NPC levels vs age and experience...

[Celebrim]

"Also, the idea that people learn less in small communities is an old attitude I thought died out long ago."

Not among people who grew up in small communities.

I generally wouldn't bring a PC to 10th level in a single game year. But that is beside the point.

The real point is that if you assume some relatively fast rate of advancement (and by that I mean more than a level every 10 years or so) for NPC's, very quickly it becomes pointless to adventure at 'low levels', and in fact you begin to define 'low levels' as anything below 7th.

If armies are composed not of 1st and 2nd level fighters, but of 5th and 6th level ones (and higher than that for elves and dwarves), then what real purpose is a party of green 1st level characters serving? Persumably, aren't there always NPC's around that could do the job better than the PC's? Persumably, if NPC's can gain levels quickly enough that thier average level is 5th or so, could mere 1st level characters ever dare enter the Orc lair or go chasing after the bandits? Shouldn't average orcs be 4th, 5th, and 6th level warriors?

Sure, it is nice to have some checks and balances on PC power, but if you are overboard in that you trivialize the PC's accomplishments, render them unnecessary, and punish them for thier success. It's bad enough trying to figure out why the 1st level PC's don't just go to the far more capable NPC's in the community for help, if the AVERAGE person is more capable than a PC why (or how) would they ever become heroes in the first place? It is bad enough trying to design a dungeon crawl for 1st level characters that explains why some higher level characters haven't come along and looted the place earlier, how are you going to design one if Farmer Brown and his wife could have looted the place?

 

[Snoweel]

For mine, I think that the average adult human (and IMC, all humanoids live about as long as humans - I don't have Dwarves or Elves, for instance) should be 3rd level. That just feels right to me.

And if you go on the basis of Challenge Ratings, you should take into account that there comes a point where a CR1 encounter provides zero experience to an individual of sufficiently high level. (I don't have my DMG handy, but any of you could check).

I read something on a website once (wish I could remember where) that looked at it on the basis of a commoner's (and most other NPC's) struggle for survival and/or prosperity, equating to a CR1 challenge every month (I think it was every month).

This means that anyone who lives their lives in relative safety should "hit the wall" sooner or later with regard to levelling and stop receiving xp on the basis that they never experience encounters of greater than CR1.

Of course there will be the odd commoner who does, but he/she will most likely die in such situations.

But this does prove that most commoners will be higher than 1st level. IIRC, using the above system will lead to an average of level 3, given medieval life expectancy.

 

[CobaltGrC]

But Celebrim, the PC's are people just like NPC's are people They all inhabit the same world, the only diffrence is the PC's are crazy enough to go out and find adventure. An NPC farmer who is 4th level won't want to go out and risk his life getting killed by Orcs (He has a family to feed after all, he'd also rather live a simple life not hassled by the heat of combat), he will however defend his land if has to.

PC's become heroes when they go out into the world of adventure and gain kleos ~ the ancient greek word for fame and reputation, which then gets written down in some epic poetry by a bard and the PC's names get immortalized. XP just messures how seasoned they have become since they set out on the path of adventure.

Those farmers who do take up the sword and go kill the orcs bothering thier farm might themselves become Adventurers. Which then gives the DM some history to splash at the Players.

 

[Kilmore]

I would also say that it is the rare 5+ level commoner that hasn't picked up another class along the way, probably expert or soldier, but maybe adept and possibly even aristocrat as well. Which got me thinking...

Benjamin Franklin: 8th level Expert, 7th level Aristocrat, 5th level commoner.

This real historical 20th level Epic character was made without any PC classes (except if you figure in the one or two levels in rogue you never found out about in history class) ^_^

 

[Snoweel]

But Celebrim, the PC's are people just like NPC's are people They all inhabit the same world, the only diffrence is the PC's are crazy enough to go out and find adventure. An NPC farmer who is 4th level won't want to go out and risk his life getting killed by Orcs (He has a family to feed after all, he'd also rather live a simple life not hassled by the heat of combat), he will however defend his land if has to.

I agree with this.

It's entirely possible that the Duke (Aristocrat 8/Fighter 5) and his knights (average of Aristocrat 4/Fighter 4) won't want to enter a tomb reputedly full of zombies, and will prefer to "contract the job out". A party of 4th or 5th level with the desire to risk their lives against "strange things" will always be in demand.

