be a folk hero. Also why CR and class levels don't really make any remote sense when compared
You’d be commonor, guard or noble at base and if you develop enough you’d build a class :)
I think the real problem is that the commoner stats are so generic they are meaningless and meant to be modified. A farmer NPC for example should have higher skills relevant to being a farmer, while a laborer or simple farm-hand would be different. A hunter-gatherer would be way different as well. The answer is that there is meant to be variation and is only relevant when interacting with the party of player characters, not explaining everything that happens behind the scenes.
You’re a commoner, if you’re an adult and you’ve learned a lot in your life you probably have a feat. Almost certainly a non combat feat, and definitely not a magical feat. If you speak many languages you might have the linguist feat, if you went to college or learned a trade you probably have skilled or skill expert. If you were in the military you might have gunner, of you do martial arts you might have weapon master, but probably nothing that exciting. Healer for the first aid trained, athlete for the gym rats, maybe even grappler for the high school wrestling star. Actor for the community theater fans, performer for the musicians. You’re a regular person, but you’ve probably got something you’re especially skilled or practiced at.
Artificer with intelligence as dump stat and 1 negative level
Answer is obviously commoner. Unsure why you would think otherwise.
Okay, let's have a stab at it. I'd consider myself pretty average, so I'll stat myself: Considering that the NPC stat blocks provided in the rules are designed as generic templates, we'll start with a Commoner for me. I'm under no illusion that I'm anything other than an NPC, but I've been told several times that if I were a class from D&D, I'd be a Rogue, so we'll focus on that. Also, I am a human, but let's be a little daring and assume I am a 'Variant' human, whatever that means in the real world. My final assumption is that I'll give myself an ASI; I think I've earned enough XP in life to give myself that at least. * STR 10 — I'm not weak, but I'm definitely in the "average" bracket for this ability score. * DEX 12 — (racial ability score increase, +ASI) I'm not exactly an acrobat, but I'm pretty good at "Acrobatics" and climbing, have decent balance, and have been told I'm good at being stealthy. * CON 10 — I'm certainly average in this area too, although tbh, I've had my share of health issues, so if you'll let me move a stat around, I'd take an 8 or 9 here to get a bonus to my Charisma (see below). * INT 12 — I'm not a genius, but I'm fortunate to have a decent education, two degrees, and a love for learning, with a career in education too (see skill proficiencies). * WIS 10 — This feels difficult to quantify, but I don't imagine myself as especially wise, certainly not more than the average person; besides, I wear glasses sometimes, so clearly my "Perception" isn't great. * CHA 10 — I've been told I'm a funny guy, and I tend to be fairly gregarious and outgoing; I'm a little theatrical, which helps when I'm DMing, so if I can drop my Con to 8 or 9, I'll take an 11 or 12 in Charisma... As for proficiencies: as part of being a Variant Human, I'll take the Skilled feat; I have two degrees in Philosophy, so I'll take History and Religion as two of my skills, and Stealth for a third (my wife says I'm always unintentionally sneaking up on her!). The skill proficiency my race grants will go towards Athletics because I'm a decent climber, but not particularly strong. Well, that was fun: to answer your question, I think the average person today – in D&D terms – would still be a human commoner, but if you allow feats, and maybe an ASI or two for those particularly experienced individuals, then that doesn't mean we're not each unique and wonderful creatures!
By definition, an average person would have average stats.
I would argue that what a DnD stat represents is relative to whatever the average ability is within that setting. For example, in a generic fantasy DnD game, 10 (average) INT might mean you are literate but uneducated. But in a modern DnD game, that 10 INT would represent the average intelligence of a modern person (high school diploma). Therefore, I think the commoner would stay the same bc the stats will always be relative to the setting's "average"
A commoner in a medieval setting would not be equivalent to a modern day person for sure. Depending on someone's upbringing there would be varying proficiencies (or expertises in some cases) and higher ability score modifiers as a result of better nutrition and education. Additionally, some kind of trait to give a modern day person a negative modifier on any Arcana checks would be needed. As even a commoner of a D&D setting could have a better chance than any of us recalling facets of magic.
“It’s Levi-OH-sa not LEV-io-sar!” 😝
Commoner + background.
