D&D 5E Proposed rule for number of character-class-equivalent NPCs in a D&D world

[clearstream]

Honestly, I would try to not think about it too much, because the concept of HP and rapid recovery just don't work on a large scale. If orcs are rampaging the countryside, and half of the adults are pressed into service to fight back, then a significant number of them will see combat and gain combat experience. The ones who don't die will eventually reach the point where they are better represented by the veteran stat block than by the commoner stat block. Some of them may get there more quickly than others, but it doesn't really matter, because it ultimately comes down to the DMs interpretation as to which stat block to use (or whether they want to implement one or more intermediate or advanced stat blocks).

For three or four years I ran a civil war campaign set in 14th Century Damara. I found it very helpful to estimate the forces up front. That allowed me to organise them into flavourful groupings that the PCs later joined or interacted with. Such as a rangers contingent drawing inspiration of course from those met in The Two Towers. I agree with you that the simple tiers method proposed probably low-balls it for a kingdom on a war footing. In addition to creating veterans, a war would draw in mercenaries. IIRC I roughly doubled the number of cc-equiv NPCs during the war period. And I removed a large part of the population (dead or enslaved) so the end density would have been higher again. My standard unit was a mixed force based on a medieval spear.

A streamlined approach could be to triple the numbers for a war footing. If we say that peace time Heliogabalus has 440 T1, 44 T2, and 4-5 T3 which chimes quite well with the various arcane groups, the paladin orders and so on that we know about. A good proportion of the 132 T2s will be Veterans and each one will have 10 footmen (Guards) or archers (Scouts). Damara is a small kingdom far away from anything so isn't going to see the sort of massed affair one might have in the South.

Of course every DM can and should have their own interpretation. I'm aiming to offer a starting point, a quick rule based on an oft-repeated DM guess of 1/100 Level 1s. Through using tiers, it remains vague enough to work for a wide range of campaigns. I will add something on war, and [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]'s point about Hit Dice, to the OP.

 

[clearstream]

So with help from comments in this thread, I would now propose

About 1/100 people have tier 1 character class-equivalence, with an order of magnitude fewer per tier above that. An Intelligence (Investigation) ability check DC 5*Tier can discover the whereabouts of such an NPC so long as they are not taking steps to avoid being found; add 5 to that DC if the search is conducted in a settlement with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants. Triple the tier counts and subtract 5 from the DC if the region is on a war footing. Monster Manual stat blocks such as the Mage represent such NPCs in abstract, and are usually sufficient to run them: adding more detail using their character class where required. Their Hit Dice indicates their tier.

The components are

1. Starting estimate based on the oft-repeated 1/100 low-levels
2. Goes by tier to keep things vague and flexible - it's a guideline not a straitjacket
3. Equates MM stat block NPCs with cc-equiv NPCs, treating them as fungible - gives flexibility to modify as needed
4. Offers a DC for PC searches for arbitrary PCs - this is the most experimental part and will be refined over time
5. Adjusts for regions on a war-footing
6. NPCs are not assumed to be "locked" to the town they are estimated for - in fact, a good way to use the method might be to do the estimate at regional level first
7. It's designed to be a quick first pass - an estimate made on the fly do without looking up a table

This rule won't bite and isn't a trick to take away your power as a DM. It produces results pretty consistent with the baseline D&D world. CC-equiv NPCs remain extremely rare. Tier 3's are about 1 in 10,000, and Tier 4s are 1 in 100,000! Even a city as large as Waterdeep (2m in the age of 5e) will only yield a score of them. Half of those might be absent at any one time. Half of the rest might be reclusive. A handful might be available for PCs to locate on a DC of 20: failure could indicate anything from "There is no 17th level Monk in Waterdeep" to "There is, but she won't speak with you" to "There is, but she is away on her own affairs".

More than anything this is intended as a point of departure. The DM can always simply fiat that there is a 17th level Monk, or there are no Tier 4s at all, or anything in between. However, through providing a consistent framework it is hoped to inspire. To make us scratch our heads and wonder at who the inhabitants of our fictional worlds are, and what they are doing.

 

[CapnZapp]

You haven't yet provided any grounds at all for saying that. You've made assertions, without providing any evidence or analysis.

That is because I am not arguing with you.

Either you see my point or you don't/won't.

If you're hellbent on adding rules for your NPCs nobody's gonna stop you.

