D&D 5E adventurers in your world: common or rare?

[TheCosmicKid]

How many practitioners of arcane magic are running around your setting, that it would make sense to have two distinct lines of progression for them, rather than just saying that the better wizards are higher level?

Even if there were only two practitioners of arcane magic in the entire world, two distinct lines of progression would be justifiable. The classes in the book are abstractions: generalizations and sample platters of the sorts of things that heroic characters can learn over their careers, presented to us as discrete progression paths for fun and ease of use. In universe, unless all the wizards go to the same school and follow exactly the same curriculum (which, to be fair, does make for a rather successful children's novel series, I hear), they are probably going to be picking up more, fewer, or different side skills -- what we would call class features -- alongside the basic spell advancement. Hell, even in the book, I think you'll find if you look that there are already eight distinct lines of progression.

Back in the day, when the wizard class simply was the basic spell advancement, what you say would make a lot more sense. But now in 5E, with each class being a big bundle of features rather than just one or two that scale up over the levels, it's perfectly reasonable to imagine characters who have put different things in their bundles. A PC rogue isn't just Sneak Attack, he's also got Thieves' Cant and Cunning Action and Uncanny Dodge and so on. But I don't think you'll get far trying to argue that any character who can stab backs with a certain proficiency must also, by necessity, have a knack for rolling with blows to avoid serious harm.

 

[clearstream]

going by official published 5e FR material, the only individuals with character class levels are the PCs themselves.

I feel you're applying 3e & earlier norms to a game which doesn't work that way. PC-class NPCs aren't even a good way to challenge high level PCs - they don't work that well even in 3e/PF. And 5e by default doesn't use them.

I'm with Saelorn in feeling that those 5e stat blocks such as Druid and Mage are "a concession to playability made for the sake of the lazy DM". In 3e it was notoriously time consuming to create NPCs. CosmicKid's discussion of diversity also chimes with me. "The classes in the book are abstractions: generalizations and sample platters of the sorts of things that heroic characters can learn over their careers, presented to us as discrete progression paths for fun and ease of use." All that the condensed stat blocks are doing is abstracting at a higher level for ease of use, which makes a lot of sense because a given NPC might be encountered only a handful of times. If I felt such an NPC was going to become a major part of my campaign, I'd stat them in more detail.

If a tier 3 Rogue in my campaign thinks about taking over a guild, she will have to overcome some meaningful opposition. We can say that the boss is a flag waver, but then all we do is shift the burden onto some servant who wields adventurer-level power. And for me at least we lack a clear explanation of why that person or creature didn't take over the guild themselves? We can of course come up with local anomalies. Diversity is great! So maybe this boss bonded with a group of powerful creatures *somehow*? Maybe all the thieves' guilds in our world are run that way? For me that is a stretch when a thieves' guild can simply and interestingly be made up of rogues. I'm happy to use simplified stat blocks to represent that, in most cases.

 

[S'mon]

If a tier 3 Rogue in my campaign thinks about taking over a guild, she will have to overcome some meaningful opposition.

What do you regard as meaningful opposition for a level 11-16 Rogue? For me the CR 8 MM Assassin would certainly be 'meaningful opposition'.

For me it would have to be an unusually powerful Guild to have the equivalent of a level 11-16 Rogue running it. In my Wilderlands game a few of the biggest city states might have such. Smaller towns likely just have small gangs led by something like the MM Bandit Captain or Spy, maybe.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Even if there were only two practitioners of arcane magic in the entire world, two distinct lines of progression would be justifiable. The classes in the book are abstractions: generalizations and sample platters of the sorts of things that heroic characters can learn over their careers, presented to us as discrete progression paths for fun and ease of use.

There are definitely abstractions within the rules, but not necessarily to the degree that some may suggest. Calling something an abstraction is often the first step toward dismissing its importance in understanding how the world works. You lose something from the game whenever you do that.

I'm not saying that you should never accept abstractions. I'm saying that it's a tool of last resort, when no other explanation will suffice.