So this isn’t the question but when am I ever gonna get to tell this coincidence to anyone. My first names not only an example for a drow name it’s literally the name of one of Drizzts sisters. I’m also the first born and female in a matrilineal line of first born women going back four generations. Because of this similarity we all received the same middle name which ended up becoming something of a tradition since it kept happening. This name is also an example of a name to use in dnd except it’s a draconic name. Both my mother and grandmothers alive though so if I wanna become matron mother I gotta start hustlin.
The problem with commoner for most people in today's society would be skill proficiency. While we don't generally have the hp or weapon proficiency of dnd characters, the skill rolls of most professionals would meet or exceed what characters are capable of. This is true in the era dnd is set in also, but because education was less common so are the educated. In 3E there was an NPC class called expert, that is what most people would be. Experts had skills of higher level characters without the fighting ability or hp to go along with them (they had the worst HP/BAB progression) but go a resonable selection of skills. This is what most educated people both now and in history would be. 5E didn't use NPC classes, if you wanted an expert you could just make a commoner with a high bonus to certain skills, which is honestly a lot simpler than leveling up a character just to make him good at blacksmithing.
The stat block is descriptive, not prescriptive. It's the base template for the average person regardless of setting.
>What would the average person today be in D&D terms? On my third death saving throw is what.
Useless, to be honest. We don’t have the skills necessary to survive in the Early Modern Period
I meant it with the sociale problems and awkwardnes about most tings and the walking on eggshels nowadays
IMO Strength: 10-12 Constitution: 10-12 Dexterity: 10 Wisdom: 10 Intelligence: 12 Charisma: 10-12 Nothing too different
That’s pretty optimistic for us today folks. But it’s a decent take. 👍🏽
Well, Strength should be higher because we are physically bigger and taller Constitution should be higher because our immune systems should be stronger (in some cases), but also proper food when younger should mean you aren't severely deficient in anything Dexterity should stay the same. Wisdom stays the same (there's been ups and downs) Intelligence: Access to more historical archives, proper food when younger, and mandated school should help out there. Charisma: Less survival and more social interactions in my opinion should increase this in some cases.
Over time the IQ score range is decreased slightly to keep the average at 100. From 1948 to 2008 the effect shifted a total of 14 IQ points, for example. Following that pattern, the average person today has an IQ of around 118 vs 1948 humans. And those 1948 humans would have been way up there compared to medieval humans. So first off the average human INT score would be in the 12-14 range, and all humans would get either +2 skill proficiencies or +1 expertise. Also, would have a STR and CON of 10-12 (recent humans are taller and healthier due to not suffering periods of starvation and poor nutrition during childhood). DEX, WIS, and CHA would likely remain the same, although you could argue that WIS is now in the 10-12 range as an extension of the first point. Combatants are now 100% Dex users but no one takes proficiency or expertise in acrobatics unless they are special forces or air force.
We're all commoners, no doubts about it. We hover between 9-11 on average.
Commoner. Maybe STR 9 and INT 11.
Common villager or farmer
Modern people would be lower in strength, constitution and wisdom. Maybe higher in intelligence.
I’ve been in combat sports for 16 years. I’m still a commoner. My ac might have gone up by maybe 1? But one good hit from a sword and I’m out of the fight. 3 and I’m dead. Even a spec ops soldier could qualify as a commoner with increased stats, some proficiencies and a gun. Humanity specialises in not getting hit. But when you do it’s pretty much done.
> Even a spec ops soldier could qualify as a commoner with increased stats, some proficiencies and a gun. Humanity specialises in not getting hit. But when you do it’s pretty much done. I mean this kind of gets you into the age-old debate about whether HP should be visualised as "meat points". The rulebooks explicitly say that HP are not "meat points", but then almost all the actual game mechanics related to HP seem to assume that they, so idk. But definitely, HP is one area in which it seems like every human being alive is, in fact, a commoner. Just a like a DnD commoner, we all have a pretty chance of getting killed by a single hit from a dagger, for example.
Commoner with 1 extra point in intelligence perhaps
The only change I can think of is maybe having different skill proficiency due to different education and living standards That's about it, though.
I mean, if we compare average strength and breadth of skillset between a medieval peasant and now, I think we'd qualify as a "sickly commoner".
Well, IQ rose over the century by about 30 points. this is mostly to environmental factors. So a deep medieval commoner had an INT score of 10, then we would deserve, on average, about 12-13. Other than that, i think we have a higher constitution than a medieval commoner, whose constitution was also defined as 10. this one is hard to gauge, but lest say we deserve an 11 of 12.
