NPC levels vs age and experience...

[mroberon1972]

All right, first:

Most systems that chart level advancement of NPC characters are based on the idea that there are more people of lower level than of higher. Usually this means that there are more 1st level commoners than second level. While this is well and good, I suddenly realized that the entire concept was flawed...

If we go by the idea that an individual (regardless of race) gains 1000 xp per year, then the assumption that there are more people at a lower level than higher is not a basic truth. Based on the starting age from the players handbook, the chart below shows what age a person would be to have reached a given level of advancement. The commoner only gains 1000 xp per year, the Educated gains 1500 per year, and the specialist gains 2000 per year. Keep in mind that the PCs in my game gain about 50 times that amount in the same given time.

This means the an average human commoner can only reach a maximum level of 9th before he dies. An elven commoner would be about 15th level just before he dies.

(Look at the first chart)
http://home.insightbb.com/~oberon54/Population-data.htm

Here, we have a chart showing the percentage of the population that would be a certain level. This takes into account that the population thins as he chart reaches the older edge toward a races maximum lifespan. Looking below, you see that the most common level of a commoner is not 1st, but 5th level. The reason? It an increasing amount of experience to go up a level, as shown on the chart above. At first the NPC goes up quickly, but as he advances he finds it takes him longer to gain the next level. This means the average Human Commoner is about 4th-6th level, not 1st. In contrast, an elven commoner has an average level of 7th-10th. The chart below also takes into consideration that longer lived races tend not to leave home until he gains a few levels. In other words, an elf may become an adult at 110 years, but usually spends another four or five in training. This places him at about 3rd level when encountered outside of his homeland.


(Scroll down to the second chart)
http://home.insightbb.com/~oberon54/Population-data.htm

So, what does this mean?

Characters are not as powerful as they tend to think they are, even at the mid levels of around 10th... There are plenty of people to challenge them.
NPC commoners are actually able to protect themselves better, perhaps too well. They can actually be quite formidable when they attack in groups.
There is going to be much more magic in the land in all likelihood. Even if only 1% of the entire population are magic using, then you have a much more powerful magic base for creating magic items. Potions of healing at 2xp each could become very common at this level. And magic that did not expend (swords, armor, etc...) would probably be found in shops for sale. "This 500 year old armor was worn by an elven paladin of the light named Arameal, until his retirement buy the church of Pholtus.


Comments can be sent to mroberon@hotmail.com

Any opinions?

 

[Emiricol]

What would the spread look like if they gained only 1XP per day?

 

[mroberon1972]

Want the spreadsheet so you can find out?

 

[Sanackranib]

age vs, level

this varifies somthing that I reciently told one of my new players - that most commoners are not 1st level. I put the adverage in my game at around 3-5 th level. And the purchase or sale of potions and scrolls is common practice. although your adverage commoner doesn't have the coin to buy them.

 

[mroberon1972]

Yup, But consider the magic saturation of the world from this... Big...

 

[Crothian]

Yup, But consider the magic saturation of the world from this... Big...

Not really. The average 4th level Farmer (or whatever) has 3300gp worth of gear according to the DMG pg 58. So, how much of that is in his house, barn, silo, land, horse, cows, chickens, pigs, farm equipment, etc. I don't think it has to include magical items.

 

[SylverFlame]

flawed logic

Your 1000xp/year is a bit steep, also you are assuming that every day of it's life a commoner will learn something new. If you live in a small town then you will know that by about age 11 to 16 you have experienced most everything that the town has to offer. In present day terms this would be things life movies and school, etc.

As such, you would stop gaining experience. If you are learning (what Xp represents) nothing new than you aren't gaining Xp. The same works for PC's. After a while 4 goblins won't even pop up on the CR chart, you need more. Therefore the PC's are learning how to fight more goblins (new experiences since they know how to fight a goblin, just not a goblin mob). This would mean that depending on location you would have a glass cieling on level.

I do not have your charts handy while writing this so I'll just put numbers from my head:
Small Village: Max level=5
Larger Town: Max level=7
Major City: Max level= anything

This being the chase you would also have modifiers. For instance if an adventurer retires in your town this means new experiences and vicarious living through it's stories (max level +3). Also, if the merchant from the major centre suddenly moves to your town and sets up a shop, you get news and traffic coming your way (max level +1).

