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

[Shasarak]

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.

I must admit that modern day real life PCs are a lot weaker then their ancient counterparts that could actually beat up their own military.

 

[steeldragons]

I like your general principles, but halving per level feels like too aggressive a function here; it doesn't really emulate the baseline D&D world.

-snip math-

Our tier populations get distributed among levels however we like. Some ambiguity helps us as DMs

I understand what you're doing there. And ambiguity, indeed, is helpful as a DM. But a strict adherence to "tiered" levels and/or play is definitely not my thing.

Considering that PCs are unlikely to encounter every classed NPC (regardless of their level) in a given population center, and I just make up these lists as a guideline for my own purposes -maybe spark a few potential plot hooks or beneficial connections for the players, reminders for when/if the PCs return or I need to lend some internal consistency to the world-, I'll stick to my simple "divide by 2" method to get things down on paper quickly without lots of <shudder> math.

If I need an "uber wizard" or "unbeatable warlord" to appear, wander into, or be ruling a given place, that is exponentially higher level than the Classed Population equation "allows" or a competing party of inept-but delusionally self-assured- low level adventurers the numbers don't account for, I can just put them there.

Having a world full of 10th or 12th+ leveled NPCs (let alone 20+!?) running around, controlling everything and/or to be found pretty much anywhere, is really not my play style or my homebrewed campaign setting's norm. The PCs, assuming they achieve such heights of experience as, well, above 12th level or so, would be hero-champions among men, well known far and wide with songs and sagas told of their exploits. They would become members of an elite cadre of legendary figures in the world's [known/remembered] history.

So, achieving "Tier 4 or Epic" level classed NPCs isn't really something I am concerned about.

 

[jasper]

We take you now to William of Water Deep
William, " Today residences of Water Deep may expect a 50% of murder hobos, 30% of ROLE player, and 10% of Boring Bards Belting Bar Band songs!"

 

[Lanefan]

We take you now to William of Water Deep
William, " Today residences of Water Deep may expect a 50% of murder hobos, 30% of ROLE player, and 10% of Boring Bards Belting Bar Band songs!"

<tug tug tug on William's sleeve>

"William? Er...William?"

"Yes?"

"That means 10% are missing - what are they doing?"

 

[clearstream]

I understand what you're doing there. And ambiguity, indeed, is helpful as a DM. But a strict adherence to "tiered" levels and/or play is definitely not my thing.

Considering that PCs are unlikely to encounter every classed PC (regardless of their level) in a given population center, and I just make up these lists as a guideline for my own purposes -maybe spark a few potential plot hooks or beneficial connections for the players, reminders for when/if the PCs return or I need to lend some internal consistency to the world-, I'll stick to my simple "divide by 2" method to get things down on paper quickly without lots of <shudder> math.

I guess I don't buy the "math" objection. 1/100, 2/1000 etc is easily handled by DMs who can run a game using hundreds of pages of rules. And working by tier is quicker than by level! I hope you can also see that your "strict adherence" objection is a strawman. Our intent is to propose guidelines, not straitjacket DMs into them. Here again, working by tiers promotes a greater sense of flexibility than going level by level.

I certainly agree with you about consistency. Remember Tolkien's comment about consistency lending credibility to fantasy worlds? Guidelines like these help DMs bring their world to life for players.

Having a world full of 10th or 12th+ leveled NPCs (let alone 20+!?) running around, controlling everything and/or to be found pretty much anywhere, is really not my play style or my homebrewed campaign setting's norm. The PCs, assuming they achieve such heights of experience as, well, above 12th level or so, would be hero-champions among men, well known far and wide with songs and sagas told of their exploits. They would become members of an elite cadre of legendary figures in the world's [known/remembered] history.

I feel like our construct for density of character class individuals should at least be able to explain the baseline D&D world, i.e. Faerun. So it must yield some tier 4 and epic characters in cities like Waterdeep because in the fiction there are characters like that in those cities! Other worlds will differ of course, but your 1/100 rule of thumb feels broadly sound as our tier 1 baseline.

1. Tier 1 - Choose a simple %age for tier 1 character class density e.g. 1/100
2. Tier 2 - Assume 1 in 5 make it out of tier 1 i.e.2/1000
3. Tier 3 - 1 in 10 make it out of tier 2 i.e. 2/10,000
4. Tier 4 - 1 in 10 make it out of tier 3 i.e. 2/100,000
5. +Epic - 1 in 10 make it out of tier i.e. 2/1,000,000

The tuning values depend on your world, and they could differ by culture and polity in that world. The ones above seem to yield reasonable numbers for both large and small polities in Faerun. Whatever function is used should have explanatory power in your world! The above attempts to explain the baseline D&D world i.e. Faerun by yielding values consistent with what we observe there. By using the granularity of tiers I believe it better respects accuracy over precision.

Waterdeep (pop 2,000,000)

Tier 1 = 20,000
Tier 2 = 4,000
Tier 3 = 400
Tier 4 = 40
+Epic = 4

Small Town (pop 7500)

Tier 1 = 75
Tier 2 = 15
Tier 3 = 1-2
Tier 4 = 0
+Epic = 0

There could be tier 4 and epic character class individuals in some small towns, but they are not expected in every small town! (If desired, they can be roughly estimated by aggregating such towns.)