In universe, unless all the wizards go to the same school and follow exactly the same curriculum (which, to be fair, does make for a rather successful children's novel series, I hear), they are probably going to be picking up more, fewer, or different side skills -- what we would call class features -- alongside the basic spell advancement. Hell, even in the book, I think you'll find if you look that there are already eight distinct lines of progression.

There's one line of progression, with eight side specialties that don't really interact much with the main line. Within the game world, there is only one true way that wizardly magic works, so it makes sense that anyone attempting to uncover that one truth will have similarities in what they can do with it.

Back in the day, when the wizard class simply was the basic spell advancement, what you say would make a lot more sense. But now in 5E, with each class being a big bundle of features rather than just one or two that scale up over the levels, it's perfectly reasonable to imagine characters who have put different things in their bundles.

Back in the day, the major difference between two wizards of a given level were their race and which specific set of spells they managed to learn. In 5E, all wizards have access to the same list of spells, but and the minor difference in what magic they can perform is defined by their specialist abilities... which are each roughly on the magnitude of having learned a unique spell. The bigger difference is that, in 5E, we have backgrounds and skills to further differentiate between members of a same class. You could also have feats, if you're using that option. The 'wizard' package of abilities is still as cohesive and uniform as it's ever been, even though class only defines eighty percent of the character rather than ninety.

A PC rogue isn't just Sneak Attack, he's also got Thieves' Cant and Cunning Action and Uncanny Dodge and so on. But I don't think you'll get far trying to argue that any character who can stab backs with a certain proficiency must also, by necessity, have a knack for rolling with blows to avoid serious harm.

I wasn't talking about rogues or fighters, specifically because those two are intended to be broad archetypes. You can't make many blanket statements that are wide enough to cover all rogues, or all fighters, because there are simply too many of them. When you're talking about a group as small as wizards or druids, it's not nearly so obvious that there should be any difference in how they do what they do.

 

[clearstream]

What do you regard as meaningful opposition for a level 11-16 Rogue? For me the CR 8 MM Assassin would certainly be 'meaningful opposition'.

The Assassin stat block looks like it abstracts a 7th to 8th level Assassin-archetype Rogue. It doesn't feel super-likely to me that one alone would pose a good challenge. Let's caveat that slightly, as a DM I could give such an NPC Purple Worm poison and create a short binary obstacle that could very well end our Rogue's bid for the throne, but I don't believe will be all that much fun for them. To engage them interestingly, I would rather draw on a large cast of adventurer-equiv NPCs.

For me it would have to be an unusually powerful Guild to have the equivalent of a level 11-16 Rogue running it. In my Wilderlands game a few of the biggest city states might have such. Smaller towns likely just have small gangs led by something like the MM Bandit Captain or Spy, maybe.

Yes, I mean we can anchor something like that around knowing Xanathar is CR13+. Is his Guild the largest in Faerun? Probably not. In the south there are cities far larger than Waterdeep, such as Calimshan. I like that because it unlocks a vast narrative arc for our ambitious Rogue. Your way can definitely work. I love a "points of light" setting for instance, where population density is greatly reduced. A tier 1 or 2 Rogue will be able to take the throne of a guild in a smaller town. If they become more ambitious they can look to a larger city state. Still, I feel like challenging them does mean continuing to envision adventurer-equiv characters in reasonable numbers at all tiers of play. Especially when our group has 6 PCs all in different classes. The "one handful" of high tier NPCs breaks down there. For me at least.

 

[S'mon]

Yes, I mean we can anchor something like that around knowing Xanathar is CR13+. Is his Guild the largest in Faerun? Probably not. In the south there are cities far larger than Waterdeep, such as Calimshan. I like that because it unlocks a vast narrative arc for our ambitious Rogue. Your way can definitely work. I love a "points of light" setting for instance, where population density is greatly reduced. A tier 1 or 2 Rogue will be able to take the throne of a guild in a smaller town. If they become more ambitious they can look to a larger city state. Still, I feel like challenging them does mean continuing to envision adventurer-equiv characters in reasonable numbers at all tiers of play. Especially when our group has 6 PCs all in different classes. The "one handful" of high tier NPCs breaks down there. For me at least.

