Khorvaire:Two Problems

[WizarDru]

The DM would not need to buy the Player's Book and the player's would not need to buy the Campaign Setting.

The DM wouldn't? I can't speak for others, but I know that I would be forced to do so, so I could build NPCs and review all the information in it for my own use. If I run Eberron, I'll need to read all about the Aritificer, to know how to handle a PC, NPC or monster. So I just bought it. And my players will want the setting book for the maps, data about various countries and histories, not just the crunchy parts. How else can they roleplay in the setting? They need that information just as much as the DM does.

As to the difference between the old settings and the new, there is certainly a new focus on rules rather than setting. I don't know about 3e GH, but if you take any 2e campaign setting and do a simple count of rules pages vs. content pages, you'll find that Eberron (and the new FR and possibly the new GH) are more rules-based.

Well, I'm not sure that that's even a valid comparison or not. Under 2e, there were far fewer options under the core rules, so there were less need for crunch, I would expect. But I can't really comment for certain, either way, as I have very little from 2e. What I do recall, though, is that 2e engaged in the reprehensible cross-referencing practice, where a piece of crunch from one place was referenced, and not actually given. So if you want details on Spellfire or the Shadowweave, you'll need to buy a separate product...this module just mentions it tangentially, and assumes you know about it. 3e ran far, far away from this practice, for which I am glad.

In addition, the old settings didn't have the preconception that they had to fit the mold of FR or GH. They didn't have to support all the rules and creatures of the basic game. In essence, they were aloud to be alot more creative. Especially the ones that TSR never expected to sell (like Dark Sun, which did so well, they rereleased it after it was cancelled) and didn't have much managerial oversight on.

The fact is that none of those settings did that well after the initial release. Ryan Dancey referred to this as "the treadmill"...essentially, only the core books had any lengthy profitability. In the 1990s, TSR fell victim to releasing tons of front-list material that had no shelf-life past the first few weeks of sales. Material would be returned, and they would take a bath. Further supplements would continue to decline in sales, and TSR would attempt to flood the market with materials, hoping to prop up badly flagging lines with only moderately profitable ones. After a few months, the retailers would return the unsold product, and TSR took another bath. The only people making any money at this strategy were the distributors.

[quotereanjr]to freely multiclass). Eberron is a product of marketing, not creative inspiration. The only long term success Wizards/TSR has ever had with this approach was Dragonlance. Most of the settings that are still alive today (FR, GH, DS [if you include the recent Dragon/Dungeon rules update], RL) were made by enormously talented people who labored for love of the idea.[/quote]
Actually, I'd guess that Eberron is a product of marketing AND creative inspiration. And that's a good thing, in my book. TSR NEVER, EVER actually listened to their fan base, or did market research to see what they wanted...they just proceeded on gut feelings. That was true from the first day to the last. WotC submitted for a campaign setting that met certain criteria, and then selected the one that was the best compromise of creativity and long-term profitability. I hear they even paid Keith for it.

There's no question the various settings under 2e were interesting and creative. There's no question that they had very dedicated diehard fans. Thanks the OGL and a very generous WotC licensing the material to people willing to do them justice on small print runs, they live again. That's a win/win, I think. WotC couldn't make money printing them.

If Eberron being designed to meet the needs of the greatest majority of gamers is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

 

[William Ronald]

Keith, I think your explanations have been polite and sensible. Ultimately, I think it is a DM and the players who create a sense of reality as well as a sense of adventure to a setting.

Getting to the core issue of this thread, I think that people can probably make a simple change or two (adjust map scale or populations) to address what they may see as a flaw in the setting. Perhaps it would be best to adjust the issues of population density in fantasy settings in another thread. (I will wait to start such a thread on population issues and elements needed to give a campaign setting an air of verisimilitude until I see a few people here suggesting it would be a good idea.)

