D&D 5E Poll: What is a Level 1 PC?

[Ahnehnois]

Ability scores can let you kludge an already nonsensical system, true. But at that point, why not just rely on ability scores as would be sensible rather than trying to cram the world into a class/level system?

You're preaching to the choir. But since D&D has been a class/level system for the duration of its existence, that's the box we're working in. Obviously, if you didn't have classes and levels, all the problems under discussion would be nonissues.

What is gained through a full 20-level class progression that isn't gained through (1) just using something akin to 0-level rules,

By giving them levels, you're modeling their varying levels of expertise.

and (2) assigning them whatever skill bonus makes sense given their profession?

By giving them levels, you're again modeling their training and how they got that skill bonus, and you're also avoiding the sense of unfairness when a player asks "how can I get Craft (Armor) +20 without having to be 17th level?". Everyone plays by the same rules.

Consistency is achieved through consistency. You can mistake it for versimilitude if you squint.

Inconsistency sure kills verisimilitude.

 

[Obryn]

By giving them levels, you're modeling their varying levels of expertise.

By giving them the right skill bonuses you're modeling their levels of expertise.

By giving them levels, you're modeling their increase in combat ability. And afterwards pretending that this improvement in fighting competency lets them be better at their non-combat job.

Inconsistency sure kills verisimilitude.

This is one area where consistency and versimilitude are at clear loggerheads, IMO.

-O

 

[Cadence]

By giving them levels, you're again modeling their training and how they got that skill bonus, and you're also avoiding the sense of unfairness when a player asks "how can I get Craft (Armor) +20 without having to be 17th level?". Everyone plays by the same rules.

I'm picturing them not being really happy with with "Well, quickest way is to give up adventuring and go out and try crafting really hard armors full time for six years or so -- and wow can that be an expensive enterprise to support! If you want to support yourself doing it you're looking at a decade and a half, maybe two if you can stay focussed."

 

[Cadence]

By giving them levels, you're modeling their increase in combat ability. And afterwards pretending that this improvement in fighting competency lets them be better at their non-combat job.

This argument seems spot on for the PF/3.5 NPC classes.

It doesn't work if you have non-adventuring classes that don't get more HP or bonuses to hit. Could even combine them - Blacksmith 5 (only combat 2). Of course this one still has to fend off the argument about why can't you just give them whatever arbitrary skills you want instead of whatever arbitrary levels you want.

 

[Obryn]

I'll agree that that's way more detail than really should be necessary. But I think "butt-kicking" is rather stretching things a bit, isn't it?

Hah, yeah - but the issues come into play when (1) he's a 10th-level commoner, (2) your jewelers, architects, and musicians are beating your equally-experienced farmers in brawls, and (3) you compare that 5th-level commoner to a standard 1st-level town guard in leather with a spear truncheon.

I'm picturing them not being really happy with with "Well, quickest way is to give up adventuring and go out and try crafting really hard armors full time for six years or so -- and wow can that be an expensive enterprise to support! If you want to support yourself doing it you're looking at a decade and a half, maybe two if you can stay focussed."

That would be my answer. "Sure, give up adventuring and work hard at making stuff for a few years, and you'll be awesome too! Or you can adventure for a few weeks, never put your smithing skills to use even once, and you'll get magically better at them without practice!"

EDIT:

It doesn't work if you have non-adventuring classes that don't get more HP or bonuses to hit. Could even combine them - Blacksmith 5 (only combat 2). Of course this one still has to fend off the argument about why can't you just give them whatever arbitrary skills you want instead of whatever arbitrary levels you want.

That's basically it. It's only sensible if you start from the assumption that everything in the world needs a class and level. I don't think that's necessary. It's an artifact of trying to use a rules framework designed to model adventurers crawling through dungeons and trying to apply it to farmers as well.

-O

 

[timASW]

Time spent creating background and story hooks, rather than generating NPCs. It's a lot quicker and cleaner to write "village blacksmith, mediocre skill" than go through the motions of generating a level 1 or two "expert" NPC, and the long-winded version is almost never worth the effort--the only time I might consider it is if the NPC in question is central to the current storyline.

To me that time is part of what brings the world alive. I play a sandbox style where characters often visit the same places over and over or find themselves based in the same location for large story arcs. So the small details like this really matter. Its not just some random smith they will never see again, its Marcus the smith who they will interact with several times and may have valuable information about the local area, other adventurers passing through and other assorted things associated with who buys weapons and armor.

Besides, the detailed world building is a huge part of what I enjoy about GMing. Building and maintaining a thoroughly detailed world that feels and looks alive is a big part of what prevents DM burnout for me.