 

[S'mon]

I feel like our construct for density of character class individuals should at least be able to explain the baseline D&D world, i.e. Faerun.

Faerun is the default world for 5e D&D, but historically is an outlier in terms of NPC level distribution.
Default Faerun in 5e does not have class/level NPCs because default 5e does not give NPCs classes & levels!

Again I think a bunch of stuff is being conflated here.

1. If we're talking 5e (and this is in the 5e forum), NPCs by default don't have classes & levels.
2. If we're not talking 5e, Faerun is an outlier, most other D&D worlds have much lower level NPCs.
3. If we are talking 1e-3e Faerun then you are entirely correct.

 

[Quartz]

If ever I get back into DMing, NPC adventurer parties are going as common as they need to be. Inactive adventurers aren't adventurers any more, and if Jane Bloggs needs to be a 16th level Paladin, then she is.

 

[clearstream]

Faerun is the default world for 5e D&D, but historically is an outlier in terms of NPC level distribution.

Choosing the default world for a baseline is reasonable! However, it's useful to distinguish between a method and its tuning values. A consistent method that has come out of discussion so far is -

1. Go by tiers rather than levels because that is fast and flexible
2. Set your baseline ratio for tier 1 e.g. 1/100
3. Apply tier-to-tier attrition rates e.g. 4/5
4. Attrition rates can vary

So if a DM envisions more or fewer character class NPCs, they can set their tuning values accordingly.

Default Faerun in 5e does not have class/level NPCs because default 5e does not give NPCs classes & levels!

I'm working from the view that the MM stat blocks are time saving devices for DMs. I do not agree with the view to the contrary, but if that is your view then you have a more complex situation. You have NPCs that have no character class equivalence. You have NPCs that have character class equivalence, but do not have character classes. And you have NPCs that have character classes.

 

[S'mon]

I'm working from the view that the MM stat blocks are time saving devices for DMs. I do not agree with the view to the contrary, but if that is your view then you have a more complex situation. You have NPCs that have no character class equivalence. You have NPCs that have character class equivalence, but do not have character classes. And you have NPCs that have character classes.

I think it would be more helpful for default 5e to think in terms of NPC CR rather than NPC Level. By default NPCs don't have a Level (and giving them levels is the opposite of time saving), but they do have a CR. Then you can meaningfully discuss NPC demographics in terms of challenge posed to PCs.

If you do it that way you may find that Tier IV CR 17-20 NPCs are rarer than you might think even on Faerun, and Epic CR 21+ very rare. IME NPC organisation leaders tend to be Tier II or III, like the MM Archmage and VGTM Warlord, but for Faerun a few legendary NPCs like Gromph Baenre, Manshoon, Driz'zt might be Tier IV and horrible creatures like Szass Tamm, Lich-Queen Vlaakith of the Githyanki, and Elminster would be Epic Tier.

 

[clearstream]

I think it would be more helpful for default 5e to think in terms of NPC CR rather than NPC Level. By default NPCs don't have a Level (and giving them levels is the opposite of time saving), but they do have a CR. Then you can meaningfully discuss NPC demographics in terms of challenge posed to PCs.

I agree with you that much of the time we can use abstracted stat blocks in our games (regardless of what we envision is behind them!) Caveating that for me an absolute resistance to NPCs with character classes feels less helpful. Say our PC Monk has the common backstory of studying for years at a monastery. Perhaps containing 144 monks... none of whom are allowed Monk character class levels!? A flat-out disconnect between PCs and all other inhabitants of their world causes dissonance... for me at least! Can we directly equate CR to tiers? You seem to be saying it is 1:1 to class level. Is that right?

If you do it that way you may find that Tier IV CR 17-20 NPCs are rarer than you might think even on Faerun, and Epic CR 21+ very rare.

It's a matter of tuning values. If you believe there should be fewer, tune it that way.

Faerun (pop 70m)
Tier 1 - 700,000
Tier 2 - 140,000
Tier 3 - 14,000
Tier 4 - 1400
+Epic - 140

It feels safe to assume that we only know about a proportion of Epic level characters i.e. there are more that could be encountered or written about. Still, 140 seems high doesn't it? Perhaps the original though to assume an order of magnitude fewer at each tier is right after all?

Faerun (pop 70m)
Tier 1 - 700,000
Tier 2 - 70,000
Tier 3 - 7,000
Tier 4 - 700
+Epic - 70

70 epic tier NPCs for the entire continent, known and unknown, sounds okay for me. YMMV. In my experience as a DM, being able to turn to a strong cast of NPCs who can meet PCs on their own terms leads to the most enjoyable and challenging situations. Consider abilities such as the Diviner's Portent, which gets very interesting when taken together with Bardic Inspiration and the Lucky feat! Treating MM stat blocks as the limit of complexity for NPCs rules out such fascinating options, or at best makes them much harder to balance! I'd go so far to say that for the greatest gameplay, character class NPCs become more valuable at high level than low. Because of the burgeoning power of PCs, and their range of options.