However, I have been a bit disappointed at the tone of some of the disagreements. Some people's criticisms have been eloquent and insightful. Some others verge on personal attacks. I think we have to remember that we can hold different opinions and still respect each other. I think that the fact that much of this discussion has been civil and interesting speaks volumes about the posters at EN World. (Keith Baker and jgbrowning alone have given people on these boards a lot to think about -- and write great products as well.)

Now, one thought that I have which might work for some Eberron DM's is that they might want to give a sense that the various societies are holding together ... just barely. This would probably be a very tense period to run a campaign in, as civilization seems to contract. (This would probably be a feeling for any campaign set just at the conclusion of the Last War.) Historically, societies have gone through shifts in population levels and in levels of civilization. (See Western Europe during the fall of the Western Roman Empire as an example.)

 

[reanjr]

The DM wouldn't? I can't speak for others, but I know that I would be forced to do so, so I could build NPCs and review all the information in it for my own use. If I run Eberron, I'll need to read all about the Aritificer, to know how to handle a PC, NPC or monster. So I just bought it. And my players will want the setting book for the maps, data about various countries and histories, not just the crunchy parts. How else can they roleplay in the setting? They need that information just as much as the DM does.

I suppose it's an issue of how you run a campaign. While I agree the Player's Book would be useful for the DM, it shouldn't be necessary. If a campaign can't stand without it's rules, there's a problem. And as far as the players knowing about the world, I often start out campaigns where the players are country bumpkins who don't know anything about the world. If there is something they should know I will explain it to them. I think it's better that the DM select the bits of the setting that players should and shouldn't know. I suppose I forgot to mention that I think the Player's Book should give a brief primer on what the world is about, and anything EVERYONE knows to get them acclimated.

Well, I'm not sure that that's even a valid comparison or not. Under 2e, there were far fewer options under the core rules, so there were less need for crunch, I would expect. But I can't really comment for certain, either way, as I have very little from 2e. What I do recall, though, is that 2e engaged in the reprehensible cross-referencing practice, where a piece of crunch from one place was referenced, and not actually given. So if you want details on Spellfire or the Shadowweave, you'll need to buy a separate product...this module just mentions it tangentially, and assumes you know about it. 3e ran far, far away from this practice, for which I am glad.

I guess, again, it's due to difference of opinion. I absolutely HATE spending $40 on a book to find that material is repeated. I'd rather get a new $20 book with the info plus a bunch of new info. Sometimes it isn't entirely what I want, but overall I think it saves me money, as I buy alot of products that have alot of wasted space by repeating things. I think if designed well, the books can do without REQUIRING the referenced books, but benefiting from them and supporting them. It's due to this policy of not cross referencing that Psionics is an unmentioned part of the system in almost every book.

The fact is that none of those settings did that well after the initial release. Ryan Dancey referred to this as "the treadmill"...essentially, only the core books had any lengthy profitability. In the 1990s, TSR fell victim to releasing tons of front-list material that had no shelf-life past the first few weeks of sales. Material would be returned, and they would take a bath. Further supplements would continue to decline in sales, and TSR would attempt to flood the market with materials, hoping to prop up badly flagging lines with only moderately profitable ones. After a few months, the retailers would return the unsold product, and TSR took another bath. The only people making any money at this strategy were the distributors.

While I agree on certain points, I think they could have made the settinfgs more profitable by doing other things, such as raising prices (TSR was only making like $1-2 a book) and cutting down on some of the production cost (for instance releasing a full-sized map for a campaign as a separate product for $6.95) and not including handouts for campaigns that could be used once. I think they failed profitability not on the design or ideas, but on the publishing end of the business. I could be wrong, I'm not in that profession. Also as stated, they would flood the market. That's never a good idea. A few high-quality, high-priced supplements, I believe, would have done much better. And anyway, I was talking about the campaign settings, not the supplements (the campaign settings were relatively profitable IIRC; it was the continuing revenue from supplements that failed).

 

[reanjr]

First off, please don't take these questions or comments the wrong way -- I'm just trying to cast things in the light of the setting.


