Elves And Levels

[drnuncheon]

Let's assume that 5 in 1,000 people dies per encounter at a CR equal to your level. That's a reasonably low death rate, I think.

With 100,000 adventurers, a total of 6,465 people will die before the population reaches level 2. Another 6,047 people will die before the population reaches level 3. And so on. Assuming adventurers advance at a rate of 1 level per year (which is slow, according to most of the discussions I've been in here on ENWorld), just over 2,000 people will be left alive by the time the human adventurers start having to worry about dying of old age (age 73). Whether they are elves or not.

Of course, not all members of PC classes need be adventurers - and if you're using variants for non-combat XP (as many people do, especially those concerned enough about this topic to post on it) then there's not necessarily the chance of death & dismemberment that there is an in adventurer's lifestyle.

Even those PC-classes that are adventurers or in dangerous situations often won't always be fighting stuff that's equal to their CR. Take an elven fighter whose people have been warring with the orcs. Your average orc is CR 1/2, so if that's what he's facing, he'll slow down in leveling - but he'll also have a greater chance to stay alive, because the more levels he gets, the tougher he is than his average foe. So the mortality rate in that situation would start high and then drop drastically (which is what normally happens in a war anyway).

Adventurers - and their rate of advancement - really are a special case: the tiny subset of people who not only risk their lives, but continually risk their lives against tougher and tougher foes as they reach higher levels of power.

J

 

[jasper]

according to age chart old fart I may die next year for vulcans is 350 + 4 d100 or call it 355 to 750 years. It looks like alot of you are using the old 1st edition years.
Is starting age for all characters 18?
Who was elfs have a low birth rate? I know the dragon mag around the number 50-60 had the complete view and gods of all the humaniods but what other book? And was core?

Now you get xp for over coming challegenes, killing stuff, not being kill, roleplaying (hmm how to turn that into game reason)
So Spooky the 2nd level fighter comes home for the year and is able to get trade consessions from the dumb drunken dwarves that may be what worth 4000 xp or say a level. but come 10 years from now since Spooky the vulcan is now 4th character the CR is still the same for the Darryl Drunken Dwarven Doughnut clan but the xp is lesser.

Look at dragons. To really get magic levels and not be mounted on some fighters wall, you have to be CR 6 then add magic user level of 1 becoming a Cr7. If you survive the rumble in the bronx with that stupid monk you get xp for that. Not what happens if you start training for mage when you a CR15.
So only young dragons adventure and the old ones don't want to be bother since it a lose lose bout. I lose my head, or lose charges off magic items and spells. And all I get is 300 xp if the party is not near my level. If equal to my level CR15 level how much xp do I get to dump into my mage level. And if I go over I only gain 1 level even if was worth 3?

Would elfs overrun the earth? After fighting off a hundred orcs a 10th level patrol would get what 400 xp each. And what would the orc they gave a reverse mowhawk to and pin tauts to his behind and send him home get?

 

[JacktheRabbit]

The notion that a human spends 1 year learning the sword and an elf spends 100 is kind of absurd.

If elves were so incompetent and so slow, they would have been wiped out centuries ago by wild animals and nature, let alone orc hordes, dragon attacks, etc.

Rather, SHARK is exactly right, being long-lived does make one incredibly wise and incredibly skilled. An elven fighter who has lived through a hundred years of duels, battles, and wars is going to be exceptionally wise and have very a commanding presence. No human fighter would stand a chance.

The mind set of such a being would be very alien to us. But elves would definitely rule the world unless slowed down by birthrate and even then would probably still rule over vast stable empires of incredible magic and technology.

And the demographics put forth by the DMG where all the world is 1st level characters except for the PCs and a few NPCs is patently ridiculous. Monte Cook completely dropped the ball when he wrote that.

Actually both sides are merely stating their opinion.

You coming in and saying one opinion is absurd while the other is exactly right is both rude and arrogant.

Monte made the DMG the way he did for GAME BALANCE. Elves live longer, but they also so everything else longer. They live slow melodic lives in tune with nature. You get that impression about every aspect of their lives. The find relationships slower, falling in love takes longer, raising children takes longer (hell raising your eleven kid takes longer than a human lifespan). These are a patient people. They build cities by shaping trees (as an example not as a fact).

