An 'Epic Levels' (or close to them) rant

[gizmo33]

"Well, assemble your men and prepare for battle. I'll make the plans, delegate, and give orders. I'll get my advisors, we'll mount up our horses, and we'll sit in our tents planning or trot around the back lines keeping formation and directing units. You guys do the fighting, I'll focus on leading."

What world did this occur in? I'm not convinced that this is historical. Is this based on a novel? Alexander the Great, for example, was one of many leaders who had a reputation for personal combat ability. Is every leader in DnD a heroic Alexander the Great? Maybe. Does every forest have a troll? This is DnD after all, so heroic examples could be much more the norm.

Leaders aren't supposed to be heroic. They're supposed to be leaders.

Even if I agreed that leaders wouldn't typically be good fighters (which I don't) they would still be leaders based on some exceptional personal qualities? Good at diplomacy or sensing an opponents motives? Knowledge? Given the way 3E ties skills to level, there's cause for leaders being high level even if they are not powerful fighters. Even just raw charisma is likely to be higher in characters who have applied ability score points from gaining levels.

And they don't last long as leaders by hanging around the front lines.

Leaders of the period did not get the reputations they have from phoning in orders via walkie-talkies. In fact, I would recommend that you read up on the issues of "Command and Control" in the ancient period - from what I recall it was a very personal thing that required a charismatic presence on the battlefield (given the limits in communication). It's possible that I'm wrong, or that you're thinking of the modern period - but I'm not convinced of either.

They do say "Gee, go kill it for me." Because that's what leaders do - tell other people to do something. They just say it with authority and command.

And, in a warrior society, your "authority and command" comes from where?

Now, the aristocracy was often a warrior class. But their equipment generally far out-stripped anyone else's, they went mounted and, perhaps most importantly to note, they didn't get killed! They generally wound up getting kidnapped and ransomed off.

"Often a warrior class" as in "always"? Perhaps you are thinking of the Age of Enlightenment or somewhat more modern periods when the customs of the nobility were changing. In the European Middle Ages, society was divided into People that Fight (nobility), People that Prayed (clergy) and People that Farmed (peasants). I would think there are examples in early Islamic and Japanese history as well. In the words of one historian "the noble of 1000 AD fought, and fought often"

A leader without the proper social skills is going to end up getting knocked out of office,

I agree with your point that the "social" skills are important to leadership. But given a number of factors: skill points rules in 3E, delegation of bluffing and such to legates and other officials - I don't think a 9th level Aristocrat and 20th level fighter are on equal playing fields. Since I see no reason for a 9th level aristocrat being any more likely to focus on social skills than a 20th level one, I would think that level would still be a primary factor.

As Yair said, the best, most appropriate class for a leader is a bard.

The degree to which a leader can motivate through a clear vision - vs. simple trickery and enchantment, is somewhat up for debate. I don't think bards are necessarily in a better place to lead by example and possess a clear vision and mandate to lead. Those persons that a bard is not able to directly control or manipulate via music/magic are no more likely to follow them that anyone else IMO. Bards may be the best disseminators of propoganda - but it's like suggesting that the heads of advertising agencies in the US could all be senators. IMO you have to combine pure pursuasiveness with other factors that a bard does not have a monopoly on.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Take a fighter, say he hits fifth level by the time he's 20, then retires from the adventurers life to take over running the kingdom from his father. Give him 10xp per weekday for overcoming obstacles -- brokering agreements, hunting foxes, jousting, intrigue, whatever. By the time he's 40, he's a fighter 5/aristocrat 6. Reasonable, I think. Throw in a little battlefield action from time to time, and he could be even higher.

Let him rule till he's 60, and he's a fighter5/aristocrat10. Being a workaholic doesn't really pay off -- 40 years of weekends only adds two levels.

 

[Quasqueton]

Has anyone else noticed a mass amount of epic or near epic characters? Yes, I know.. player characters ARE supposed to be epic. But I've looked at published material, as well as DM written adventures.

I looked into this concept a couple years ago. I used the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer and the five 3.0 class books (because GH was the assumed base for those books).

The total "official" population of the Flanaess (counted in census) is about 26 million, in 55 recognized political realms. There are 64 persons of 15th level or higher. 13 of these are 20th level or higher.* That's one 15th-level or higher person per 400,000 people.

I'd be interested if others would do the same counting for other campaign settings, particularly the Forgotten Realms and Eberron.

*Of the 64, I know that 4 were from the class books, not the gazetteer. I don't remember how many of the 13 were from the class books.

Quasqueton

 

[S'mon]

The total "official" population of the Flanaess (counted in census) is about 26 million, in 55 recognized political realms. There are 64 persons of 15th level or higher. 13 of these are 20th level or higher.* That's one 15th-level or higher person per 400,000 people.

This sounds _eerily_ close to the demographics in my own campaign.

 

[Jdvn1]

I'm not ranting about D&D mechanics so much as player perception. Why do important figures have to be epic or nearly so?

I was thinking about this the other day because of Star Wars.