If, on the other hand, you can appreciate a voice of moderation, essentially saying "actually, you might not want to do that", I have accomplished all I set out to do.

Therefore I wish you the best of luck with your game ☺

If you truly are open-minded and curious about the reasons as to why you should skip putting numbers on NPC frequency, we could talk about it.

But unless I'm reading you wrong, you're spoiling for an argument where you want to defend your current stance, and I'm simply not interested in doing that yet another time.

Again have a nice day, Z



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[clearstream]

Either you see my point or you don't/won't.

You seem to be saying that you have concerns about assuming some %age of a population are tier 3 or tier 4 cc-equiv. Is that right?

If you're hellbent on adding rules for your NPCs nobody's gonna stop you.

Am I right to understand that you don't value most of the DMG and in particular Chapter 4, because it adds rules for NPCs?

If, on the other hand, you can appreciate a voice of moderation, essentially saying "actually, you might not want to do that", I have accomplished all I set out to do.

I valued your comment about using HD to estimate their tier equivalent. Knights are 8HD for instance so fit into tier 2.

Damara had a population of about 1.3m in the 14th Century so given 1300 tier 2 we may (but do not have to) say that one-quarter of those are knights in service. About 300 knights. In war time that swells to a thousand. That helps when it comes to portraying the war with Zhengi, or for my campaign, the civil war. I can describe a large battle for the players in a rich way that will be consistent with other, related portrayals. I can quickly guess that each side of my civil war can field around 500 Knights supported by perhaps 5000 Guards and Scouts. I can talk about there being a few hundred mercenaries drawn to the war from neighbouring kingdoms.

If you truly are open-minded and curious about the reasons as to why you should skip putting numbers on NPC frequency, we could talk about it.

I'm very curious about it, and very open-minded. What problems are you concerned about that arise when we put numbers on their frequency?

But unless I'm reading you wrong, you're spoiling for an argument where you want to defend your current stance, and I'm simply not interested in doing that yet another time.

High-handed dismissal from a position lacking substance is honestly objectionable. Therefore I object. It is an appeal to self-appointed authority rather than a discussion: "Trust me, I'm right." Well, maybe you don't see any problem with that approach?

 

[dagger]

That is because I am not arguing with you.

Either you see my point or you don't/won't.

If you're hellbent on adding rules for your NPCs nobody's gonna stop you.

If, on the other hand, you can appreciate a voice of moderation, essentially saying "actually, you might not want to do that", I have accomplished all I set out to do.

Therefore I wish you the best of luck with your game ☺

If you truly are open-minded and curious about the reasons as to why you should skip putting numbers on NPC frequency, we could talk about it.

But unless I'm reading you wrong, you're spoiling for an argument where you want to defend your current stance, and I'm simply not interested in doing that yet another time.

Again have a nice day, Z



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Rules for NPC frequency is not new to 5e D&D at all. You having a different opinion than vonklaude does not make you right just because you think it is. I could implement his 'rule' right now and it would have no negative effect on my own game at all.

Sheesh, its just a guideline to determine if a city/village or whatever has high level NPCs or not. He does not need to defend anything. Even if anyone uses this guideline then it can still be change ON THE FLY. If a DM needs to have more or less of a certain class at a certain level then its not like its permanent!

Rules to determine on the fly what kind of npcs, races, magic items, equipment and countless other things exists in various population sized centers is NOT NEW and has been around since before 1994 for sure!

 

[CapnZapp]

Rules for NPC frequency is not new to 5e D&D at all. You having a different opinion than vonklaude does not make you right just because you think it is. I could implement his 'rule' right now and it would have no negative effect on my own game at all.

Sheesh, its just a guideline to determine if a city/village or whatever has high level NPCs or not. He does not need to defend anything. Even if anyone uses this guideline then it can still be change ON THE FLY. If a DM needs to have more or less of a certain class at a certain level then its not like its permanent!

Rules to determine on the fly what kind of npcs, races, magic items, equipment and countless other things exists in various population sized centers is NOT NEW and has been around since before 1994 for sure!

If you say so.

(Since I really can't muster the enthusiasm, that ends my contribution to this thread. Thanks all)

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[dagger]

If you say so.

(Since I really can't muster the enthusiasm, that ends my contribution to this thread. Thanks all)

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Still waiting on the contribution part, but see you.