A Dozen Crossbows Aimed at You ..

Should high level PCs be able to escape / not die when aimed at with DOZEN crossbows?

  • PCs prevail. Level 15 > N*Level 2. N is any number.

    Votes: 148 60.2%
  • PCs die or are detained. There should be a rule to reflect this.

    Votes: 54 22.0%
  • Mandatory third option.

    Votes: 44 17.9%

People seem to be very confused about what the RAW is saying with regards to NPC's with levels. And darn my need to travel lightly for not having the DMG with me.

The vast majority of town guards *are* low-level mooklings. Even according to the RAW. This is in part because of the way populations are generated (90% commoner 1, 10% "other"), and partly because of the rarity of truly big populations that support high-level characters (villages and hamlets make up, IIRC, the majority of terrain, with one "metropolis" perhaps on the continent, or even in the world).

Now, low-level commoners can get a lot done. Using Take 10 and Take 20 rules, they can accomplish a day's task, and when they set their minds to it, they can really exceed the norms. Some can even get lucky if they try really hard in a pinch.

This assumes, as D&D does, a world where the dark demon lords don't walk the streets at night and the liches don't pop out from under the bed. Rather, the dark and spooky things of great power stay distant, like the great and powerful things of legendary power do. You've got a few 20th level heroes living in the only metropolis on the planet, you've got your cabal of five balor caged in the deepest chasms in the cursed mountains in the isoalted badlands, and you've got miles upon miles of level 1 commoners, humans, elves, dwarves, kobolds, goblins, and orcs in between them.

This is why the D&D world doesn't need to take into account things like "easily available resurrection." Or "Beholders walking down city streets." Because it's NOT that easily available...it's there, and it's not just in the PC's hands, but it is not common, not by a long shot.

So yes, in most places, 15th level heroes will be able to have immunity to the mere law enforced by the 2nd level guards. Of course, if they try their stuff in the bigger cities, they will have better forces, but even in such a case, the PC's are most likely to meet the low-level mooks first. Unfortunately, bigger cities are rare in the extreme...this is supposed to be vaguely medeival europe, not the modern US or even ancient Greece. You've only got one or two Paris or London-sized cities, period, and most of the action doesn't even take place there (not only that, but even Paris or London circa 1400 may not be able to match a D&D-sized metropolis).

It stretches verisimilitude, in a world set up like this, to have the 14th level guardsman be what the PC's would encounter, unless they had some inkling of the PC's power and they were already in a very large civilized area.

And yes, PC's should absolutely wipe the floor with the crossbow-wielding town guards nine times out of ten. The RAW is set up to have that happen. A DM can, with or without good reason, make this the one-in-ten opportunity for the right challenge to be there, but it can certainly be damaging to player's sense of world if not handled well.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
It's a false premise, still.

That's a pretty funny response. You can't even venture to say whether a standard squad of orcs or a standard squad of town guards is the more dangerous opponent?
 

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
By the definition of the folks on this thread, the places you'd want to be an adventurer aren't standing any more, since they only have level 2 warriors protecting their hamlet or thorp and the last crew of high level characters who blew through leveled it, since everyone in the campaign world is too stupid to take reasonable precautions to defend themselves.

The main reason for a hamlet to only have level 2 warriors defending it isn't stupidity or laziness. It's a matter of 10th level fighters (or Great Wyrm Gold Dragons for that matter) being in short supply for village defense.

Like I said, I'm not advocating that the PCs be only ever confronted by 1st or 2nd level warriors. That's just the first line of defense a village has. If the PCs act like asses, more powerful individuals will try to stop them (if the kingdom has those - and it probably does).
 

In my experience, the thing that keeps us from wiping the floor with the lowly peon guards is not the abilities of the guard. It's that pain-in-the-buttocks paladin or other lawful good PC who insists we not harm these innocent folk who are just doing their job and we should just go quietly and seek a nice LAWFUL way to get out of it.
 

Delta said:
That's a pretty funny response. You can't even venture to say whether a standard squad of orcs or a standard squad of town guards is the more dangerous opponent?
Why should I answer an obvious strawman? This isn't my first day on the Internet.
 

Kamikaze Midget said:
This is why the D&D world doesn't need to take into account things like "easily available resurrection." Or "Beholders walking down city streets." Because it's NOT that easily available...it's there, and it's not just in the PC's hands, but it is not common, not by a long shot.


QFT
 

Numion said:
The main reason for a hamlet to only have level 2 warriors defending it isn't stupidity or laziness.
That's not what I'm saying: The people saying that only the level 2 warriors respond in any community would suggest that the town fathers (or mothers) are stupid and lazy.

Like I said, I'm not advocating that the PCs be only ever confronted by 1st or 2nd level warriors.
Then you're a minority on this thread, along with me.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
That's not what I'm saying: The people saying that only the level 2 warriors respond in any community would suggest that the town fathers (or mothers) are stupid and lazy.

Yeah, but high level characters of any class aren't going to be rank-and-file watchmen or city guards. Taken to the extreme that leads to the ridiculous city guards in the Epic Level Handbook.
 

I just ran the DMG numbers on a typical small city (9,000 people). That's the size of the LARGEST city in my current campaign world (a land similar in size and population to Dark Ages Ireland, with dozens of tiny kingdoms, and population of half a million).

I think the rules postulate an over-abundance of PC classes (they are 3.7% of the population) but, aside from the commoners, not an insane number of high-level characters (less than 1/1000 are "legendary", 11th level or above as defined by the Legend Lore spell). Assuming typical rolls, it looks something like this:

7,841 commoners (16 are level 2, 8 are level 4, 4 are level 8, and 2 are level 16)
272 experts (8 are level 3, 4 are level 7, 2 are level 14)
443 warriors (8 are level 2, 4 are level 5, 2 are level 11)
57 aristocrats (8 are level 2, 4 are level 4, 1 is level 8, 1 is level 9)
57 adepts (8 are level 2, 2 are level 4, 2 are level 5, 1 is level 9, 1 is level 10)

Then the PC-classes.
The two top rogues are levels 11 and 10. Same for fighters. Then four at level 5, eight at level 2, and sixteen at level 1.
The two top bards are levels 9 and 10. Same for clerics and druids.
The two top barbarians are levels 8 and 9. Same for monks, wizards, and sorcerers.
The two top paladins are level 8. Same for rangers.

Traveling freelance mercenaries, perhaps? They have a much higher fraction of their number above level 1 (47%). 330 of them, reaching as high as the 11th level rogue and fighter and the six 10th-level characters (rogue, fighter, bard, cleric, druid). The 22 PC-classed characters of 8th-11th level MIGHT be able to stop a party of 15th-level characters if they could all be convinced to help out the city guard.

The total value of the possessions of the inhabitants of this town is about 9.1 million GP. If you assume that commoners have just the value of their thatched-roof cottages and not the DMG guidelines for NPC wealth, it's more like 1.8 million GP. If you just count the PC classes, it's 775,000.

Things that don't make sense to me include the over-abundance of PC classes, the frequency of monks and druids, and the wealth per NPC. BUT, what does make a lot of sense is the preponderance of level 1's.

Maybe I'm used to the Basic/Expert set with "Normal Man" being absolutely sucky. Or the "0-level humans" found in 2nd edition. And maybe I'm used to these two points being hammered over and over in every edition I've played -- PCs are exceptional, and they advance levels by taking risks and succeeding at dangerous challenges.

By the rules, you need XP to level. A warrior needs to defeat about 3.5 foes of CR equal to his level to advance. What are the chances of this without the "player shield" that means they usually only face things they are capable of defeating?
 


Remove ads

Top