All of this acts as a counter-balance to their power compared to the other races.

 

[seasong]

In the spirit of not ignoring you lets break it down:
Start out with 100,000 people.
Advance them by a level a year (which you feel is slow).

Sorry, that wasn't clear: based on conversations I've been in on these boards, about this very topic, 1 level per year is slow. For myself, one level per year is as fast as I'm willing to go. The death rate is also about as low as I'm willing to go. I threw out those numbers to show that the philosophy held, even at the extremes.

Elves who live adventurous lives die. Elves who don't, advance more slowly. Elf levels certainly still average higher than humans, but not by much, and the maximum level for both is the same, because it is limited by violent death and CON for resurrections, long before age becomes an issue. If humans are more populous/fertile, they can afford more adventuresome types, so they will have more people at the high levels than elves (but also a lower percentage of their population).

If you ask me, goblin fighters should own everything.

 

[Psion]

So then the commoner advancement tables are a varient rule?
Wonder why they included them if commoners don't get xp.

No. Are you trying to be facetious? XP =/= advancement tables. You do not track XP for commoners. They just have a level as assigned by the DM and/or the demographics tables, and are assume to learn that from factors not taken into account by the XP system.

Do you give all NPCs an XP total? I have yet to see a product (official or otherwise) that assigns NPCs and XP total.

So in your games NPC wizards are all 1st level and never gain xp because they aren't controlled by a PC?

Again, no. Look at the demographics tables. It is obvious that there are NPCs higher than 1st level.

It sounds like you've selected:
(snip quote)
Which is your right as a DM.

I haven't SELECTED anything (well I have, but that's another post.) I am merely pointing out that if you want to track XP for NPCs, you are inherently making an inference, because the DMG does not ever imply tracking XP for NPCs, and in fact goes out of its way to avoid doing so.

By applying the XP to NPC systems, you are making your own inference, and if you assume that the normal CR-based XP system applies, you will not reasonably explain a demographic distribution as given by the demographics tables in the DMG. It just won't make sense.

If you want to assume (as SKR does) that a more substantial block of commoners aren't first level than is implied in the DMG, and that commoners track and accumulate XP from threats, that's fine, but in such a case you are automatically using a variant interperetation.

In short, it is YOU who are imposing a house rule on the rules set. Which is fine, just don't try to tell me that the book tells me to do it your way when it, in fact, does not.

 

[Zappo]

The way I see it, commoners are limited in their level progression by the fact that after a while they no longer gain XP from the normal challenges they may face (both combat and noncombat challenges). So, either an elf is an adventurer, or he isn't getting past 7th or 8th level no matter how long he lives. More precisely... he might get one or two levels above the average human because he gets more of the rare tough (say, CR 2) challenges, but that's about it.

OTOH, age isn't much of a factor for adventurers, because at high levels there are various ways around it for short-lived races. The limiting factor there is the availability of high-CR challenges. I mean, how many people can be saving the world at any given time, come on!

Fact is, in most high-level campaigns, you have the PCs facing appropriate challenges, their foes, and that's about it.

So I don't see any given race being more likely to be high level because of longevity. It's more a matter of having opportunities and the will to take them.

On a completely unrelated note... Psion yer sig is mine not Grog's!

 

[Graf]

I -do- see what you're saying about advancement rate. City of the Spider Queen, for example, presumes people will get something like 8 levels in less than a year. People who do get on that escalator are going to lose fingers and toes at an alarming rate.

I think my idea of a useful extreme is the person who uses a much slower rate of advancement where they get a level every couple of decades. Under that senario someone who's three hundred is necessarily in their teens (unless they've run into undead or been raised a lot). So unless you've changed your world by adding one of the effects I mentioned in my first post a middle aged elf will always be in their mid-teens (even if it's just commoner levels).

One point and one question (if I may)

maximum level for both is the same, because it is limited by violent death and CON for resurrections, long before age becomes an issue.

