Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Professor Phobos" data-source="post: 3441955" data-attributes="member: 18883">It is that time of year again, when I suddenly and inexplicably develop an interest in playing Dungeons and Dragons. This stands in stark contrast to my usual preferences.It is strange.But I figured I'd get this question out of the way while I have the chance. How exactly are levels supposed to reflect individuals within a society? Are they supposed to do so at all?Is a DM supposed to basically adjust level design on NPCs to match the appropriate Challenge Rating for the PCs? Kind of like the CRPG Oblivion- as you increase in level, your enemies go up to match. I'm mostly talking about NPCs with Class Levels, as I know Monsters are rated differently.So, in effect, a 10th level bad guy doesn't exist until the PCs encounter him- and if they encounter him earlier, he's really an 8th level bad guy, or if they encounter him later, he's a 12 level bad guy. This has nothing to do with his impact on the setting, just what would make a challenging encounter for the PCs. A band of 1st level Orcs at the start of a campaign "upgrade" to 5th level Orcs later one, when it would be appropriate.Or is it that NPCs with certain roles are supposed to be certain levels- like the local God-King is supposed to be 20th level because that accurately reflects his power and influence, or because the PCs are 20th level and wouldn't be challenged by someone lower? Or because the God-King is the most important NPC in the setting?I'm trying to grasp how this is supposed to work. Are levels just a measure of experience- at which point, what are the benchmarks for what kind of deeds merit which levels, or are they a measure of dramatic importance, or are they just a purely "game" thing?</blockquote>

Verification