• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Level Advancement Over A Lifetime

Commoner Encounters

I always hated the fact that commoners were of such low levels, esp. 1st and 2nd edition. Come on, how often does a farmer have to defend his field for such things as racoons, and badgers and such like, usually there are only a few people envolved in such an encounter. How many encounters does he need to level?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Wow ... this is a very impressive aging model -- just enough detail to fake reality yet not enough to become cumbersome. I like it a lot. The only thing I really miss is the 'easy life' CR 1 column as well as a % chance of dying of non-aging causes between any given level (though I expect this would be a bitch to work out, not to mention have make sense in relation to birth rates). Other than that, it is ready to plug into a game which I'll certainly think about doing. I find it particularly attractive that one can play a group in its 'prime', then age them all to 40-50 years and have them have a new threat (or perhaps an old one come back to haunt them) bring them out of retirement. In any case, Kudos on a great job!

Yours,
Altin
 

S'mon said:
For a 1st level warrior a CR 2 encounter is 2 1st level Fighters or 4 1st level warriors - ie almost NO chance of survival. A CR 1/2 encounter (single enemy War1) is one with a 50% chance of survival, ie 150 XP.

It annoys me when people decry the illogicality of most Commoners being 1st level and assume that daily life would reap tons of XP. For a Com 1, an encounter with a single kobold (CR 1/6, 50 XP), gives about a 50% chance of survival, while a CR 1 encounter - 4 goblins or 2 orcs - has almost a 0% survival chance. Commoners will be almost all 1st level (per the DMG) because they are unable to overcome most challenges. Likewise Warriors will not overcome much more than a single goblin, and most will stay 1st level for a long time if not forever.

Actually, the CR rules have been made with a party of four complementary adventurers in mind. Because of this, two creatures of same CR are not necessarily balanced in fight (50% chance of winning a fight-to-the-death combat).

Using the CR rules for other things than a party of adventurers is a bit tricky IMHO.


hong said:
One thing to remember is that (in D&D at least) levels beyond about 5th or so become progressively more fantastic. A 10th level PC-class character can potentially jump off cliffs, wade through hordes of mooks, fly, teleport, and raise people from the dead. Past that, you're essentially in the realm of superheroes. I think it's too much of a stretch that any common joe, no matter how much life experience they may have, can become a superhero just by surviving. That's the domain of exceptional individuals -- namely player characters, major adversaries, and anyone else who has a significant role to play in the story.

A tenth-level commoner will probably meet his doom if he jump off cliffs or wade through hords of mooks, and will not at all be able to fly, teleport, or raise dead without magic items he's not likely to have in a low fantasy setting. And simple survival to day-to-day life do not warrant another class than commoner or, maybe, expert.

The most powerful NPC class is the adept -- and even then, quite limited.
 

S'Mon:
As you said, consider my XP usage a house rule.

Altin:
The CR Age->Level columns are convenient, aren't they? I'll try to add in CR 1 and 1/2 sometime Saturday, when I'm near my DMG again and have access to the CR XP numbers.

As for % chance of dying for non-age related issues... I think a reasonable system would be based on the CR for a year, with a CR 4 year being harsh enough to kill off around 50% or more of the population that year, and maybe even treat the survivors as malnourished and beaten. Higher level folks would have better chances of surviving.

Birth rates are pretty easy - except for CR 4, the birth rate will swell to rebuild the population after deaths.
 

Added the CR 1/2 and CR 1 levelling stuff to the chart. I think I'm about done now, unless anyone has any more commentary to add :).
 

Interesting thread. Reading through it resulted in me thinking of two completely different ways of dealing with NPC's of differing "experience".

Firstly a rules light method.

PC's probably won't be fighting NPC's (at least commoners) and if they do, won't usually be getting Xp for it (at least positive Xp anyway). For commoners, experts and any NPC's who have no real combat skill it's probably not necessary to go into the detail of assigning levels or determining BAB, Saves, HD and other combat stats. A simple summary of any attributes and skills of note and a description of the NPC should do. If the elder in village has lived a long, hard life and is an authentic wise man, does it matter if we assign a commoner level and fully flesh out all his stats, feats and skills. I would suggest that the following should suffice for any noncombatant.

