Populating the world

[blargney the second]

Let's say that I am an expert, well I would say that 75% of my XP were made during the first year and 24% the second and only 1% the last one. Now I feel that if I want to progress quicker in my skills I need to see new things.

Interesting real world example! It actually makes me even happier with the setup I've got: it doesn't take too long to get to 2nd level, a little longer to get to 3rd, then it's mostly just stagnation if you stay at the same job for the rest of your life!

I want to have expert with 14 ranks in their craft but I don't automatically want them to have 35-40 hp and fight as 11 level cleric, why would someone specialised in painting should be able to kill an ogre.

Have you thought of using synergy bonusses to account for high skill levels? Say your expert painter is 4th level and has 7 ranks in Craft(Painting). He hits his ceiling in terms of how far he can go with techniques, so he diversifies into different studies. He studies anatomy (Heal: 5 ranks) and gets +2 to paint people. He studies nature (Know(Nature): 5 ranks) and gets +2 to painting nature scenes. Etc, etc. Nothing game-breaking, just expanding synergy bonusses a little.

-blarg

 

[DarkMaster]

Have you thought of using synergy bonusses to account for high skill levels? Say your expert painter is 4th level and has 7 ranks in Craft(Painting). He hits his ceiling in terms of how far he can go with techniques, so he diversifies into different studies. He studies anatomy (Heal: 5 ranks) and gets +2 to paint people. He studies nature (Know(Nature): 5 ranks) and gets +2 to painting nature scenes. Etc, etc. Nothing game-breaking, just expanding synergy bonusses a little.

-blarg

Interesting...

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I realize that you've set limits on NPC levels, but you may wish to read the following argument from Sean Reynolds: A Theory about Peasants.

It's fairly strong evidence that the way most people (and the DMG itself) treat NPCs is inconsistent with the nature of the rules themselves. In a world that actually worked as the rules stipulate, most people will be significantly higher than level one.

 

[MavrickWeirdo]

The only problem I see with that is that the young 1st level warrior will die more easily than the elderly blacksmith. But that problem is present whatever the solution. I don't see why the 10 level blacksmith should have on average 35 hp.

Thats why Ageing Modifiers are important. For example:

Human Warrior L2; AL NG; CR 1; age 18
HD 2d8+2(+3); hp 14; Init +0; Spd 30 ft; AC 14;
BAB +2; Spear Atk +4 melee or +3 ranged, Dmg 1d8+1, crit x3, range 20ft;
SV Fort +4, Ref +0, Will -1; Str 12, Dex 10, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 8.

Skills (15 points): Bluff 1.5 (.5), Climb 2 (+1), Intimidate 5 (+4), Jump 3 (+2), & Ride 2; Feats:Toughness, & Weapon Focus Spear

Shield (Small Wood), Spear, & Studded Leather.

vs.

Human Expert (Smith) L5; AL NG; CR 2; age 55
HD 5d6-5; hp 13; Init -2; Spd 20 ft; AC 14;
BAB +3; Mace(Heavy) Atk +4 melee, Dmg 1d8, crit x2;
SV Fort +0, Ref -1, Will +3; Str 10, Dex 7, Con 9, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 10.

Skills (58 points): Appraise 8 (+9, +11 Armor or Weapons), Bluff 8, Diplomacy 8 (+12), Craft Armorsmith: 8 (+14), Craft Weaponsmith 8 (+14), Intimidate 8 (+10), Sense Motive 8; Feats: Shield Proficiency, Skill focus Armorsmith, and Skill focus Weaponsmith;

Artisan's Tools (Masterwork), Chain Shirt (Masterwork), Mace (Heavy, Masterwork), & Shield (Small metal, Masterwork).

They seem rather evenly balanced to me. Both started with the same ability scores. The expert's scores were modified by "Middle Age" and "Old Age", and received +1 Str at 4th level. The smith's skills allowed him to make (masterwork) equiptment to deal with the physical limitations of old age.

(For this smith to reach L10 <which he wouldn't in blargney's world> he would need to live past venerable. He would have Con 6, which would be 10d6-20, 15hp.)

 

[MavrickWeirdo]

Say your expert painter is 4th level and has 7 ranks in Craft(Painting). He hits his ceiling.-blarg

A painter with 7 ranks in Craft(Painting) would know enough to use masking tape so he wouldn't hit the ceiling.

couldn't resist

 

[DarkMaster]

I realize that you've set limits on NPC levels, but you may wish to read the following argument from Sean Reynolds: A Theory about Peasants.

It's fairly strong evidence that the way most people (and the DMG itself) treat NPCs is inconsistent with the nature of the rules themselves. In a world that actually worked as the rules stipulate, most people will be significantly higher than level one.

Very good article, I will use it for my campaign

 

[DarkMaster]

I realize that you've set limits on NPC levels, but you may wish to read the following argument from Sean Reynolds: A Theory about Peasants.

It's fairly strong evidence that the way most people (and the DMG itself) treat NPCs is inconsistent with the nature of the rules themselves. In a world that actually worked as the rules stipulate, most people will be significantly higher than level one.

Very good article, I will use it for my campaign, Also notice that most people in medieval time were dead by the age of 40

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

No. This is incorrect.

That statistic is frequently repeated, even by people who should know better. However, it is wrong. The problem lies in the difference between mean, median, and mode; these are all averages, but they're different kinds of averages. The mean is the sum of all values divided by the number of values. The median is the value or narrow range of values that appears most often. The mode is the value in the middle of the total range.

In the medieval period, infant and child mortality rates were quite high. So out of the total number of births, many people would die at a very young age. The people who lived, however, could easily live to their 50s, 60s, or 70s. The average (mean) lifespan would be relatively low, due to the large numbers of early deaths, but the average (median) lifespan wouldn't be all that much different from ours. Taking into account things like famine and pestilence, and we find that the mean lifespan is several decades lower than the median.

If you were alive in the medieval period and survived past puberty, you had a good chance of living into your late 50s or early 60s. Obviously this depends on individual factors (work performed, social class, available nutrition, etc.), but at no time was it extraordinarily rare for people to become "old".

This site has a brief but useful discussion: Population Fallacies

 

[DarkMaster]

Look around yourself and ask how many people would be dead if it wasn't of modern science, especially among the elderly, My Grandmother died at 84, and never took any medication before she was 82, but she was one of the only one in her building. A lot today's minor or non lethal condition would kill you quickly at that time. Add to that the poor hygiene, unbalanced diet (lack of Vitamins, protein), almost no knowledge of any disease, (simple ampentitis, otittis would or could kill you). Knowing that the occurence of those conditions increase quite rapidly as age increases(infection not cured properly at 20 might not kill you but the accumulation on the body of all these thing surely do).

I read the article ( I was already aware of that btw) but the average lifespan in medival europe was around 20-25 so using the same logic redo the math and you will see that very few people reached the venerable age and that is why a 70 years person would command greater respect than today. and reaching early 50' was conceivable. maybe 20-30% would reach early 50s, for me 70% is most of the population.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I was unable to find a coherent point in the preceding post, so I'm simply going to ignore it.

Half the population might have died before the age of forty, but most of those people would be infants and young children. It's quite likely that a person who made it through puberty would survive turning forty.