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

[Kabouter Games]

There's no reason why the Pope has to be a level 20 adventuring cleric. In fact, being an adventuring cleric ill suits a priest to be Pope. It's far more useful to be skilled in the internal politics of the church. It's infinitely more useful to remain close to the seat of power, where you get to know people, manipulating favor and patronage. Bimbling all over the countryside smiting heathens does precisely zero to improve either skill set.

I've been thinking about this one a bit more.

If anything, the high-level adventuring cleric is a direct threat to a non-adventuring prelate. The adventurer directly and obviously manifests the immense power of the deity, where the prelate sits in a room somewhere and, unless something dire happens, is comparatively invisible. People start to wonder about why they listen to the prelate. People are people, and religious people have an alarming tendency to turn such affairs into The Life of Brian. If anything it leads to a schism in the Church.

Say, that sounds like an interesting high-level campaign. But I digress.

Those of you who remember the details of AD&D will remember that EGG et al envisioned the strongholds and "name" level ranges to be excellent ways to urge characters into retirement. They start getting pulled every which way but the path of adventure. It's hard to just chuck it all and go on a quest to loot a dragon's hoard when you have thousands of people clutching their gourds and shoes, expecting you to challenge the existing hierarchy, when you've got a bunch of apostles - another hierarchy - springing up around you. Your god might have some choice messages for you. You might end up crucified, or on the end of an assassin's poisoned knife, either way a victim of the prelate's pragmatism. Easier to just start a monastery somewhere, where you can retire from the world and contemplate the mysteries of your god.

Anyway, I think it's interesting.

Cheers,

Bob

www.r-p-davis.com

 

[Jester David]

I'm happy with how NPCs are handled in 5e. The head of the thieve's guild doesn't need to be a level 5 rogue, but can instead be a "Master Thief" that has some rogue abilities but also some other stuff.

 

[Caliban]

Could I suggest that it makes naive assumptions that hinder rather than help our campaigns?

Sure you can. You're probably wrong, but don't let that stop you.

 

[OB1]

I'm in general agreement with [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION] except i have even fewer adventurers in Tier I. My thought process is that for each level gained in Tier 1, assume 1 adventurer killed and 2 retire before they are killed, after all, they are facing death around 3 to 4 times (assuming typical adventuring day) for each level gained. After Tier 1, the attrition number reduces to 1 per level, as these exceptional people are driven by something beyond the norm and have the capability of surviving much more.

Additionally, most Wizards aren't even level 1, the typical Wizard College graduate leaves with something perhaps equivalent to the Magic Initiate Feat, and more than half who attend never even achieve that. The typical solider is not a Level 1 fighter, the typical priest not a Level 1 Cleric and so on. So in my campaign, you can count the number of Tier III characters (not including the adventurers) at any given level on one hand, and Tier IV characters are the stuff of legend. Perhaps there is 1 or 2 somewhere in the world, but they are likely only myths at this point. Should the PCs make it to this, they will be remembered for an age.

World Population - 200,000,000
Level 0 (soldiers, priests, magic initiates, guides, musicians, etc) - 8,000,000
Level 1 - 80,000
Level 2 - 20,000
Level 3 - 5,000
Level 4 - 1,250
Level 5 - 625
Level 6 - 312
Level 7 - 156
Level 8 - 78
Level 9 - 39
Level 10 - 20
Level 11 - 10
Level 12 - 5
Level 13 - 2
Level 14 - 1
Level 15 to 20 - ???

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That's fine if you want to play that way, but it makes the mistaken assumption that every character that belongs to one of these organizations must be a classed character (ie, every thief must be a Rogue). The DMG shows that this is not the case with NPCs like the Mage.

That's not the only way to interpret that data, and it's certainly not the interpretation I would choose.

As I see it, a Mage is just a Wizard whose minor abilities we do not care to write down. It's a concession to playability made for the sake of the lazy DM. Within the reality of the game world, there is no difference between a Mage and a Wizard.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I've been thinking about this one a bit more.

If anything, the high-level adventuring cleric is a direct threat to a non-adventuring prelate. The adventurer directly and obviously manifests the immense power of the deity, where the prelate sits in a room somewhere and, unless something dire happens, is comparatively invisible. People start to wonder about why they listen to the prelate. People are people, and religious people have an alarming tendency to turn such affairs into The Life of Brian. If anything it leads to a schism in the Church.