SW3 Spoilers:

Spoiler

I was thinking, "Why is it that Obiwan beats Anakin? Anakin's more powerful, supposedly. Hm, must be because Obiwan is higher level. He has, after all, much more experience. Anakin must not be at the 'most powerful' level yet. But he gets on the Council -- the youngest person to do so. There must be Jedi with more experience than he, that aren't on the Council -- what makes him special? Well, he has natural power too, but he's still less experienced, so he's lower level."

So I came up with the idea that instead of level being the only determining factor in social power, have it be Character Level + Stat. That means the royal priest might not be the highest ranking, but maybe he's a lower guy who has more influence because his level + Wis is better than other priests. The best fighter on the battlefield isn't necessarily the General - he just has more experience. But his Level + Int (or Str, depending on how he got the position) is very high.

I dunno, just a thought.

 

[WizarDru]

Setting aside the fact that the divine right of kings was questioned all throughout history, I imagine it'd be a difficult doctrine to sustain in a world where a god can actually be asked whether or not King Bob has his blessing.

Though it'd be an interesting setting that actually had a valid divine right of kings... Where King Bob was literally chosen by god to rule. Sort of like Stasheff's Wizard in Rhyme series, I imagine...

It's all dependent on the individual setting. And yes, the divine right of kings was constantly questioned...but often the folks who were questioning it were people who had a vested interest. I mean, I can't think of any political or religious topic that hasn't been contested by someone at some point...that's merely the nature of the thing. The point is not that another lord of equally high station is arguing with Henry the Fifth over his legitimacy...it's that the average farmer just assumes that such matters are beyond him. Most NPCs and thereotically most characters would be born into that caste system.

Consider the characters in Sepulchrave's story hour: Eadric the Paladin becomes the Ahma, a living extension of his god's will....but he still honors his feudal oaths. The same applies to Piratecat's Defenders of Daybreak....they are beings of incredible power...but they still answer to religious and political superiors. That's not even including issues of family.

So, like I said, it can go either way and really depends on the individual game.

 

[WizarDru]

I don't think people are playing at those levels nearly as often though. In fact, I would say that's NOT the case for the WotC modules, or the Dungeon magazine adventures. The level distribution for those adventures is pretty linear (and in the case of Dungeon that's intentional). Other than that I don't have exact statistics. In 1E, RAW encouraged PCs to "stick" at about 8th-9th level - now the RAW for 3E causes them to blow by those levels.

Well, in 1e, characters who reached 10th-12th level were ready to retire, as often as not. But I'm no expert on D&D player demographics, to be sure. However, I also see an awful lot of modules like Lost City of Barakus, where they specifically slow down xp accumulation to lengthen the levels. Heck, I dunno.

I looked into this concept a couple years ago. I used the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer and the five 3.0 class books (because GH was the assumed base for those books).

The total "official" population of the Flanaess (counted in census) is about 26 million, in 55 recognized political realms. There are 64 persons of 15th level or higher. 13 of these are 20th level or higher.* That's one 15th-level or higher person per 400,000 people.

Does that include all of the characters from the LGG, Dragon and Dungeon? Over time, I thought that number would be considerably higher.

 

[amethal]

I love this kind of argument.

Are we trying to impose D&D on the real world, or the real world on D&D?

If we are trying to impose D&D on the real world, how would you begin to assess the levels, ability scores, skill points etc. of world leaders? Having done that impossible task, you'd have to do the same for all the potential world leaders waiting to take over.

I would argue that even when you know which UK party leader, American presidential candidate, Indian politician etc. etc. has the most impressive "character sheet" it won't give you the guaranteed winner in the election. Even if you use the "adventuring party" analogy and account for the key friends and supporters of the candidates, there are still a vast number of factors completely outside of the players' control.

D&D is also not geared up for political contests. "Intelligence", "Wisdom", "Charisma" etc. are very broad terms. Even if two politicans have identical scores in all 3, one may be better at kissing babies whilst the other is better at impressing the guys in the pub. Who knows which talent will prove more useful in the election?

This is getting to be a very long post! I'll cut it short by saying that in D&D NPCs can get a +50 circumstance bonus to their "staying alive and in power" check due to various social, geographical, political, historical, geneological, demographic and economic reasons which the DM is not obliged to spell out to the players.

Also, stable countries are generally not receptive to the idea that the best candidate for ruler is the one who proves most consistently able to "kill every motherf***** in the room" .

 

[Storyteller01]

Can you be more specific as to which products you speak of? The default demographics rules makes teen-leveled characters sort of rare. And I myself have found the pickings for high level play somewhat slim, a trend that is only recently is being addressed.

Most FR products, Dragonstar (Not so much the dragons in charge as the half dragons that always seems to show up, dispite the numerous other races), Sword & Sorcerery, and a few other third party sources.

Yes, I know, everyone bashes FR for their loads of epic or high level NPC's, but it isn't the only source that does so.

 

[Quasqueton]

Does that include all of the characters from the LGG, Dragon and Dungeon? Over time, I thought that number would be considerably higher.

I said where I got the numbers from in my post. I shouldn't have included the 3.0 class books, but they were only 4. The only "fair" and "official" number should come from the campaign setting book.

If you include Dragon and Dungeon, then the number quickly approaches infinity.

Quasqueton