NPC levels vs age and experience...

[Turjan]

@jgbrowning: Well, the Middle Ages ended 1500, so your numbers seem to support my view. My numbers are for Germany, but maybe here the situation was better than in England, because it was the period of colonisation, which provided all people who didn't have enough income in the west with new land to support themselves. Anyway, the skeletons speak an unambiguous language: Those from the the Middle Ages are of healthy individuals most of the time, whereas the people of the following era show signs of malnutrition and skeletal deformations due to inhumane labour conditions.

Well, of course the technical and medical development make a difference for the individual. I tried to give a hint to that in parantheses in my former post .

Comparisons with states of the 3rd world of today don't provide a valid result. The standard of living in Africa has deteriorated significantly during the last few decades, due to world trade, wrong developmental projects, and, paradoxically, because of modern medicine.

As far as literature goes: Sorry, it's in German, so won't be appropriate I'm afraid .

@jdavis: Salt was one of the goods which was very expensive in the Middle Ages, so it was a bit expensive for preparing meat. Meat could be bought freshly, as it was easily available. The reason for the early death might be a bit different: the typical medieval man or woman was an alcoholic. Drinking water was unhealthy, therefore, all water was conservated with alcohol, either as beer or as wine. People drank several litres of wine and beer each day. You can imagine what happened.

In the region where I was born, the big medieval farmhouses, where people and cattle lived under the same roof, are still in use. They are actually huge - that's why .

 

[Celebrim]

CobaltGrC: Well, there are probably several ways to handle it depending on the desires of your campaign. These are my answers, YMMV.

"If the DMG lists NPC classes going up to 20th level, how would a NPC achieve that level?"

At some point, the NPC has to face challenges similar to an adventuring class. At high levels the NPC classes are about half as powerful as PC classes (or about 1/4 as potent for the commoners) so it isn't necessarily efficient, but it could happen.

"Do you have any examples of how it might be possible?"

You make the assumption that the training necessary for a PC class never becomes available to the NPC, or else that the NPC disdains such training. For instance, an aristocrat in a court filled with intrige might well get along as an aristocrat and/or expert and achieve quiet high level, even though Bard or Rogue would probably be better from a game play perspective. But if the aristocrat never had training in the skuldugery of a rogue or disdained such training, he'd never learn to sneak attack or be evasive.

"Does any commoner ever make it that high?"

Very very rarely. For myself, it would only occur in the rare case of a commoner who did not have any formal training available, who was in a dangerous environment, but who was not born and raised in the wilderness, and who did alot of manual labor, but who never (or almost never) had to participate in combat. I'd pick Robinson Crusoe as my example of a high level commoner, ignoring the possibility that he began with several levels of some other class. A highly experienced but poorly educated slave might be another example.

In normal circumstances, a commoner that started gaining alot of experience would take levels in, at the least, warrior or expert depending on the challenges they were facing.

"If we are keeping commoners pretty low, what's the point of having them have thier class go up that high?"

Just to be consistant.

"What would a 15th level commoner be like?"

Robinson Crusoe. A very experienced and elderly slave.

 

[jdavis]

Salt was definatly a luxury item. I'm sure the definition of fresh meat has changed some too, although I probably don't want to know how little it has, but they really couldn't freeze it back then. I didn't know about the drinking, that s something new for me, but it does make sense. I'm sure the larger populations got the worse conditions got too.

 

[Celebrim]

Turjan: I'm sketical of both your readings and your conclusions (though not necessarily your evidence). There is a large number of books on economics which you must have an extra critical mind when reading, and ask yourself 'Is there some explanation the author is not considering?' 'Does the writer have some motivation that has caused him to make a sampling error, wittingly or unwittingly.'

I don't have what you are reading before me, so I can only encourage you to do this yourself.

One example would be the writings of certain protocommunist economists in the 19th century. They did alot of analysis on the real wages of middle class laborers with respect to the time they had to commit to earn that wage. Most notably the were interested in tradesmen of various types - blacksmiths, carpenters, etc. They concluded that the reinassance represented the very best that humanity had ever achieved. The average real wage for a tradesman had never been higher before or since. They went on to use this conclusion to attack the developing capitalistic industrialist economy and rally the common man to the cause of communism.

Keep in mind that this is thier goal.

Their numbers are buy and large true, however, thier conclusion was highly flawed on two counts. First, that they were comparing the same things. Yes, they were comparing say tinsmiths to tinsmiths. The problem was that the master tradesman of the reinassance was not a middle class laborer, even if the same position _was_ in the 19th century. The economy had shifted, and demand for and numbers of trademan had rapidly increased with respect to say the number of farmers. The result was that the job had fallen from being one of high prestige, high demand, short supply, to being one of normal prestige demand and supply. The result of course was that real wages fell, though I daresay since then the increase in capital goods and social programs has more than made up the difference.
The economist were comparing the then equivalent to doctors, engineers, and other upper class highly skilled positions to common laborers.

