Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Haltherrion" data-source="post: 5386516" data-attributes="member: 18253">The upper levels should have tapered off more. I was lazy in how I modeled this and left it too flat. I just made a chart for each population group of percent at each level and for the higher levels, I made the numbers small but probably not small enough. Gets hard to keep it all adding up to 100%.  In 4E Ogres are level 10 and up. Same for giants. The sweet spot for most older system big monsters are the 10s. So this isn’t as much of an issue for higher level NPCs. I may tweak my chart and try this once more but the basic premise for this setting is as follows: The world is a dark age world of low population but much warfare. In feel, it is something like the Germanic and Norse worlds 400s-800s CE. In movie terms, think 13th warrior. The average person is a farmer supporting the elite and among them, there aren’t many above level 0. The average townie is also lower level but there is more chance of someone with some experience or a “retired” fighter or such. For both farmers and townies, the level distribution is very much skewed towards 0 and there are no higher level characters. The nobles/warriors are different. They spend all their time training. They are only 2% of the pop and I still had more than 50% at level 0 (children, mothers, non-combatants, the old modeled here as level 0). But beyond that, it is much flatter. Ignoring the level 0s, the average level for them is about level 5 IIRC with it tapering off. Distributions that trail off from level 0 for the bulk of the pop combined with a warrior group that is much flatter feels right to me for modeling such a group.   In a heroic setting where warriors spend a lot of time sparring, fighting and raiding, there would be a fair number of heroes, I think. This might make more sense to you if you map my level 15 to your level 10 or some such. I will take another stab at a distribution though.</blockquote>

Verification