Out of honest curiosity, where are you getting this figure? Remember that population numbers for a community "represent the adult population". So once you rule out children, in D&D, how old do you have to be before you're unable to fight? Remember that in Khorvaire in particular, we're just coming off of a century of war, so they'll be stretching the limits. By the time you reach middle age (and the -2 modifier) you'll be less useful -- but there is also the question of average lifespan, and whether most people do become venerable at some point (especially in a wartorn world).

I admit, that I didn't know that the numbers disclude children. I was basing it off of a 70 year lifespan with 10 good years of fighting (say 17-28 years old). Without children, I would say the number would increase to about 1/5 then. I was really using exagerrated numbers just as an example of what can happen if the numbers are out of whack, not to show that the Eberron numbers WERE out of whack, necessarily.

I realize you're talking in general terms, not specifically about Eberron. In Khorvaire, this is pretty much a given until recently.


Agreed there. Of course, Sharn has 211,000 people, so we weren't saying it could. And Sharn is dependent on the agricultural communities in the surrounding areas to provide food for the population.

The rest of your points here are good, but they're about a Sharn-sized city with a small population, which we've never claimed exists. Hence the "there's lots of space with no people at all", allowing for a reasonable concentration of people within the cities and villages that do exist.


And, as I've said, a nation like Breland is effective a collection of city-states.

My point is that I'm not going to defend it as logical. I'm going to defend it as something that supports adventuring. Looking to what *I* see as logical, large areas of unsettled space are the only way you should be able to get dangerous monsters; otherwise, if civilization has been established for an extended period of time, these creatures should have been hunted down and destroyed by the rulers of the community. Likewise for dungeons. Khorvaire accounts for the presence of dungeons, with the existance of Dhakaani ruins, remnants of the War of the Mark or the Age of Demons, and Khyber. But if you've had a village in the area for 300 years, why hasn't someone explored it already? You're not the first group of adventurers in the history of the world (though with that said, in Sharn the ruins were only partially explored before being sealed off). Open space allows for adventure. Continuous urban spread, as logical as it may be from a real-world perspective, is going to be less exciting. We've always said that it's a pulp setting, so look to Conan: the emphasis is on what works best for the story. When Conan is wandering in the wilderness and finds a lost temple -- well, I as a reader didn't think "So why aren't there a few villages nearby?"

I understand where you're coming from and agree with you to a certain extent. I aspire to explain the other side of the argument and why there is a significant minority of players for which a lack of this consistency can detract from the fun.

Again, it is not my intention to dismiss your concerns if this *does* bother you. I'm just saying that this is the purpose the space serves in the setting, and if you don't like it you should change it. But Khorvaire is not supposed to be fully settled from head to toe, and that's not something that will change.

As a player, I am not bothered at all. I would have no problem playing in Eberron, or most any world with a good DM. As a DM, I have some reservations not just about population, but about a world that is somewhat difficult to get a good grasp on the inner workings of. It's a personal preference. If I ran it, I'd probably stick with the current numbers but try to effectively present the relatively low pop. to the players (someone mentioned a near-empty Sharn that I found amusing but interesting).

Actually, in this thread alone I've said that magic *is* used for communication, and that it could be used for the long-distance preservation of food (though what I've also said is that you don't have a magic refrigerator in every house). Magic is used for irrigation and healing -- though again within limits, so it's not as though ever person in the world can afford cure disease vacinations. Magic is used for transportation -- but it's not as widespread as it might be. Lightning rails do link the main cities, and while personal transport may be expensive, House Orien certainly deals in different prices for freight -- so if the farmers around Sharn have a huge surplus, enterprising merchants could buy it up and sell it in Starilaskur. It is neither as widespread or generally as effective as *21st century technology* The average house does not have a magic phone, a magic TV, and 1.5 magic cars. But it is used for many of the purposes technology has been used for in the past.