Moreover, while noting the monopoly of the guild system in cursory, they neglected the fact the the guild monopolies were bankrupting the poor farmers - while all the while bemoaning the fact that the poor farmers had joined with the nobility in attacking the middle class.

So, I'm just saying you should be careful who you trust. Some of the things you are saying sound very suspect to me.

 

[Celebrim]

Khorod: We are mostly on the same page. I think you are struggling unnecessarily with a few things though.

"So its not unreasonable to assume that they can be KO'd without having to run through all hit points."

That's fine, but this is another instance of having two sets of mechanics, one for PC's and one for NPC's. I've never liked that, and anyway your reasoning seems pretty flimsy. It is also another case of needing an arbitrary assumption to keep unexpected results of another arbitrary assumption from ruining your game world.

It is also not a necessary assumption, as I'll point out below.

"Sure, they got levels, but not everything about what they have and what they can do is described by the mechanics."

Well, ideally this is not true.

"In an attempt to fix it I use d10's for opposed rolls."

This helps fix what is admittedly always been one of the D&D systems biggest weaknesses, but just makes worse the biggest weakness of the D20 system at high levels - the insignificance of the random result compared to the large bonus.

"Of course, this does retain some feeling of *what*? Its not a perfect explanation, but then, try arguing that all npc's are 1st level. That doesn't make sense to me. You can't have experienced, compentent farmers or master smiths that way without making them ex-adventurers or rules-exceptions."

I agree on all counts. Let me try to remove the 'feeling of *what*'. If you assume that NPC's can obtain levels/experience without adventuring or killing things (a necessary assumption in my opinion), but you assume that they gain levels fairly slowly, then it is not necessary to drag out a bunch of extra rules to obtain the sort of balance between realism and heroism I've been talking about, or the balance between experience and natural ability that you so rightly brought up.

Suppose that the average commoner can reach 5th level if he lives long enough. The key part being 'if he lives long enough'. If he is 5th level by ordinary means, then if he is also say 65 and suffering from typical medieval nutrition and hygene, then it is safe to say that his health is no longer what it used to be. So what that he has base 5d20 h.p., +2 BAB, and 2 feats. If his physical stats have been reduced by aging to say 6's, then he has 5d20-10 h.p. (average 2.5), +0 attack bonus, and a -2 penalty to AC and initiative. If you carefully select the rate of advancement, older commoners may be more experienced, but they aren't necessarily better combatants. And middle aged 2nd and 3rd level commoners might be reasonable matches for a 1st level PC class, but won't be clearly superior (and will probably be clearly inferior in some respects).

However, if you let the average commoner (or any other NPC for that matter) hit 5th level at middle age, then all bets are off.

 

[jgbrowning]

@jgbrowning: Well, the Middle Ages ended 1500, so your numbers seem to support my view. My numbers are for Germany, but maybe here the situation was better than in England, because it was the period of colonisation, which provided all people who didn't have enough income in the west with new land to support themselves. Anyway, the skeletons speak an unambiguous language: Those from the the Middle Ages are of healthy individuals most of the time, whereas the people of the following era show signs of malnutrition and skeletal deformations due to inhumane labour conditions.

that explains it. medieval germany was in a different boat than the majority of western/southern europe. too bad my german, pathetic as was after only 3 years, was so long ago im lucky if i know what a regensmantel is.....

man, i really loved german too.... its was like swimming from comma to comma and not knowing what the heck was happening to you got to the verbs.. hehe There must be something about germans, but they love the paragraph long sentance.. reminds me a bit of dickens i guess.

joe b.

"Go East, young man!"

 

[Sanackranib]

age vs lavel

It seems to me that we are all basically in agreement. let me sum up
1) commoners (all NPC classes) can advance
2) they advance slower then PC's (with some notable exceptions: ie Blacksmith)
3) high level commoners are not physically as powerfull as mid level comoners (due to health and advanced age - not nessicarilly a problem for some NPC classes: ie. nobel or alchemest)
4) low level adventurers are not more, or not much more powerfull then the adverage commoner
5) adventurers are generally better equiped and less afraid (more agressive) then your adverage commoner.
6) everyone wants to be well off
7) adventurers are more willing to take the risks to achieve wealth then the adverage commoner.

Again this is all dependent on the type of game that you run, I for one don't agree that all comoners (NPC classes) are level 0 or 1st level. The main reason is adventurers only make up about 1% of the population and there is a lot of building , crafting and professions that are not dependent on mid to high level adventurers retireing to have the skills necessiary to drive the world ecconomy/

 

[jdavis]

I agree there is a need for higher level NPC's for certain task. I just don't agree with the average middle aged commoner being 4th or 5th level, the higher level NPC class characters should either be specialist (such as a blacksmith, or a guard captain) or exceedingly rare. Farmers and dock workers and such just don't build up the exp. to get to that high of a level under normal circumstances. Living in a swamp or on the border of civilization will create higher level commoners but living in the average hamlet or village just wouldn't allow for that much experience.