Say, that sounds like an interesting high-level campaign. But I digress.

Those of you who remember the details of AD&D will remember that EGG et al envisioned the strongholds and "name" level ranges to be excellent ways to urge characters into retirement. They start getting pulled every which way but the path of adventure. It's hard to just chuck it all and go on a quest to loot a dragon's hoard when you have thousands of people clutching their gourds and shoes, expecting you to challenge the existing hierarchy, when you've got a bunch of apostles - another hierarchy - springing up around you. Your god might have some choice messages for you. You might end up crucified, or on the end of an assassin's poisoned knife, either way a victim of the prelate's pragmatism. Easier to just start a monastery somewhere, where you can retire from the world and contemplate the mysteries of your god.

Anyway, I think it's interesting.

Cheers,

Bob

www.r-p-davis.com

That could be an interesting plot in the case of a corrupt religious bureaucrat but I don't think it's the default. There have been many people who have been granted sainthood (and therefore purportedly performed miracles). However, less than 1 in 3 Popes have. You don't hear of a lot of Popes being deposed in favor of miracle-workers.

There's nothing wrong with a church authority being unable to perform miracles. Particularly if clerics are viewed more as crusaders of the faith, than priests who hang out in a temple waiting for someone to wander in needing Cure Wounds. Someone who tends to the day to day needs of the church doesn't need Spiritual Weapon or Flamestrike to do so. They are called serve their deity in an administrative way.

A Cleric might be popular with the people, but so long as the head of the church is reasonably competent it's unlikely that the common folk would look to supplant him. The Cleric might also be reluctant to take such a position of power, as such is not their calling (their path is to go out into the world and act as the hand of the deity they serve, not sit in a fancy office).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

How common are adventurers in your world? How do you communicate to the players how adventuring is viewed in your world?

In my world, there are no adventurers. There are bandits, soldiers, and wizards. There are a handful of legendary heroes, whose abilities can also manifest as sorcerers and paladins. The cleric class is present at the head of each church, but they're too busy with administration and political stuff to really get out much. Most temples are staffed by monks.

Non-magic classes are limited to level 5, unless you're a legendary hero.

 

[Fanaelialae]

That's not the only way to interpret that data, and it's certainly not the interpretation I would choose.

As I see it, a Mage is just a Wizard whose minor abilities we do not care to write down. It's a concession to playability made for the sake of the lazy DM. Within the reality of the game world, there is no difference between a Mage and a Wizard.

What about the Berserker? Is he just a Barbarian whose rage was deemed an ability too minor to note? (If that's the case, I have to say I disagree.)

What about the Guard? Is he a Fighter for whom all class features were deemed too non-essential to note?

NPCs are not built the same as PCs. They tend to be significantly inferior to a PC of similar capabilities. Sure, it isn't the only way to interpret it (that PCs are elite), but IMO it is the most straight-forward explanation, and the explanation that deviates the least from a traditional fantasy world (where the story might focus on classed characters, but who are rare in the scope of the world and often gifted with unusual talent).

 

[S'mon]

What about the Berserker? Is he just a Barbarian whose rage was deemed an ability too minor to note? (If that's the case, I have to say I disagree.)

Well he could be an auto-raging bear-barian whose half damage is translated into x2 hp for simplicity's sake.

But yes you are right of course.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

That's not the only way to interpret that data, and it's certainly not the interpretation I would choose.

As I see it, a Mage is just a Wizard whose minor abilities we do not care to write down. It's a concession to playability made for the sake of the lazy DM. Within the reality of the game world, there is no difference between a Mage and a Wizard.

I don't think there's a hard-and-fast distinction between "mage" and "wizard": as long as both are using Intelligence-based casting and spellbooks, they're both in the same line of work. However, I think the PC wizard class represents a particularly intense level of training and experience. I don't see any reason to assume that everybody who can cast a fireball out of a book automatically has the same access to other abilities -- some people learn to cast without figuring out the trick of Arcane Recovery or becoming Evocation Savants or learning to Sculpt Spells. So if you like, think of mages as members of the "community college" wizard archetype that skips class features rather than gaining them, and just sticks to the basic spell progression. Y'know, like wizards used to do in 1E-3E.

And of course the same goes for NPCs of other "classes".