NPC levels vs age and experience...

[jdavis]

I really cannot picture a 15th level commoner myself, a 15th level Aristocrat wouldn't be much of a stretch (a old and powerful king), a 15th level warrior (a wise/devious general of much renown), 15th level expert (the best weaponsmith in all the lands), 15th level adept (the old half orc witch). I just can't see the mighty 15th level serf.............

 

[Sanackranib]

npc ve age

The higher level commoners are the ones that the PC's deal with the most as the PC's advance. ie the weaponsmith, alchemest, sage etc. The higher NPC levels allow them to have a chance of success at their chosen profession. After all not all sages are retired magic wielders or clerics- some can't even cast spells. the're just experts in their chosen field. But remember, these people represent the minority of commoners not the "adverage townie"

 

[jdavis]

wouldn't all of those fall under the expert class?

 

[Sanackranib]

npc

yes, I use the term townie and commoner to refer to all the NPC classes including the expert.

 

[jgbrowning]

NPC

According to the DMG there are high level commoners as well as experts etc... I view experts as expert blacksmith... expert merchant... etc... ie. just because your a blacksmith doesn't mean you have to be an expert. IMHO, the really good examples of their professions are experts.

I think the biggest problem here is that EXP is based on killing things. I know, i know, that's not all its based on but that pretty much discribes the DnD system of exp.

If we had an exp system that had many examples of non-killing, non-back-to-the-dungeon ways to gain exp, this would be a lot easiser to deal with because we could more easily understand the "experience without being an adventurer" idea.

According to the DMG, a 7th level commoner is the average highest level commoner in a THORP. that guy's pretty tough, but not amazing.. maybe a 2nd level fighter equvalent? In a village the average highest is 11th. guys almost getting two attacks, he's not to be sneered at by 1st or 2nd level PC's.

of course you run into the expected NPC wealth issue.. I always assumed that that only dealt with PC classed NPC's. but it doesn't have too... land, buildings, livestock could all be included i guess. I just prefer a "more medieval" concept of a commoner.

I guess it comes down to whether or not you want to change what we've been doing for decades to match with the concept of 3E, or if ya just want to rule 0 the demographic information given in the DMG.

Imagine that, a post by me that says do want you want.. hehe

joe b.

 

[Turjan]

Just on a related note:

Medieval commoners had actually a quite high standard of living. It was nearly the same as today (minus the technical equipment, of course). The apprentice of an expert (baker or something like that) had to spend a similar percentage of his income for food as today. Meat was cheaper, fruit was more expensive than today, both numbers given related to the average income. They were even paid to go to the public bathing house once a week. Investigations of skeletons from that era usually show that the people were well fed and quite healthy.

All this deteriorated heavily with the beginning of renaissance. Nutrition got really bad, and most people suffered from exploitation that ruined their health. Not the medieval times were the "dark age" of mankind, but the times that followed .

 

[jgbrowning]

Just on a related note:

Medieval commoners had actually a quite high standard of living. It was nearly the same as today (minus the technical equipment, of course). The apprentice of an expert (baker or something like that) had to spend a similar percentage of his income for food as today. Meat was cheaper, fruit was more expensive than today, both numbers given related to the average income. They were even paid to go to the public bathing house once a week. Investigations of skeletons from that era usually show that the people were well fed and quite healthy.

All this deteriorated heavily with the beginning of renaissance. Nutrition got really bad, and most people suffered from exploitation that ruined their health. Not the medieval times were the "dark age" of mankind, but the times that followed .

I think your exaggerating a bit. I've been doing some research into the medival period and have got a different picture. Its not as bleak as people tend to believe, but i dont think its as nice as your post seems to imply.

When you look at the comparison of prices to labor (in england here) from 1210-1350 you'll start spiking around 1270 (ie. prices start going way up then down but not as far as before it went up and then back way up. kinda like a sawblade held at a 30 degree or angle). Prices came WAY down like you seem to be talking about after the plague.

during 1360-1520 (again in england) the price of wheat fell by about 40%. the wages went up by 30% during the same period. But once you get past that point wage index plummets. by 1640 (england again) the wage index was down by 50%.

so i, reservedly, agree with you but standard of living includes a lot of things medieval people didn't have access to. child mortality rates (up to, crap i cant remember exactly, something like 30-50%) of kids didn't make it past 12 years old, lack of medicines.. etc would make me more hesitant to try and compare our mondern standard of living to a medieval one. If you want to compare a 3rd world agrarian standard of living it would probably be closer, but i would't be surprised if the medievals had it a bit better than our contemporaries there.

we also don't have to contend with famine and plague (although aids may qualify, we'll have to look at it in a 100 years or so). Food is the most volitile aspect of price/labor indexes. It was so bad during the great famine of 1314-1316 that people were so hungry they'd dig up corpses and eat them. Not just eating the people who died, actually digging them up and eating them. *shudder*

thankfully we dont have to deal with that. It is almost inconceivable to me. The middle ages were pretty good if you could avoid famine and disease. You could do nicely for yourself and your family, but there was a tremndously greater threat of instability than now.

anyway, its nice to see someone seems to be as nerdy as me! If anything i've said here seems too far off base, just drop me an e-mail and let me know the books you've been reading. I could be entirely wrong, wouldn't be the first time alas, and i always appreciate a good read!

take care,

joe b.
suzi_and_joe@hotmail.com

 

[jdavis]

In there example of the DMG table they put down a 3rd level commoner, I'm wondering if the 4d4+ community modifier might be a misprint. It is the highest listed but I would think it would be about the same as the rest. A 7th level commoner in a thorp would easily be two to three times the level of anybody else there.

The example in the book made the vast majority of the popuation 1st level with only a few standouts, who were the village leaders. I like that much better than basing levels on age.

 

[jdavis]

I don't know if I'd call sleeping in a one room thatch hut with your whole family and your farm animals to keep warm all that wonderful. And I seem to remember that the big thing about salt was that it covered the rotting taste of meat so well. Want a example of the fine dining you could find then, take some hamburger or a steak and let it set out for a couple of days before you cooked it, or cook it and let it set out a couple of days, it's all the same. It might of been better than it is generally thought but being a medieval serf wasn't that much of a picnic. There is a reason they generally died young.

 

[Vaxalon]

When I make up characters, I consider not how old they are, but what they've done, what they've accomplished. Ideally, I list one thing they've accomplished per level, but I don't always have time for that kind of detail.

Older people will have had more OPPORTUNITY to accomplish things, but it doesn't mean that they took it.

Remember, you only get experience for obstacles overcome while in pursuit of a goal; if your only goal is to feed your family, unless there are significant challenges involved, it won't get you much experience.

For this reason, I add levels to people who live in dangerous areas, equal to the average EL of the area minus three. So if you find a small village in the middle of a dangerous EL 8 swamp, most everyone is going to be 6th level or higher, because anyone who doesn't get very competent very fast is very dead.