Then again every world is different. It's just a matter of setting.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Hoo boy...

I was going to respond to this thread long ago, but it's just gotten....blargh...

Look, by-the-book, the DMG says that NPC's gain XP for the same things that PC's do -- overcoming challenging encounters.

Now, by-the-book, basically the only challenging encounters are those that threaten your life with other creatures involved. Maybe the occasional trap or something, but the PC's don't gain XP for, say, buildling a house or something. So, NPC's don't, either. The DMG also doesn't award "down time XP" for surviving day-to-day hazards and activities, to PC's or NPC's. If the PC's take up farming for a year, they don't get XP for it. So, neither do NPC's. The PC's don't get XP for surviving harsh weather or starvation -- neither to the NPC's (neither environmental hazards or starvation have Encouter Levels or Challenge Ratings, so no XP awards are assigned to them, by-the-book).

This is all assuming you're following what the DMG says, so far. Let's pretend we're not using the commonly accepted variant rules, because the DMG didn't...

So, then, most commoners wouldn't be above 1st level. A few, if on the fringes of society, having to fight off the occasional orc or ankheg, might be a level or two higher. If the commoner was in a fairly well-protected, quiet area, they're basically 1st level, perhaps 2nd for some woodsman or something. The reason being that commoners don't get in a whole lot of life-threatening encounters with CR's and EL's and stuff that you get XP for.

1st level commoners, experts, aristocrats, and adepts are still fairly competent individuals, full-fledged adults in the real world. They can be decent architechts and builders -- it's not like you have to be 5th level to build a house or something. Just spend a few ranks in Craft (carpentry) or Profession (housebuilder) or something, and you're good to go.

Higher level commoners represent those that are on the edges of society, where it is dangerous and brutal. Perhaps they are settlers in orc lands, or thugs from the inner city. Either way, they have had encounters with things with CR's and EL's, and probably a good many of them -- enough to bump them up a level or two.

The reason that higher-level commoners and such can exist is for some semblance of realism. In theory, someone who never trained as a fighter or a barbarian or whatever could never gain levels in one of those classes, having never experienced the trianing to go there. So, they'd be stuck as, say, an Expert, despite gaining millions of XP -- simply because no one exists to show them how to be a Rogue, or they have no interest in the other class's powers.

There ya go. The DMG's ruling and reasoning on it.

IMHO, giving XP beyond this to commoners creates some bizarre situations. ("sorry, you want to play someone who's age 75? That's a +3 ECL for three levels of 'grandpa.'"), and creates some unfair restrictions. ("the campaign is starting at 1st level, so everyone has to be 15!")

...it limits the story and age (flavor) by tying a mechanic to it...not a desirable end in my opinion.

Not that the reasoning isn't fairly valid. It's just that environmental damage and starvation risk carries no XP award, CR, or EL, by default. So you don't, by defualt, gain XP for simply living from year to year....otherwise, I'd be giving a few XP to my players every time they rested for a week or two....which would mean "We camp until we're higher level" would become something of a norm for a campaign...it's not desirable for me. For many, it may be okay, but I wouldn't accept it as a defualt ruling. I'm quite comfortbale with the first, which allows some odd high-level-ers, but mostly limits it so that by they time they're 5th level, most PC's are certainly a significant cut above the average mook in a dark alleyway. They're truly heroes, and not just nobodies with interesting lives.

 

[Khorod]

Okay, so according to the PHB, using the Craft skill to get a masterwork item requires one check for the item, and one check against DC 20 for the 'masterwork component'.

If you assume that most aristocrats and veteran warriors are able to find a good smith to make them a masterwork longsword, how many smiths in town should be able to meet their needs?

Presuming between ability scores and feats, say, a +4 bonus, the talent of guaranteed service on that is 16 ranks. The occasional delays that crop up for a less perfected smith might mean 11 ranks. (That means someone who 25% of the time has an unexpected multi-week delay because he screws up, and as a result makes no money on this commission because he had to replace the used materials.)

So we have then we have an Expert smith of 8th level.

Someone who can produce masterwork around 50% of the time is 3rd level, presuming the +4 bonus is fully in place.

Then assume that finding a way to grow crops in the wake of a natural disaster is a similar activity. So I figure that you need a decent proportion of people who are 2nd or 3rd level, just to produce half-way decent stuff, or get the community through the really bad times.

In the village in the patrolled kingdom, maybe their aren't such skilled people about so much- people that good might often move on to become yeomen. Or move to the cities to 'make it big'. You don't really find smiths who can produce masterwork items in the villages because they can't sell masterwork items in the villages.

So a good proportion of adults (say at least a fourth) will be at least 2nd level. These are the people that can guarantee quality service, and can sometimes touch on exceptional work. That ability to produce one great masterpiece demonstrates minimal mastery of a profession, IMO.