Actually, intelligent humanoids (who are not necessarily going to be evil) will generally have created civilizations of their own, as found in Darguun and Droaam. Eating random passerby may not be top of their list. With that say, you may be refering to the "lost city of grimlocks" I suggested earlier, for which I had my previous Conan example in mind. Even there, my thought was "dungeon with small population of degenerate grimlocks", not "highly organized militant nation of grimlocks". There may be populations of goblinoids or orcs hidden away from the days of Dhakaan -- most of the population of Darguun was lurking in the mountains and marshes before being called out by the war -- but again, a goblin enclave in the middle of Breland is unlikely to go looking for a fight. When I mentioned monsters in the wastelands, I was thinking more of the wandering gray render, the pack of manticores that has just recently settled around the road, things like that. Not the intelligent monsters that should form their own civilizations -- but the animals and magical beasts that could pose a threat to adventurers. Hmm, just like in The Hobbit when the trolls "come down from the mountains" - the issue is not "why on earth do people ever travel when trolls and stone giants are out there".... but rather, there exists the chance that if you travel, you might encounter a troll or a giant, because they haven't all been hunted down and destroyed.

I was thinking more along the lines of brigands and empirical expansions than marauding, people-eating monsters. Not necessarily as presented in Eberron, but as presented in D&D in general (there are ALOT of intelligent evil monsters out there )

Because, as I said, in the case of the missing BAB no-one can use the class until it is fixed... and if you make the wrong fix the class is unbalanced and provides a quantifiable advantage or disadvantage compared to other classes, as compared to population numbers which most people will say "there's as many people as I want for purposes of this scene". If a spell is too powerful and will cause written adventures to be too easy, it needs to be addressed. But if the issue in question has no quantifiable impact on most people's adventures, it does not *need* to be addressed. I am not arguing that certain people feel "well if I use these numbers as stand, they *would* have a quantifiable impact!" -- but that's only because you've gone to the trouble of figuring out precisely what those numbers should mean, deciding that the world needs to have a consisted spread to be logical, and enforcing those on the scene... and even then, if you pick up a published adventure, it's not going to say "use population denisty to determine the number of monsters in this scene." It is something that may make people uncomfortable in the world, but it will not prevent them from using game materials. And the less errata the better, because again, not everyone will have access to the errata in the first place. If you don't have to contradict what's been published, it's always better not to. In this case, people CAN adjust the population numbers to whatever they are comfortable with, and there's no danger that you'll make the population TOO dense and oh, that's going to ruin that printed adventure as well.

Someone else brought up a good point though. That changing the numbers is going to bother almost noone who doesn't have a problem with the current numbers anyway. I don't think they HAVE to update them, I just wonder why they don't do fluff-errata. It doesn't seem like it would do any harm and might accomplish good. *shrug*. Whenever they publish a rules-change errata for balance, you always get detractors (i.e., you nerfed my Ranger!!!). I just don't know why fluff would cause any more of a problem.

I respect your opinion on this, and as I said, I'm not the one who came up with these final numbers. But they don't bother me. I am content with the explanations that are provided. On the other hand, I don't read The Hobbit and say "Now, why are the dwarves sneaking into the troll's campsite? Shouldn't there be a village along the road, or at least an inn?" And, of course, you could try to come up with an explanation for how a system of city-states could come about. As I've said before, we never wanted a fully populated colonial sprawl. We're not going to change Khorvaire to be that. So it falls to you to either find a way to reconcile that to your worldview, or to decide that you just can't play Eberron if that's how things are.


Sure, KoK. But did it have all of that in the very first book that came out? More importantly, that's not what Eberron is about. We've said all along: we're pulp adventure. Find a Conan book where he gets into a discussion of the grain harvest. If you want that level of realism, either add it in, or play KoK. We *will* be adding more detail as time goes by. But while I respect the views of the simulationist, Eberron is first and foremost designed as a world for adventure, and that is always going to come first.

