Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Starfox" data-source="post: 6132709" data-attributes="member: 2303">I agree it does not have to be so, but it is a common assumption. To quote the first post:I find that it is a common assumption, especially among the players in a points of darkness campaign that the 99% of the population that do not confront darkness would be less capable that the 1% who does. Not only on average (most people have no practice fighting) but also in their peak abilities (soldiers fight a lot less that adventurers do). A man-at-arms in 1ed was level zero. It is also very much the assumption in adventures like the Village of Homlet. It also skewers military assumptions a lot if one country could field a company of soldiers who are 10th level... Such a company could defeat a basically unlimited number of normal level 1-2 soldiers. They would seem to belong in the same lab environment as the players, not in the normal world of medieval politics. So unless you allow soldiers to routinely be level 5 or so, you cannot allow any unit of soldiers to be level 10. If soldiers are routinely level 5, it makes level 1 characters unskilled kids who confront dangers they really ought to leave to the adults. If soldiers are routinely level 1, they do not pose credible opposition to characters of level 10+. Neither option really works out.At the same time we do want our heroes to feel heroic, so they should be given some lassitude and be allowed to feel more powerful than the masses at higher levels.Overall, it does put strain on the continuity of the world. A literary example of this is when the hobbits return to the Shire at the end of the Lord of the Rings - and more or less single-handedly defeat Saruman's cronies and free their country. Very cool as the finale of a grand adventure, less cool if they players had been the bullies themselves.</blockquote>

Verification