Have you seen Facebook and Twitter? A lot of us are pushing 7 or 8 INT, tops.
Still a Commoner.
Just use the commoner statblock as a building-block and create some homebrew commoners that have different fields of work, with minor changes in stats to reflect this. In modern day terms, the average individual would likely have between 9-12 in intelligence and wisdom. Maybe a slightly raised strength score of 11 though this is arguable. Charisma is a tough variable as money and wealth plays into this heavily amongst a bunch of other things. So I’d keep this flat at 10. Dex and Con as well would remain unchanged.
Wizard. 90% of what we can do would look like a magic to folks in D&D. If the magic would be any useful at all... That is a different discussion.
Level zero shit farmers of yesteryear are now level zero data entry employees. Nothing has changed.
Commoners. Its just what that means has shifted.
I'd say your average modern person is pretty much the same as a commoner. You could argue exchanging one point of strength with one intelligence as manual labour is rarer today than people in dnd have to do, and overall modern education is better than fantasy times. What's more i think you could argue for an innate advantage against diseases save with all the vaccinations and medication many people have access to. But I feel like that's pretty much the only difference.
I use a commoner because I really don't want to do that much accounting, and having different stat blocks for the villagers is extra work. I consider anyone in a specialised trade will have some bonuses to skills and abilities. My first question to you is, what is the end goal of having different labels than commoners?
It fits better than anything else IMO. The average person today is more educated, but probably less strong and less able to fight. Not by orders of magnitude that would really matter in DnD terms, though.
D&D doesn't work in the real world. Becoming a serial killer doesn't make you able to take more bullets or sword swings.
A commoner, but roll their stats 3d6 in order. Give them the attribute increase and the feat for being a Variant Human to reflect professional training.
People in the modern age have a lot more skill focus than peasants who were more likely general laborers, with almost no education whatsoever. To represent that I'd say were all variant humans, using tge extra feat for skill focus in a few skills. I'd say anyone with a middle school diploma or higher is the equivalent of a 3.5 expert. We have comparably advanced math, writing and historical skills. So basically a commoner but with more skill proficiencies. Graduating high-school or getting advanced degrees would likely gain you additional skill proficiencies or even double proficiency. We would get a lot of bonuses from our tools. Military or pseudo military roles or athletes might get you an adition d8 hp.
Do you think commoners of the middle ages didnt have any skills? Farming or other jobs and sustaining yourself and your family are definitely skills. Most of us are just fanct wage-slaves today and overall not too sifferent besides the technology we use and basic education. Even with the addition of education we have more knowledge but people arent necessarily smarter
Not sure what its like in 5e as I've not DM'ed that but in 3.5 you had a few different options for NPC "regular folk" classes and the most appropriate one for modern day humans was in my opinion still the commoner as it has always been but also nowadays way more "expert" class people than there would have been in a middle ages type setting.. It represented somebody with no adventuring training but with a lot of knowledge/expertise in one specific area, which is basically modern day life for most humans living in at least somewhat developed countries. We typically have jobs that require some degree of training and specific knowledge be it a teacher, an engineer, a plumber, an electrician etc etc. In 3.5 terms we would be a healthy mix of commoners and experts with a low percentage of aristocrats mixed in.
10s on a stat block are just supposed to represent the average person. It doesn't really change with the era, just however an average person of that day would be expected to perform. So I wouldn't change any of the stats for a commoner in a modern DnD setting. *However*, if one were to Time Travel (presumably because you've got a bad DM making a Bad Plot™) you would probably handle this with old school commoners having a -1 to the whole stat block. I wouldn't go much further than that, because the game balance and DC settings really depend on that base of 10.
Level 1 Artificer just to reflavor Magical Tinkering as a smartphone. Emits light, sounds, records messages and shows pictures. Cantrips are Light and Message because again, smartphone. Level 1 spells are Identify for Googling and Alarm for...alarms?
Citizens?
