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

[Draegn]

In my game world I have adventurers both retired and active at approximately one percent of the population. Those who are retired generally provide a service such as Sven the Swift Arrow who slew a wyvern and now owns the Wyvern's Wing Inn.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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 --

How many practitioners of arcane magic are running around your setting, that it would make sense to have two distinct lines of progression for them, rather than just saying that the better wizards are higher level?

I guess if you're in the Forgotten Realms, maybe.

 

[BoldItalic]

How common are adventurers in your world?

No matter how hard I try, there always seem to be four or five

 

[S'mon]

This thread prompted me to do a listing of groups active in my Ghinarian Hills sandbox setting:

Current Adventurer Groups in the Ghinarian Hills, ca M2 4447 BCCC

PC Groups

In Thracia
Hakeem, Barbarian-18
Ajax Vex, Wizard-8
Dr Piercemuller (NPC)

Shieldbiter of Trade, Dragonborn Barbarian-15

At Dyson's Delve - Level 8
Sandor Sunneson, Barbarian
Ursa, Dwarf Barbarian
Drakonok. Dragonborn Fighter
Lord Namelin Bronze (NPC)
Rasgar Skarrison (NPC)
Anna Bronze (NPC)
+ Dyson Logos, ancient brass dragon (NPC)

In Bratanis - Level 3
Zagaar, Fighter
Mordred, Fighter (Eldritch Knight)
Sandro, Monk

NPC Groups

Believed to be in Thracia
Jane Poole of Earth
Lorius Vex the Wizard
Kogor of Kolda, Dwarf

Seeking Erdea Manor?
Miya the Dragon Samurai
Elfric of Renth, Elf Mage
Berk, Halfling Thief of Bisituni

 

[Al2O3]

I'm not even close to making my campaign world yet, but I do have some plans on the subject.

If I end up making the world I'll make adventurers common enough to explain the PCs (and maybe create some prejudice), but uncommon enough that they won't have reason to meet more than at most one or two celebrity once (and that only if they seek them out).

I'll try to make a sandbox with a bunch of stores available (city intrigue, civil war, murder hobo/dungeon crawl, become the new royals or topple the goblinoid empire etc). The amount of adventurers available will probably be dictated by story needs. Enough of them through history so that magic items are around and there are inspiring stories to tell. Sufficient number of active ones so PCs of the relevant levels can be replaced if needed. However, I will probably go very much by the written descriptions of heroes of the realm at certain levels etc.

Sent from my Huawei P10 plus

 

[Draegn]

How many practitioners of arcane magic are running around your setting, that it would make sense to have two distinct lines of progression for them, rather than just saying that the better wizards are higher level?

I guess if you're in the Forgotten Realms, maybe.

In my world arcane users are approximately one in a thousand, however, perhaps only one in five of them has "formal training". This is the difference between the wizard who learns to speak many words of power to cast spells, the mage who learns to move their fingers and hands in various patterns and the thief who stole a book yet figured out and learned how by some form of mancy to cast a few illusion spells that make thievery a bit easier.

 

[clearstream]

In order to lead an organization, you don't have to be higher level than everyone else in the organization who has adventuring levels. You have to be better at running organizations than everyone else in the organization. You have to be a better politician, a better leader.

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.

Same thing with politicians and nobles. Your job isn't to be the best [insert character class here]. Your job is to run [insert political entity here]. You might go off for a bit as a youth to do something carefully calculated to gain you some street cred when it comes time to assume the throne/run for president - in the Real World, that's been military service of some stripe - but you don't specialize in that, necessarily, not to the point you're one of the world's best. You do your bit, wave the flag, show the people you put on your trousers the same way, and then marry someone else almost as important but not quite, pop out some sprogs, and wait for your chance to rule. That's true if your last name is Kennedy, Bush, Saxe-Coburg, or Windsor.

I feel like this runs into the problem of supposing our world is much like one where there are individuals with the power of an Abrams tank or Apache helicopter. There's no way to know of course: one argument is as good as another. Possibly we need to regard wealth in our world as equivalent to XP in a D&D world. But I digress, my focus is what I believe will work best as our PCs level up.

You don't have to be a 20th level Rogue to run a large city's Thieves Guild. Hell, you don't even have to have any adventuring levels at all! *koffkoffXanatharkoffkoff* You just have to be smarter, better at manipulation, better at long-term and short-term planning, a bunch of skills that adventuring levels not only don't guarantee, but all too often lead you away from. You have to be so scary that other members of your gang are terrified of betraying or trying to supplant you - think El Chapo or Don Corleone.

Xanathar is a great case in point. Based on CR he's tier 3, him or one of his predecessors having slain the previous tier 3 incumbent. And he controls one organisation in a larger polity ruled until recently by an epic tier character class individual. Among Xanathar's servants are characters like Shindia, tier 2 Rogue.

In my world-building, lots of people "have" levels in adventuring classes. But that doesn't mean they identify as [class]. It's merely a convenient shorthand for explaining some of their skills and giving those skills in-game mechanics for those times the PCs interact with those NPCs within the game engine.

True adventurers - people who make their living by seeking out danger, loot, and glory - are pretty rare. Mercenaries - people who are prepared to visit violence on other people for money - are common as muck.

Thieves and spies are common. Glamorous, famous cat burglars like Bill Mason are rare.

I say that to show that the lines are blurry. The mercenaries have fighter levels, sure, because it explains and gives mechanics to what they've learned through a life trying to stick sharp things into other people. The thieves and spies have levels, sure, because it explains and gives mechanics to what they do. But they're not really adventurers.

It sounds like our actual approaches are quite similar. This was the point I was making about "misleading", which ironically seems to have misled If by adventurers we mean individuals with character class levels, then there are lots of adventurers at all tiers. If we mean only those individuals who are actively adventuring, then that is a subset of the former. So, where the post I critiqued says that there are five or fewer tier 4 people, if that is understood to mean that of all the many tier 4 people, only 5 or fewer are adventuring, then that seems to low ball it but fine. If on the other hand it is understood to mean that there are 5 or fewer tier 4 people full stop, then that is misleading. Seeing as we're discussing D&D I feel here it's valid to make the straightforward observation that there are more than 5 epic tier characters in the Forgotten Realms, and a great many more tier 4. Of course, we don't all use Faerun but it stands in stark contradiction to the post I critiqued.

It goes without saying (or should, but perhaps here there is a need to repeat it) that every group decides for themselves on these matters. However, I would urge going deeper than the simplistic - adventurers are rare as hens' teeth approach. There is more nuance available than that. And that nuance can pay off in opportunities to better engage and challenge players as they level.

 

[Alexemplar]

My homebrew is set pretty early in the world's history so the number of mortals with pc classes in the double digits is about a dozen or so. One of them is worshipped as a reincarnated goddess-queen as she's the only NPC in the setting with access to the Raise Dead spell and even she has some restrictions.

But my setting also has a lot more gods, monsters, and other supernatural entities in it.

 

[S'mon]

If by adventurers we mean individuals with character class levels, then there are lots of adventurers at all tiers.

Naw, going by official published 5e FR material, the only individuals with character class levels are the PCs themselves.

I feel you're applying 3e & earlier norms to a game which doesn't work that way. PC-class NPCs aren't even a good way to challenge high level PCs - they don't work that well even in 3e/PF. And 5e by default doesn't use them.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In my world arcane users are approximately one in a thousand, however, perhaps only one in five of them has "formal training".

As long as it's based on a real difference within the game world, then that's fine. It means that a PC wizard has necessarily had formal training, and didn't just reach themself from a stolen book, but that's not a bad thing.