Oh, of course not! But there are people who have stated that you can't do a setting with that kind of consistency. I was just pointing out that it is possible. I think the main difference is that the KoK people planned for that kind of detail. I agree, it's a different focus than Eberron and neither is right or wrong. I think I mentioned that in another post, actually...

I respect that. And as I've said, Eberron's *not going to be the game for everyone*. It may be that it's simply not the right world for the hard-core simulationist. I'm sorry if that is the case, as it's not my intention to dismiss anyone's views. But Eberron was designed as for pulp adventure -- not deep realism.

And the setting is perfect for that. Though, my complaints on rules vs. content still stands I know it's not your fault. Just had to throw that in. I'm an argumentative person by nature.

Well, as I said, I'm not remotely in charge of what WotC will do: I'm just guessing.

On that note, how much was in the 100-page version of Eberron that didn't yet make it into the setting, but hasn't been necessarily scrapped?

 

[Dinkeldog]

Just a note for those watching from the sidelines. The first comment here:

"Eberron is a product of marketing, not creative inspiration. "

is not excused by:

"Now, I'm not saying Keith is not creative..."

Actually, yes, you just did insult Keith (while he has been trying to maintain a professional, even friendly, conversation, even). One of the nice things about EN World is that a lot of developers come here and talk to us about their work. Comments like this poison the well, and tend to make the developers less likely to come back.

 

[William Ronald]

Just a note for those watching from the sidelines. The first comment here:

"Eberron is a product of marketing, not creative inspiration. "

is not excused by:

"Now, I'm not saying Keith is not creative..."

Actually, yes, you just did insult Keith (while he has been trying to maintain a professional, even friendly, conversation, even). One of the nice things about EN World is that a lot of developers come here and talk to us about their work. Comments like this poison the well, and tend to make the developers less likely to come back.

Personally, my understanding of Eberron has benefitted from Keith posting to these boards. I have also benefitted from the insights of other developers on thier products.

While I have not yet picked up Eberron, I am leaning heavily towards it or the Complete Divine as my next gaming purchase. I have a better feel for Eberron than I did several months ago -- in no small part because of what Keith and others have posted on these boards.

I would like to see us have friendly discussions. I believe that it is possible to be creative and want your product to sell.

Getting back on topic, a quick look at the Eberron map shows that sea and river travel might be a good way to keep goods and information flowing. Elemental bindings probably help speed up delivery times considerably, as would the ability to accurate forecast the weather. Similar, a few magewright or artificer spells might help to keep ships in good condition.

 

[WizarDru]

If a campaign can't stand without it's rules, there's a problem. And as far as the players knowing about the world, I often start out campaigns where the players are country bumpkins who don't know anything about the world. If there is something they should know I will explain it to them. I think it's better that the DM select the bits of the setting that players should and shouldn't know. I suppose I forgot to mention that I think the Player's Book should give a brief primer on what the world is about, and anything EVERYONE knows to get them acclimated.

We may not hold the same idea of what a player's book is; from our previous discussion, I was assuming this would be a book with prestige classes, changes to core classes, spells, feats and so forth. Either way, I'd need to know that information, be it fluff or crunch. If all bards in Eberron get 10+Int bonus skill points, that's something I need to know. If all sorcerors get to change spells every level, monks can freely multiclass or certain feats are available, I not only need to know it, too, but I may choose to use it for my NPCs and monsters.

I guess, again, it's due to difference of opinion. I absolutely HATE spending $40 on a book to find that material is repeated. I'd rather get a new $20 book with the info plus a bunch of new info.

I think WotC has stated that the majority, burned by TSR, tend to dislike it, but I'm honestly not sure. I do know that I like the Githyanki, but I don't want to feel obligated to buy the XPH just for them. Luckily, I don't have to, if I don't want to. Printing costs being what they are, based on Ryan Dancey's and Monte Cook's breakdown, even if the book were 50% reprint, it still wouldn't drive the cost down as singificantly as 50%. Check the d20 forum for a discussion on the costs of releasing such a book in today's market, and the costs therein.