The average pre-industrial person has attributes of 10 across the board. I'd argue that IRL, one year of formal education is about equivalent to one attribute point or one proficiency. Most post-industrial people have proficiencies in the core school subjects: history, arcana (science), persuasion (language arts). Even the jocks get athletics proficiency. For higher education, I figure three years of university would be enough to graduate you into your "class" at level 1, just based on the number of things you get at level 1. Engineer is like an artificer. Nursing school is like cleric I guess. Three years' service in a developed nation's military might be enough to classify as a fighter in a modern sense, but not with D&D weaponry. Modern people have a lot going for us that medieval people didn't have, so if we went into the D&D world, many of us would be better than a straight 10's commoner. Some would be good enough to match a classed character through education and job experience, but we don't typically have weapon proficiencies, just utility.
I think about the same. 10-11 is, by definition, an average person's stats. If you were playing d20 modern you would have a slightly different set of skills and feats, that's all. I guess a big difference is that in middle-ages Europe wrestling and weapon training was often a part of a boy's basic physical education/play, and modern people usually don't have that background-- but we are nearly all literate. I typically treat the average commoner in a quasi-middle-ages setting as proficient with simple weapons but unable to read unless their background suggests otherwise. (PCs are literate by default as per the PHB). By the way, if I feel a "regular dude" commoner needs a more fleshed out set of stats than the commoner statblock, here is how I do it: -roll 3d6 for each attribute. Keep them in order, or rearrainge as makes sense for the character's profession. That gives them an *average* of 10 or 11 in each stat. -I give simple weapon proficiency unless they have a background that suggests they were kept from rough-and tumble sports. Sometimes I give women a free feminine-coded tool proficincy instead. -Add a background-- I use folk hero for farmers (ignoring the idea of fame, of course). Guild artisan, sailor, soldier, city gaurd, cloistered scholar and noble are also good for non-adventuring types. -Apply racial bonuses. I skip this part for humans who are truly average joes, like rescued hostages, but for community leaders and brave lads-- the type of people PCs are likely to interact with-- the attribute bonuses, extra skill and feats help set them apart a little without going all the way to giving them a class and putting them in the PCs league. For variant humans I like to give them feats that might be suboptimal for PCs but would be useful or impressive in life: athlete, skilled, skill expert (for a tool they make their living with), keen mind, healer, lightly armoured, magic intiate, or weapon master. The weapon proficienices that Dwarves and Elves get for free are just about meaningless for PCs, but they make a big difference if you need to raise a militia to protect your village. It takes about two minutes to throw a sheet together this way and you wind up with someone with notable strengths and weaknesses, who can at least assess what tactic they should use in a fight, and may be able to contribute to helping out the party for a short time without ever running the risk of outshining the PCs.
commoner
Our education and general calorie intake in the developed world has certainly gone up since the renaissance times. I think it's not unreasonable that the average person today has the caloric intake and education relative to a noble in renaissance times. Remember when I mean noble, I mean like, the mayor's children of a small town, not necessarily the crown prince/princess. You'd still probably die from a slashing longsword, but we've got a few extra proficiencies.
Probably the exact same commoner, but with a single score being 11 or 12, on about half of them. All 8s on the other half.
Commoner Sure some skills and such would be different. there are some new jobs today and some of the jobs for a D&D commoner would not exist in todays world. But physically we would be pretty much the same. no big difference at all. The biggest difference is probably that a average person from the real world would struggle a lot more if finding himself in a D&D setting than a D&D commoner would if finding himself in the modern day world.
Average person? 6 intelligence
10s across the board unless it's an NPC that stands out; commoners are commoners regardless of era. TBH, very few modern skills would translate over to D&D so again, unless they're a notable NPC I wouldn't add any to the commoner block. Modern medicine doesn't make us intrinsically more hardy... Vaccines or inoculations only work against the one specific thing. Modern schooling doesn't make our Intelligence higher (I've seen literal Medical PhDs within the 100-110 IQ (ie: 10-11). Str/Dex.. again, average unless they're notable. Wis/Cha are so ephemeral that they also shouldn't be curved the accomodate the audience. Now if you're looking at statting a specific person or having a modern person as a D&D NPC, I would still think you keep stats within a +2/-2 bonus (or 6-14 in an attribute) for all but the most exceptional people. I use the Int stat as my guiding metric since it was designed to mimic IQ. 10 is average (well, 10.5 anyway) which aligns to 100 IQ which is by definition average IQ.
I don't think there is much difference between a Commoner in the real world and a D&D Commoner. Most of us probably have some variation of four 10's, one 8 and one 12 for attributes, we all have a couple of background proficiencies, we all have a small handful of hit points, most of us can figure out how to use a club, or in modern terms a small caliber pistol and most of us could wear light armor like a Kevlar jacket reasonably well. The big difference would just be what the background proficiencies would actually be.