Throbard Haltarsen

AC 8, HP 3, Int 14, Wis 17, Age 67, Knowledge (Farming) 15, Knowledge (Local History) 17, Sense Motive 9.

The eldest man in his small hamlet of Hulbeck, Throbard is much respected, both for his age and his acquired knowledge and wisdom. Throbard loves dispensing wisdom to those who ask, especially the young. Although his is apt to go off on disjointed stories from his youth, he has the uncanny knack to see to the heart of peoples troubles and give them a suitable answer, if they have the patience to listen through his stories.


Clunky Method

Funnily enough the process of thinking through a very simple method brought up a much more game mechanicky method for dealing with life experience.

Split "experience" into "combat experience" and "life experience". Experience in combat (or perhaps due to 'conflict' would be a better descriptor') contributes towards levels in the PC classes and also the more martial NPC classes such as Warrior and Adept. Many NPC's will never gain any 'conflict' Xp or at least not enough to ever gain levels in any 'martial' classes (I would suggest that with this method NPC's start at 0-level in regard to PC classes - needing perhaps 500 conflict Xp to reach 1st level).

Every character (both NPC and PC) also gain life experience in accordance with MavrickWeirdo's simple aging formula. This 'life' Xp would go towards levels in a generic 'NPC' class which only added to skills and had no effect on any combat stats. Therefore older NPC's (and PC's for that matter) would have a greater knowledge base than the young but not be any better at fighting or dodging fireballs (in fact they would likely be worse due to stat decreases with age). The skill pool that characters would be able to draw upon would be determined by the GM (or GM and player together in the case of PC's) and be flavoured to represent the characters life experience (or at least to represent their life experiences during the time period they gained the level). The number of skills per level would probably be 4, however restricting the skill choices to 'roleplaying' skills rather than ones which have a large effect on the game should balance this out.

For example a peasant who has reached the age of 43 is now a 5th level NPC. His skill pool will represent his farming and rural knowledge, perhaps some craft skills, some simple knowledges and perhaps a few social skills such as perform or diplomacy.

A veteran Mercenary who has just hit 43 will also have 5 levels of NPC. His skill pool will be more likey to draw on knowledge of politics and nobility, military tactics, gather information (come on we all know that Merc's gossip like old women), yet will probably not have access to any skills representing a rural lifestyle.

This method would mean that PC's wishing to start with 'veteran' characters would simply have to up their age. They would then start with more skills but also be closer to suffering age penalties (or perhaps even start with age penalties).

If any NPC is intended to have a small amount of martial skill, for example an aged peasant who served in the militia during his youth, simply add a level of Warrior. Age will take care of most of the benefits he gained from the experience - he will be weaker in combat than a 20 y.o. peasant but would maybe have the edge over another old man if an arguement came to blows.

In fact to give every NPC basic combat stats, their 0-level status in a PC class would give them the martial stats the Commoner NPC calss in the DMG.

Hope this makes sense.

Thoughts please.
 


I only skimmed through the thread and am listening to the radio, so pardon me if I'm repeating something previously stated or am a bit off-topic as my minds not completely on this=.

Anyway, check out page 137-140 of the DMG. According to that, the average level of the highest level Commoner in a Thorp (20-80 people) is 7th level.

In a hamlet (81-400), the average level of the highest level Commoner is 8th.

In a village (401-900), the average level of the highest level Commoner is 9th.

In a small town (901-2,000), the average level of the highest level Commoner is 10th.

In a large town (2,001-5,000), the average level of the highest level Commoner is 13th.

In a small city (5,001-12,000), the 2 highest level Commoners are, on average, 16th level.

In a large city (12,001-25,000), the 3 highest level Commoners are, on average, 19th level.

In a metropolis (25,001+), the 4 highest level Commoners are, on average, 20th level.

So apparently Commoners advance much more quickly then people expect. The same goes for Experts, who achieve levels almost as high as Commoners, and Warriors, who are just behind Experts.
 

Now that I actually think about it, since elves live the longest, don't you think they would be the strongest race (if they spent their lifetime adventuring)?
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top