A few high-quality, high-priced supplements, I believe, would have done much better. And anyway, I was talking about the campaign settings, not the supplements (the campaign settings were relatively profitable IIRC; it was the continuing revenue from supplements that failed).

Well, I agree that TSR had lots of problems, and this was only part of it...but some of it was a systemic problem with the company's culture and outlook. The total lack of anything other than gut feelings to determine what should be published was a big problem. That attitude led directly to the spellfire fiasco.

Most of those box sets were sold at a loss...they sold well, but they didn't earn money - a classic TSR problem after EGG left. Most of the books made a good profit for the first month or two, but then stagnated on the shelves. No setting other than FR sold consistenly well, and even FR tended to go stale on the shelves after a certain point past release. Rather than stop supporting five or six settings, TSR attempted to support them all, and failed, as I understand it.

Here's what Ryan Dancey said about it a few years ago:

Back into those financials I went. I walked again the long threads of decisions made by managers long gone; there are few roadmarks to tell us what was done and why in the years TSR did things like buy a needlepoint distributorship, or establish a west coast office at King Vedor's mansion. Why had a moderate success in collectable dice triggered a million unit order? Why did I still have stacks and stacks of 1st edition rulebooks in the warehouse? Why did TSR create not once, not twice, but nearly a dozen times a variation on the same, Tolkien inspired, eurocentric fantasy theme? Why had it constantly tried to create different games, poured money into marketing those games, only to realize that nobody was buying those games? Why, when it was so desperate for cash, had it invested in a million dollar license for content used by less than 10% of the marketplace? Why had a successful game line like Dragonlance been forcibly uprooted from its natural home in the D&D game and transplanted to a foreign and untested new game system? Why had the company funded the development of a science fiction game modeled on D&D - then not used the D&D game rules?

In all my research into TSR's business, across all the ledgers, notebooks, computer files, and other sources of data, there was one thing I never found - one gaping hole in the mass of data we had available.

No customer profiling information. No feedback. No surveys. No "voice of the customer". TSR, it seems, knew nothing about the people who kept it alive. The management of the company made decisions based on instinct and gut feelings; not data. They didn't know how to listen - as an institution, listening to customers was considered something that other companies had to do - TSR lead, everyone else followed.

In today's hypercompetitive market, that's an impossible mentality. At Wizards of the Coast, we pay close attention to the voice of the customer. We ask questions. We listen. We react. So, we spent a whole lot of time and money on a variety of surveys and studies to learn about the people who play role playing games. And, at every turn, we learned things that were not only surprising, they flew in the face of all the conventional wisdom we'd absorbed through years of professional game publishing.

We heard some things that are very, very hard for a company to hear. We heard that our customers felt like we didn't trust them. We heard that we produced material they felt was substandard, irrelevant, and broken. We heard that our stories were boring or out of date, or simply uninteresting. We heard the people felt that >we< were irrelevant.

I know now what killed TSR. It wasn't trading card games. It wasn't Dragon Dice. It wasn't the success of other companies. It was a near total inability to listen to its customers, hear what they were saying, and make changes to make those customers happy. TSR died because it was deaf.

 

[Victim]

Not entirely true. All they would have to do is grapple him. They'd take him out. In addition, one hits 5% of the time no matter what. The fighter would be wittled down given some time and casualties (perhaps 50? not totally beyond the ken of possiblity)

Try it.

Let's use the 16th level fighter in the 3.0 DMG, since that's the one I have. The fighter has grapple check of +20, AC 30, touch AC 13, an attack bonus of +24/+19/+14/+9 with his sword and does 1d10+9 damage. Of his feats, the most relevant in this case is Great Cleave.

For his opposition, why don't we say first level human warriors. They'll be just like the 1st level DMG fighter, except with 2 fewer HP. They have 18 AC, 10 HP, an attack of +5 that does 1d10+2 damage, and a grapple of +3.

Our 16th level fighter is completely surrounded by the horde of warriors. I'll even give the little guys the initiative.