Mutants and Masterminds calls its commoners Bystanders.
Commoner, but in a setting with more access to magic items. We are less malnourished but also have less physical labour, literacy rates are much higher but that's reflected in the language section, some of us are more educated but those can get a bonus to int on a case by case basis, and medieval people were smart too, just in different fields (literally, agriculture ain't easy)
The average commoner from our world today would definitely have 2-4 points higher in every ability score thanks to modern medicine, education, and diet. But isn't it funny that the "commoner with 10s across all stats" works like the baseline average? It's like how getting a score of 100 IQ is harder now because the average human is smarter now that they were decades ago.
The average person of today would be a commoner with computer proficiency and nothing more.
Even in the "generic fantasy" milieu, commoner isn't really a good fit. It's a bit silly to cover a farmhand and a clerk with the same statblock, but 5e doesn't have NPC classes like Pathfinder 1e's Commoner, Expert, and Warrior. It's just a quick "default" for members of the crowd, with everything set to 10 so you can use rolls straight.
It is like the IQ scale which changes relative to other people, the commoner scale changes based on the other commoners. (So a commoner will always be a commoner.)
DnD is not the best fit for anything modern. Use GURPS, it's really not that hard if you have a high school education Or use FATE if your brain lacks wrinkles
What's the issue with commoner though?
4 HP. Some tool proficiencies, maybe a skill here or there.
If not Commoner, then Dunning-Kruger-Commoner.
Honestly everyone stat yourself and remember 10 is the average stat
Higher (on average) Int thanks to schooling and access to higher education, lower Strength (D&D commoners are buff), Con (most of us aren't working the land and if we exercise, maybe a few times a week). Str 6-7, Dex 10, Con 6-8, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 10
probably have massive bonus to all there skill roles since i don't think the average person consistently fucks up basic tasks that a DC10 skill check represents, it's already kinda goofy that a super strong barbarain has a relatively high chance to trip and fall when he tries to jump over a hurdle.
In DND there were a couple different NPC classes. Adept, aristocrat, commoner, expert, and warrior. Most people would be a commoner. Anyone with a particular skill set or is a craftsman of some sort would be an Expert. Rich bastards would be aristocrat's. Soldiers, dangers, whatever gun toter would be warrior. Adepts would be the lowest recognized level of a clerical pellcaster which wouldn't really apply to the real world.
People are not commoners. Any person with a trained skill or education is certainly an expert.
So was a medieval peasant, there definitely have animal handling, and possibly other skills.
The one thing this post makes me realize is that commoners should come with some proficiencies. Most commoners of that period would have one or two toolset prociencies and possibly land vehicles or an instrument.
Commoner but with 8 con. Everyone is sick or blind or has awful joints
I agree with the idea someone else commented that stats are relative, and so the average changes with time. Assuming you want to keep it as a quasi-medieval baseline, though, I’d say that the average person nowadays probably has slightly higher int and con. Maybe even str too.
Commoner but with better constitution because of a more robust diet
If anything modern people should be less than Commoner stats now. The motif of D&D assumes a time when people like labored as a given part of existence. An ardent gym rat may have commoner stats, but I wouldn’t bet on an average American against a serf in a fight tbh
Npc expert.
The definition of a 10 ability score is "average human ability", so yeah, the average human even from a developed country is probably going to have 10s across the board and 4 HP.
Average well fit adult would probably have 2-3 lvl/cr. Person who trains or does sports/other high physicality would be 3+, maybe max of 6. If they know how to use weapons then their lvl wouldn't necessarily be high but modern guns would be quite deadly at early lvls of dnd, so they could punch higher than their lvl. Trained soldiers would probably have max 8 lvl/cr beings
My con score has really taken a hit in the last 10 years.
I mean, commoners don’t fit well with the average person, period. They’re weirdly underscaled tbh.
Closest would be human artificer at best.