 

[Al]

In general, I allow most ordinary NPCs to earn 1xp/day for going about their daily business, training in their 'career'. For that matter, I would probably allow anyone to do this: be it warriors who are in training, commoners engaging in manual labour, or experts sitting at a desk.

 

[seasong]

Just to throw my hat in the ring... Here are the rules I use for this (starting with "Lifetime Level Advancement"). These tend to result in this breakdown by population:

Under 15: 41.5% (level 0, child)
15-19: 12.2% (level 1-2, green to somewhat experienced)
20-24: 11.3% (level 3, experienced)
25-29: 10.3% (level 4, full professional)
30-34: 9% (level 4-5, full professional to master of the trade)
35-39: 6.7% (level 5, master of the trade)
40-44: 4.3% (level 5-6, master to locally reknown)
45-49: 2.5% (level 6, locally reknown)
50-54: 1.3% (level 6, locally reknown)
55+: 0.7% (level 7, regionally reknown)

 

[mroberon1972]

All right, here are the changes you guys mentioned:

Look past the first two...

http://home.insightbb.com/~oberon54/Population-data.htm

And here are some charts for the 250, 500, 1000 advancement rates: Now a third of the human population is 3rd level... All we have done is reduced the range... Also, you have more or less removed the clerics that can cast raise dead now... Of course, my game does not have raise dead... but your mileage may vary...

Next!

 

[Sanackranib]

age vs, level

All of you guys are missing the biggest diference between PC's and NPC's: their STATS. for commoners I use method I (iron man) 3d6 in order no rerolls. this tends to keep most commoners at home where they belong. experts, adepts, warriors and nobels still get 3d6 but their stats are assigned, so they are slightly better. characters gets 4d6 any order, so in my game they will almost always be better then commoners. consider also most commoners might be proficent with 1 simple weapon, most are going to use farming tools ie: standard mob of townies with torches and pitchforks. so even if they have a few levels under their belt, unless there are a lot of them they are not going to chalange the PC'S. and since the PC's are a cut above the rest they are the natural ones to save the community. also most townies or commoners are not danger junkies this is what allows thieves guilds to function. most townies and commoners would rather pay the extorsion money then fight aginst the guild. they simply don't have the resourses to engage in that kind of accitivity, not to mention they know that and value their lives.

This is why that orc raiding party that always seems to show up can defeat them. for the same reason the PC's can defeat the orcs. they have better stats, better equipment, and better training - this is reflected in the fighters bigger hitdice. the orcs stay a chalange because some of them do survive the raids and wars and take either levels in warrior (d8 HD), barbarian (d12 HD) or occasionally levels in fighter (d10 HD + feats) and this is why every 20 years or so the orcs are a problem. the new generation of 1 HD orcs is ready to make their mark on the world. the same happens with level 1 characters they look around and want somthing better so they set out to make it so. all the while your commoner is more conserned about how his family is going to eat or wear - basic survival takes precidence.

 

[Umbran]

Also, you have more or less removed the clerics that can cast raise dead now...

No, because clerics don't necessarily follow the same rules as people with NPC classes.

There's supposed to be a marked, qualitiative difference between characters who have NPC classes, and those with PC classes. NPC classes, for the most part, are for people who live quiet, normal lives. They don't have the great abilities because the people never choose to seek them, or rarely need them.

A person who's got the dedication, or lives a life interesting enough to take levels in a PC class, will go up in level faster.

By the qway, learning with age need not be represented by gaining in level. As a character ages, their Intelligence and Wisdom rises, even if they don't gain levels. That raises their modifiers - they get better because they've learned.

In the end, having the average NPC classed character of higher level is not constructive. For one thing, it makes you wonder why all the monsters with one or fewer hit dice are still around. For another, it trivializes a significant portion of a PC's career, and in fact makes it difficult to construct plausible scenarios. The world ceases to need 1st level fighters when the typical militia is built of 3rd and 4th level Warriors. There's be far fewer things the PCs should be able to handle, as the bulk of the NPCs can handle them nicely. Where's the fun in that?

In the end, it is your own game, of course. I just don't happen to like the results of your method, and so would not use it.