First they'll attack conventionally. 24 guys (since some have reach weapons) attack. That's 1.2 hits per round for an average of 9 damage to the fighter every round. He lasts 13 rounds against these attacks. The warriors could use aid another with their spears, but when we include the cover modifier, their aid action will work only about 1/2 the time. And each sword guy needs 2 successful aids in order to make a difference. If all the reach guys aid one of the sword guys, then the average hits per round actually drops.

Now the fighter's counter stroke. He takes a full attack action, and power attacks for 1. His first attack has 95% chance of hitting and automatically KOs enemies. Once Great Cleave in taken into account, he has a 66% percent chance of dropping the 8 foes nearest to him in one move. His second attack is similarly effective. So between his first 2 attacks, he probably kills all the guys who started next to him. After a 5 ft step, his third attack is against guys with reach weapons (no shield) so it misses 15% of the time. He has a 44% chance to kill the last 5 guys within reach with this attack. His fourth attack should help finish the job. He's killing 10-13 guys a round. That's more than 100 guys lost, and possibly more than 150, not 50. The possibility of trip attacks which help the warriors hit proabably indicates that the low end is more likely - of course, the fighter could use his potions of endurance and healing to get another couple rounds of life.

Now let's try grapple attacks:

Warriors attempting to grapple the fighter will, at some point, have to make an opposed grapple check. The warriors only have a chance of success if the fighter rolls a 1 or 2. The chance of one warrior beating the fighter is .75%. If 8 guys are grappling, then the fighter's chance of beat all of them is 94%. In other words, the warriors are probably better sticking with trip attacks. Especially when we look at the other factors involved.

Attempting a grapple provokes an AoO. The soldier first attempting the grapple has an excellent chance of dying on this attack, and the attack can kill all the other warriors in reach (see above). Unfortunately, this fighter doesn't have Combat Reflexes yet, so only gets the first AoO. Then the soldier needs to hit with a touch attack. He has a 55% chance of this, and will probably have aid another helping too. Then there's the tiny chance of getting a hold. If they do get a hold, each guy does less damage than before so the fighter lasts longer. On the fighter's turn, he has several options. He can attempt to escape from the grapple and will probably succeed on his first try (see above, also note that less than 8 foes will likely have succeeded). He has 3 more too, although his chance goes down each time. Once he's free, the warriors have to start over. If he gets free right on the first shot, he can start to kill all the guys within reach again. He could also attack with a weapon (like a shield bash) in the grapple. The fighter would take significant penalties, but could probably bash one or two guys grappling him easily. He can still use Great Cleave too.

Grappling doesn't affect his AC enough to meaningfully increase the chances to hit for those outside the grapple.

I'd estimate that the warriors would kill the fighter faster with conventional attacks.

Additionally, we're dealing with an NPC fighter with a standard arrary, NPC wealth, DMG default choices on feats and items, and no buffs. Also, I forgot to give the fighter a race too. Even with the standard array and NPC wealth, it'd be possible to make far more effective army killers. If you let a couple of mid level casters buff him up before dropping him in the middle of the army, he'd probably do much better. Give him Adamantine armor, armor of Invulnerability, or make him a Barbarian or Dwarven Defender and then DR take the sting from the natural 20 hits.

 

[Hellcow]

... sea and river travel might be a good way to keep goods and information flowing. Elemental bindings probably help speed up delivery times considerably, as would the ability to accurate forecast the weather.

... or dictate the weather, if you have the Mark of Storms. Yes, certainly for port cities, Lyrandar elemental galleons are the most efficient combination of speed & cost.

 

[El Ravager]

Look at just New England and it's dense. Add it in the great plains and it looks low density, but it really isn't because you've just added a region claimed but not settled [until recently].

I don't get it. Why can't this by applied to Khorvaire? I have not read the book myself, but from this thread and others, the idea of vast unsettled areas is precisely what the creaters were after. Its just a matter of unsettled areas artificially lowing the population density.