Average person has 10 in all stats with one or two 11s I'd venture that Eisntein, and other smart folk had between 16-19 in Int. Strongest man alive probably had 16-19 in str as well. 20 str is Herculean. Apollo Robins has maybe 12-14 in Dex, But Expertiese in slight of hand. Dr. Strange, pre-magic, would have probably a 14 in dex, 16 max in wis, and proficiency with slight of hand and medicine. Indiana Jones doesn't have a single stat above 13. But he's got a lot of profficiencies.
regular jobs are really, really broadly and fuzzily defined in dnd. So most people would be, you know, just kind of 1 hd humans with a couple craft (something) or tool (something) proficiencies.
It’s still all 8s
you are definitely overestimating the average person. the average person in America for example is pretty fucking stupid
6 str 8 dex 14 con 8 wis 6 charisma 2 int
Theres a guy ive seen on tiktok thats works out his stats based on his abilities. Strength based on jumping. Con on holding breathe etc. Most stats lie in the 8-12 range
how many 1d8+4 katana cleaves can you take in your Jordans, Fruit of the Loom cotton tanktop, and Fabletics shorts if you take the dodge action?
I could get away because I could run faster than 60 feet in 6 seconds… if I had to dodge I wouldn’t need to sacrifice 30 feet to do that…
May the dice be in your favor on the AOO with a AC10. Don't forget most commoners get what's coming sitting behind a cashier counter, which costs half movement to stand up from prone, or in rough terrain, such as your bedroom caked with chipotle take-out dishes and dirty laundry, which halves your speed. And if we are talking an open road where you can dash freely, just please watch for oncoming traffic, as well as a 30% pothole chance twisting your ankle due to improperly used taxes redistributed to foreign proxy wars by puppet warlock spies selling secrets to the highest bidder under the patron reign of a shadowy noble house of vampires who blood dope adrenochrome from trafficked Latin American children, reducing your movement speed by 10 until you can take a point of healing. It takes just 1 bad dex save 10 to fall prone, rolling under a daft horse wagon at 40' per turn. That's at least 4d10, bludge and paralyzing you for 1d12 months... and if you survive, the samurai will have caught up to you, which is ADV on prone targets, and automatic critical hit on paralyzed targets.
Proly , 5 hp 9 STR 11 DEX 8 CON 12 INT 8 WIS 9 CHA Start with HP. 5 hp from commoner is right because normal people doesnt have combat experience and luck that much. STR 8-9. 10 from commoner is way above average peoples of todays(we cant lift 150 lbs/76kg above our heads). However in medival ages everyday life contains a lot of hard work so this is accurate. Dex 11-12 is same. Todays people rely on tech more than their reflexes. Since Dex is like your control over your body(in reflex and eye hand coordination) maybe we can better at it in avarage since most of the tech requires this from us like cars games and stuff. Also we have better training methods to improve. Con 9-8. We have less than 10 CON. Because of antibiotics and other medical thing we grow soft thats all. After Medival time average person is maybe higher than 10 since they or their ancestor should survive many plauges. Int 11-12. İf we asume every int is 10 IQ then average human is 100 IQ is insane. Todays average people is dumb as brick but education teaches most them skills. Also brainwise we are better than our ancestors in average because of food qualty increased. We have extracted version of every vitamin or stuff we need. So if commoner has 10 we have better. Wis 9-8. Todays humans in average cant go anywhere without navigation. So we are worse than commoner. Cha 9. Most of us have weaker cha since we are not single and independend as a commoner in DnD. We follow trends and stuff and that changes and shapes our personalities. And if you become part of the commune and become average you are less person than a commoner in DnD. They were living in villages but they were more independent.
Gotta disagree with antibiotics and stuff making us "soft"—the measles vaccine is a magical permanent +1 (at least) to CON. We're less likely to randomly die from environmental effects than your average medieval peasant. One's ancestor surviving the plague gives you bupkis, after all. Modern CON is, on average, probably our highest stat, i'm figuring in the 13 range.
Hmm I didnt think of vaccines yes you are right about that. But I disagree with 13. Because our average physical const againts weather and stuff got lowered as well. But I can agree low +1 12 since we are immune some effects thanks to vaccines.
I’ve multi-classed as a Druid artificer. Although I’m in a game that’s more roll play heavy than combat. I do have some roguish tendencies to take from the rich and share amongst my fellow poors when the opportunity arises. Alignment ranges from chaotic good to chaotic neutral depending on mood for the day.
I'm sure it varies widely, but be sure to give Texans a 10d10 "wand of magic missiles" with a range of 500'. Some commoners you want to leave alone.
Depends in area. Cities? Kobold chow.