Con doesn't limit ressurections. You just lose a level.

So every single person in your world dies violently? Every farmer, every baker, every candlestick maker?

 

[Psion]

Assuming for a minute that this one-line-in-the-DMG is supposed to be the ultimate rule that trumps the pages and pages of rules about NPC level advancement there's no correlation between this statement and anything about elves...

You are missing the point. The "missing link" here is that you assume that the PC XP system applies to XPs. You assume that it is as if it is inherently obvious that it does, but it does not.

It's not mathmatically useful and there are any number of different ways that this could be true and the average level of the elven population could be quite high.
I mean, what population are you talking about?

The demographics tables supposedly apply to the DMG races. By the DMG, elven populations would look just like human populations level-wise.

Are there reasons to think in reality it just wouldn't pan out that way? Sure. That's what this thread is all about. But when it comes down to what the book says (which was the assertion you made which is the wellspring of our disagreement), it does not imply that NPCs use the standard XP system, and in fact, assuming such would result in nonsensical results (e.g., that the most learned sages in the land all have several powerful creatures under their belts because that is what they would have had to do in order to get to that level...)

Of course, your whole line of reasoning of singling elves out is ironic since you started this argument by telling me that elves were treated just like everyone else. Seems to me you want to have your cake and eat it too.

And for the record I'm of the opinion that the one-line-in-the-DMG is to help a novice DMG get a feel for standard D&D worlds, not a commandment from the almighty Monte Cook himself. You obviously, feel differently, which is fine.

I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

But it's not like you've got some sort of rock solid bedrock of rules supporting your assertion.

Never said I did; my assumption is that the demographics of elves are not as portrayed in the DMG, which is a long way from the blind obescience to the rules that you imply that I have. But that wasn't my point.

I still rather think you are missing my point/am not really considering what I am saying. My point was that YOU were the one who tried to tell me what was supported by the DMG by telling me that all people/elves us the XP system when that is not the case. It was YOU who drug this into the territory of obescience to the rules, not me. I merely was demonstrating that by the rules, there is nothing assuming that XP tracking is a system to necessarily be used by NPCs.

Further, you then tried to back it up with SKRs variant on commoners, which is in every way a variant: it relies on XP tracking for NPCs and would result in demographics different than outlined in the DMG. So SKR resorts to demographics variants just as much as I did, so there is not point in calling me out with someone who is just as much using a variant as I am.

 

[Graf]

I'm merely pointing out that if you want to track XP for NPCs, you are inherently making an inference, because the DMG does not ever imply tracking XP for NPCs, and in fact goes out of its way to avoid doing so.

You're welcome to use a different XP system for advancing NPCs as you see fit. You're also welcome to not use XP at all and use some other system.

I have a hunch that a conversation about why your special implied-from-the-demographics-tables xp advancement system isn't the ONE TRUE WAY to advance NPCs but is just a house rule is going to be fruitful.

I'll stick to the tables in the book.

Have a good night/day though!

[off topic]
PS Congrats on getting 200 reviews in. Just figured I'd say that I've found your opinions invaluble and I appreciate your hard work.
[/off topic]

 

[Psion]

You're welcome to use a different XP system for advancing NPCs as you see fit. You're also welcome to not use XP at all and use some other system.

And you are welcome to use the XP system TO track NPC level. It's just as much a variant.

I have a hunch that a conversation about why your special implied-from-the-demographics-tables xp advancement system isn't the ONE TRUE WAY to advance NPCs but is just a house rule is going to be fruitful.

I'll stick to the tables in the book.

I never said it was the one-true-way or anything like it and REALLY wish you would lay off with that line of thinking. It's extremely aggravating. Even though this appears to be a capitulation to "agreeing to disagree", saying that I ever said my way was "the one true way" is wrong (quite the contrary, it was you who started this by advising me the rules don't support me) and feels like a parting snipe to me.

I'm pointing out that (AGAIN) using the PC XP system for NPCs is the variant, and will give you results that differ from a "table in the book."

Just figured I'd say that I've found your opinions invaluble and I appreciate your hard work.

Thanks.