 

[Obryn]

Besides, the detailed world building is a huge part of what I enjoy about GMing. Building and maintaining a thoroughly detailed world that feels and looks alive is a big part of what prevents DM burnout for me.

Me too! But this was done before NPC classes - back when most of the world was just "0-level" or not statted at all - and it's been done after them.

See The Village of Hommlet for some examples.

-O

 

[timASW]

(1) Time sinks and unnecessary tasks spent making NPCs more detailed than they need to be.

Theres nothing unnecesary about having a thoroughly detailed world. A campaign world doesnt revolve around the characters and cease to exist when they exist stage left. It should keep going and evolving as people respond to developments in the world.

Having a thoroughly detailed world makes that better.

(2) Illogical NPC classes in the game-world which lead inevitably to butt-kicking turnip farmers because of the idiosyncracies of levels. I can't see how this isn't a versimilitude problem while an absence of NPC classes is.

This fallacy of butt kicking commoners is something you've brought up over and over again and its simply a ridiculous strawman.

Most of those NPC classes gain +1 ATT bonus every 3 or 4 levels, so even metropolis size cities should only have 4 or 5 10th level NPC's. Who will certainly be gaurds and wizardly adepts, not farmers and still only have a +3 ATT.

So do i think theres a problem with the fact the occasional farmer who uses tools (tools which historically doubled as militia weapons) every day for a decade or two is good enough at swinging it to get a +1? No I am not.

Nor am I terribly concerned that a tough old laborer might have a whole 9 or 10 HP. IF he's managed 3rd or fourth level. As a D6 HP with no con bonus only nets you 3 HP a level.

(3) It throws class/level into every discussion of beings in the gameworld when it's a very clumsy attempt at obsessively categorizing the universe. Square pegs, round holes.

No, its square pegs with square holes in a very tidy way of categorizing the universe.

(4) Extraneous math which uses a process as a screen. It's fake versimilitude - you're following a process, so it feels like you're doing something, when in fact the math just obscures the final intent..

Its absolute true verisimilitude, everything works the same way for everyone. Thats the right way to do things.

Your assertion assumes theres any final intent other creating a believable logical NPC. Thats another strawman. The intent has nothing to do with the PC's which seems to be your assertion.

You can rattle it off because you've had practice and experience in the system. I should note that, like any new DM, it was not so easy at first. As with anything else, it takes practice. I'm also not a fan of barriers to new DMs. New DMs shouldn't have to go through a long process to figure out how good the village blacksmith is at making horseshoes.

I dont give a damn HOW NEW you are as a DM. If you have a hard time managing Level+3 max skill ranks you have no business whatsoever behind the screen. Put it down and hand it over to someone else who can manage it.

 

[timASW]

Me too! But this was done before NPC classes - back when most of the world was just "0-level" or not statted at all - and it's been done after them.

See The Village of Hommlet for some examples.

-O

My worlds were NEVER that way. They just took what I was already doing and put it in the book with 3e.

 

[Obryn]

This fallacy of butt kicking commoners is something you've brought up over and over again and its simply a ridiculous strawman.

Most of those NPC classes gain +1 ATT bonus every 3 or 4 levels, so even metropolis size cities should only have 4 or 5 10th level NPC's. Who will certainly be gaurds and wizardly adepts, not farmers and still only have a +3 ATT.

1/2 is the slowest progression.

And it's not a strawman at all. By sticking with a strict class/level for everything in the world, you're still insisiting that combat skill increase as you get better at farming and playing the flute.

No, its square pegs with square holes in a very tidy way of categorizing the universe.

Its absolute true verisimilitude, everything works the same way for everyone. Thats the right way to do things.

Your assertion assumes theres any final intent other creating a believable logical NPC. Thats another strawman. The intent has nothing to do with the PC's which seems to be your assertion.

The real world doesn't have classes and levels. And yet we have many people with varying degrees of skill in it, who manage to get better at their jobs without improving their combat skill. Class/Level is an artificial construct which works perfectly well for adventurers. It's a nice shorthand which works within its anticipated domain.

Consistency is easy to mistake for versimilitude. But it's not.

I dont give a damn HOW NEW you are as a DM. If you have a hard time managing Level+3 max skill ranks you have no business whatsoever behind the screen. Put it down and hand it over to someone else who can manage it.

...and Skill Focus! And other feats! And don't forget any bonuses for your best stats! You may have forgotten how long it can take to learn a system. And compared to something like a simple chart, it's still unnecessary labor.

I don't like the idea that DMing should be an exclusive club. It's a poor philosophy to build an RPG around.

-O