As you can see average people (assume commoners above) are maxing out in the mid-level range due to lack of new things to do. Also, a poorer person would be lower average level since they don't have the money to travel or time since they have to worry about getting food.

Experience points assume your learning something. If you remove new occurrences than all of a sudden you're not learning anything so you don't gain experience.

 

[Umbran]

While this is well and good, I suddenly realized that the entire concept was flawed...

If we go by the idea that an individual (regardless of race) gains 1000 xp per year...
[...snip...]
Any opinions?

My opinion is that you cannot say the entire concept is flawed when you introduce a major factor that is not part of the entire concept.

Simply put, your assumption that NPCs earn 1000 or more XP a year is not what the game assumes. You are free to use it in your games. I have no problem with it. I just have a problem with you saying, "The concept is flawed because when you use my assumption that isn't part of the original design, the results aren't what the core says they are". The problem isn't with the concept, it's with your assumption.

NPCs gain XP for the same things PCs do. The DMG makes that clear (pg 36 and 37). Most NPCs don't get into deadly fights, solve life-threatening puzzles, or get embroiled in dangerous, important intrigues. They don't earn 1000 XP a year for planting seeds or making shoes.

 

[Celebrim]

I agree with Umbran. If the results you find are unexpected, then your assumptions have to be reconsidered.

My assumptions in the campaign is that the average commoner reaches 1st level at age 16, and gains roughly 200 xp per year after that. This assumption is based on the theory that the commoner gains roughly 1 xp for every full day of hard manual labor they engage in, and that humans in temperate regions put in about 200 days of work per year. Other assumptions could be made that ensured commoners almost never reached 2nd level, but I happen to like mine. The result of my assumption is that a commoner reaches 2nd level at age 21, 3rd level at age 31, 4th level at age 46, and 5th level at 66. Since it is assumed that average lifespans for commoners are not greatly beyond that of the lifespans of the medieval period, it is a rare commoner that lives to 66 or reaches 5th level, but 2nd and 3rd level is not unusual amongst the adult population. Still, even the 1st level PC, by virtue of better stats, better equipment, max hp at first level, and better training (class) is more broadly capable than the average member of the population, and is certainly more capable at surviving typical adventuring challenges.

He probably can't farm half as well, but that's ok. Farming is not his profession.

By third level, the PC reaches the point were they are broadly respected (or at least feared) and recognized within the community. If thier deeds have been brave and just, their opinions are likely to be deferred to and thier competance and integrity is likely unquestioned - whether that is a particularly wise view of the PC or not.

By sixth level, the PC are certainly local heroes (or villains) and can feel quite confident of thier superiority in combat to anyone else in the community. But they still don't know the first thing about growing wheat.

That is the way I've always run it, and I don't expect that I'll ever want to change it. Any assumption that changes that is not an assumption I would use in my campaign.

 

[mroberon1972]

It's up to you guys, but remember: The NPCs are already only gaining 1/50th the experience that the PCs do. 1000 XP per year means they have dealt with situations that were important on thier level. Also, keep in mind the standard D&D world. Do you think the monsters just ignore the locals and hunt for adventurers? The game masters guide also describes XP for DEFEATING opponents, in addition to deadly combat. Defeat takes many forms in the game.

Also, reducing the XP that the NPCs gain per year to 500 (little more than 1 per day) only reduces the average class level by about 1 or 2 on average. This is still a far cry from the idea that everyone is 1st level.

About people learning slower as they get older, the basic XP chart already deals with that nicely. It takes an additional 1000 xp per level to gain each level. This slows the advancement in the same way as it does for PCs.

Also, the idea that people learn less in small communities is an old attitude I thought died out long ago. Rural people are not less educated, they just learn differing skills than a person raised in a city. This is the same ego problem that people have when they say that primitive cultures create stupid people. They are not stupid, they just value differant skills. How many of you can make a bow from scratch and the arrows to go with it? Bet most of you would starve without a supermarket nearby. (I would...)

The real point is, characters gain XP awards for whatever -I- say so. Period. Also, regardless of what the Almighty book of gamemastery says. My demographics are based on real population statistics (simplified, but it is there...). Simply put, the average human is not stupid enought to stay at 1st level for any real amount of time. People always learn, even the ones that do not want to.

Remember, it does not matter how little XP you give them. It still means they tend toward having more people at higher levels than 1st. The average knight trains for years. A 1st level knight would be a squire...

1st level is just a waystop until somthing better comes along.