D&D 5E Dnd World Demographics Excel Tool - Rarity of Classes and Spells

[Lanefan]

The argument is interesting but completely off topic. I’d ask you all to take the labor discussion to its own thread

Thing is, the discussion isn't perhaps quite as off-topic as you think: if fewer people within a population are needed as everyday labour that means there's more people available to go out adventuring (or soldiering, etc.) and gain levels...or die trying...which would tend to skew your chart a bit particularly at very low level.

 

[Krachek]

Thing is, the discussion isn't perhaps quite as off-topic as you think: if fewer people within a population are needed as everyday labour that means there's more people available to go out adventuring (or soldiering, etc.) and gain levels...or die trying...which would tend to skew your chart a bit particularly at very low level.

I’m not sure that the level of technology or magic change the percentage of people willing to risk their live and go adventuring.

 

[Lanefan]

I’m not sure that the level of technology or magic change the percentage of people willing to risk their live and go adventuring.

I disagree, at least to some extent: any labourer who was looking to do more with his-her life but previously couldn't, now could.

At a very rough guess I'd say this would expand the adventuring population by somewhere between 25% and 100% provided there's enough adventures out there to support that many. It'd also make more people available for soldiering (another way to gain levels, if much more slowly) and other pursuits including - for some - magical study.

 

[Krachek]

I disagree, at least to some extent: any labourer who was looking to do more with his-her life but previously couldn't, now could.

At a very rough guess I'd say this would expand the adventuring population by somewhere between 25% and 100% provided there's enough adventures out there to support that many. It'd also make more people available for soldiering (another way to gain levels, if much more slowly) and other pursuits including - for some - magical study.

Also disagree.
Life risking Adventuring might appeal 1/1000 or even less people. Doubling that number won’t change society that much. Having an easier life won’t help find life risking adventuring appealing. In fact people will favor a good job with good social rewards over risky adventures. Harsh life produce more adventurers and criminals than easy life.
The other question is how much technology reduce harsh life? You can live a harsh life with a smart phone, and even driving a Tesla. Harsh life may be more impact by culture than technology.

 

[ph0rk]

I’m not sure that the level of technology or magic change the percentage of people willing to risk their live and go adventuring.

If the tech/magic reduces the chances of them settling into a quiet life (because all the quiet life jobs are taken), then more of them will take up adventuring (and banditry).

Frankly, it means adventuring parties ought to be bumping in to rival parties all the time, and if nothing else can create an excellent source of time constraints - because if they move too slowly a rival group will collect the loot.

 

[NotAYakk]

Frankly, modeling the rules of XP gain as laws of physics results in a ridiculous world, and not required for this spreadsheet to be reasonable.

 

[Krachek]

If the tech/magic reduces the chances of them settling into a quiet life (because all the quiet life jobs are taken), then more of them will take up adventuring (and banditry).

Frankly, it means adventuring parties ought to be bumping in to rival parties all the time, and if nothing else can create an excellent source of time constraints - because if they move too slowly a rival group will collect the loot.

It´s the Star Trek vs Star Wars paradox. In one setting technology produce a better humanity, in the other it´s pretty much as today or even worse. Is quiet life really related to technology/magic?

 

[Krachek]

Frankly, modeling the rules of XP gain as laws of physics results in a ridiculous world, and not required for this spreadsheet to be reasonable.

Shhhh, That model is a kind of sacred cow that originated from Gygax era I guess.
You should treat her with respect!

 

[LordEntrails]

Very interesting. But to me one of the base assumptions is... wrong. This sheet again (like all the ones for previous editions) assume that specialists have class levels. Which pretty much goes against a core 5E assumption.

In my worlds; kings, sages, soldiers, generals, etc do not have levels. They might have traits and abilities from various classes, but I don't build them with levels as a PC would. For one, hit points would be totally inconsistent with challenge ratings and usability. In my worlds, only the PCs and a few other groups of adventurers do I build with levels. Everything else is built as an NPC, often using the examples from sources and then adjusted with HP, AC, items, and abilities/traits.

 

[Krachek]

Very interesting. But to me one of the base assumptions is... wrong. This sheet again (like all the ones for previous editions) assume that specialists have class levels. Which pretty much goes against a core 5E assumption.

In my worlds; kings, sages, soldiers, generals, etc do not have levels. They might have traits and abilities from various classes, but I don't build them with levels as a PC would. For one, hit points would be totally inconsistent with challenge ratings and usability. In my worlds, only the PCs and a few other groups of adventurers do I build with levels. Everything else is built as an NPC, often using the examples from sources and then adjusted with HP, AC, items, and abilities/traits.

The concept of having a class for every intelligent creature is a concept that was very very popular in DnD 3.5.
They even produce a class for the commoner!
The match with xp, the models that reduce each level number by 2, having 100 level 1, 50 level 2, were also very popular at those time.
Since 4ed these modeling has been give up by designers, but is still very popular and hard to contest.