Yes, this doesn't feel all that different to how I do it, I certainly do create powerful NPCs who can challenge high level PCs - I just don't see all that much value in using the PC-creation rules. Here is a powerful pirate chief who was recently duelled & killed by Hakeem, an 18th level Barbarian PC in my Wilderlands campaign. He was created using http://rpgtinker.com/ with a couple minutes' tweaking.
For going up against the five level 12-14 PCs in my Golarion campaign I guess I might use a squad of powerful npcs, but much more likely I think would be a larger number of cr8 or below npcs with a cr11+ leader.

CAPTAIN TYPHOON, the Titan's Bastard KILLED BY HAKEEM M2 4447
Goliath
Armor Class: 15 (Unarmoured Toughness)
Hit Points: 200 (20d12 +60) plus 10 for Stone's Endurance
Speed: 30ft (9m / 6 sqr)
Proficiency: +4
STR
22 (+6)
DEX
14 (+2)
CON
17 (+3)
INT
10 (+0)
WIS
14 (+2)
CHA
12 (+1)
Skills: Athletics +10 Intimidation +5 Animal Handling +6 Survival +6 Nature +4
Saving Throws: Strength +10 Constitution +7
Challenge: 12 (8400 XP)
Racial Features

Ability Modifiers: +2 Str, +1 Con
Natural Athlete: You have proficiency in the Athletics skill.
Powerful Build: You count as one size larger when determining your carrying capacity and the weight you can push, drag, or lift.
Mountain Born: You're acclimated to high altitude, including elevations above 20,000 feet. You're also naturally adapted to cold climates,
Languages: speaks Common and Giant

Actions

Multiattack. Typhoon makes four weapon melee attacks, or throws three javelins (three if started holding two then draws one, or two if started with axe in hand).

The Howling Axe, Massive Demon-forged +2 Greataxe. Melee Weapon Attack +12 to hit, reach 5 ft, one target. Hit: 27 (3d12 +8 ) slashing damage. SA: This two-handed axe requires STR 20 to wield and does 2d12 on a hit (Typhoon gets a +1 die bonus). On a hit the Howling Axe gives a terrifying scream. Foes of 6 hd or less who hear the Scream for the first time are Frightened for 1 minute/10 rounds. A non-frightened ally may attempt a DC 15 Persuasion check as an action to rally them and break the effect.
Properties: Heavy, Two-handed,

Massive Javelin. Melee Weapon Attack +10 to hit, range 30/120, one target. Hit: 16 (3d6 +6 ) piercing damage.
Properties: Thrown: range 30/120,

 

[Derren]

Adventurers should be fairly common. Just look at how many mercenaries there were in real life in the middle ages. A fantasy world wouldnt have any less and I would classify those mercenaries as adventurers. They have the same economic needs as "proper" adventurers and they would of course not only fight in big wars against other soldiers but also be involved in monster hunting and might also proactively plunder a lair.
And those who prove to be competent might strike out on their own as a group and become real adventurers instead of climbing the ranks.

Being an adventurer is often the only chance for most people to rise economically, so even though it is dangerous there will be enough people willing to try.

 

[Derren]

Double post.

 

[Mephista]

I don't use the word "adventurer" in the first place. The concept of wandering murder-hobo mercinaries is pretty rare. Mercinary guilds? Ranger collectives? Thief guilds, paladins-as-police, etc? Pretty common.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

In a world of bounded accuracy, there is no need for the boss to be able to physically beat any of his/her flunkies as long as he/she has enough loyal flunkies to that the boss + loyal flunkies can beat any disloyal flunky (or group of disloyal flunkies). That is like saying the President of the United States needs to be able to beat up every member of the military. Even Abraham Lincoln, who achieved some fame as a wrestler before entering politics, probably couldn't have done that.

Just remember the lawful ruler's maxim: It doesn't matter if I can beat you, it only matters if my army can.