Powerful people vs high-level characters

[S'mon]

I tend to have NPC peers of the PCs be in the same kind of realm of power - low mid or high.

Low level PCs hang around villages, the village elder is 3rd level.

Mid level PCs operate at a regional level, the local baron is 8th level.

High level PCs operate at an international level, the king is 12th level.

Very powerful very high level PCs are still dealing with kings, but also possibly with legendary rulers like Caesar or Alexander, these Imperial rulers may be say 16th level+ if they carved out their empires by their own hand.

 

[drothgery]

IMO most rulers are simple 1st or 2nd level characters, unless they have (for some reason) been involved directly in a conflict of some kind.

See, I have another name for 1st-level commoners: children, and another name for 1st-level characters in any other class (and 2nd-level commoners): teenagers. But I tend to figure "normal, competent adults" as 3rd-5th level; if a ruler is below that, it's because they're either supposed to be a lazy, incompetent fop, or because they inherited their title before they were really ready for it.

 

[Dracomeander]

IMO most rulers are simple 1st or 2nd level characters, unless they have (for some reason) been involved directly in a conflict of some kind.

I have to disagree with this. You are assuming experience only derives from physical conflict. Social interaction is also a form of conflict, albeit a more subtle form. Out maneuvering your peers provides its own experience, and the more you engage in these activities the more proficient you will become.

Admittedly, NPCs are not subject to the same limitations as PCs, but they will still gain a modicum of experience through the general daily grind of keeping their organization going. I can't see a 1st or 2nd level character being an effective leader. He just hasn't had enough time in the job to be aware of everything that it entails. He has most likely just inherited his position.

I could see a ruler/leader in the 4th to 8th level range. With special training, he could be quite effective at his particular skills without being that competant outside of them. At these levels, the experience for most social interaction will stop acruing as it just becomes more and more of the same experiences with every once in a great while an occurance that provides new insight in how to apply those skills.

 

[The Shaman]

As a rule of thumb any situation where you have to put forth effor to become the boss (leader of a merchant guild, assassin cult, or millitant knightly order) then the boss is going to be among the hightest level characters in the organization, though not automaticly the top. If its a hereditary thing, or something that can be gotten through family connections then the guy may or may not be high level.

That's how I play it as well, with allowance for the fact that political influence is at least as important as ability in any organization, whether or not it requires a demonstration of acumen to achieve success or not - sometimes it's "the power behind the throne" propping up an Aristocrat 6 instead of a Paladin 12 as leader of a knightly order, for example.

For example, the "village elder" is a mid- to high-level commoner but the noble lord tends to be a low- to mid-level aristocrat. In my d20 Modern military game, new officers straight from OCS are about equal to run-of-the-mill NCOs, better than the rank and file perhaps but nowhere close to the experienced NCOs they 'outrank'.

As far as providing appropriate skill ranks to represent expertise, for NPCs I may allocate skill points to one "signature" skill at twice the normally permissible level, so that an Expert 6, for example, could actually have up to 15 ranks in Craft (woodworking) and be reknowned throughout the land as a master harp maker or somesuch.

 

[Umbran]

. Basically how do you make the "powerful people", which are "powerful" in a meaning of the world similar to the real world?

Real-world power is social in nature. So, how you represent people in power depends upon how you use the social skills. If you're using flat DCs for social skills, then leaders merely have to be able to beat those DCs. If you're using a sliding scale for DCs, then your leaders must be as good or better than most (not all, just most) of the people around them at Bluff, Dpilomacy, and Sense Motive.

 

[Bryon_Soulweaver]

If you want your ruler to be level 1, then it is so. If level 13, then it is so. If level 30, then it is so. Your world, your imagination, your rules, just as long as the players are having fun.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I use the predator/prey ratio of 80/20 as a rule of thumb, for every 80 herd animals there are 20 predators, this works well with city poplulation/structure. Level does not mean a thing; these are the people that have the drive, skill, ambitions, connections, birth, the something to fill the niche of alpha. It then becomes an org chart that is filled in by NPCs (players sometimes).

Something Like this:

This shows the king is the highest power, but the queen, prince and chancellor are on the same level, which means conflict and plot elements, same for the queen's guard and lord marshall. The Thief grand master has more power than the Councilors and I would have to explain why in my games, maybe union control.

 

[iwatt]

The system actually requires that they be high level because of max skill ranks. A powerful noble may have to be good at politicing (diplomacy), seeing through others (sense motive), and subterfuge (bluff). Yes, they could just hve the title and be incompetant but that rarely fits in with what is wanted for the campaigns. A sage must have knowledge skills. A general, although he dosn't need to be able to fight, must have the appropriate skills to manage strategy, tactics, and logistics.

In order that they be competant, they must be high level or they just won't have the skills to do what they do in the world. In earlier editions skill was not tied to level nearly so much and it could be done. In 3.0 and 3.5 it can't be done nearly as easily.

I think you hit the nail on it's head. The problem is that powerful leaders need skills and skill points to be effective. But they don't necesarily have to have humongous hps and top notch saves and BAB.

In DnD, a master jeweler can have more hitpoints tah a troll!

An alternative to this is to borrow from SW d20, were the NPC classes have no VP, only WP. what I mean, is that a Level 10 Diplomat is just as easy to kill as a Level 1 Diplomat (barring feats). But he is more experienced in his are of expertise. This still leaves a problem with the saves. Not necesarily too much of a problem (you don't want the PCs easily charming said jeweler anyways). With low hps, the NPC experts won't be fighting even if they have a +25 to hit.

 

[jodyjohnson]

For rulers:

Skill feats: +3 Skill Focus, +2/+2 in others.

Synergy bonuses -- these start piling up as early as 2nd level (5 ranks).

Assist bonuses -- that advisor whispering in the king's ear grants +2 for the assist.

Circumstance bonuses -- the royal sceptre, throne, or trappings would reasonably grant +2 or higher circumstance bonuses for appropriate checks (related to exercise of authority or dealing with other countries) much like MW tools.

Magic items -- the crown is a Circlet of Persuasion. The royal cloak is Charisma +4.
NPCs representing countries, regions, or towns have access to greater resources than the typical NPC (it belongs to the position not necessarily the person).

For sages:

Skill feats, assist bonuses, circumstance bonuses (especially libraries in their specialty - these bonuses could be quite high for Knowledge checks.)

 

[painandgreed]

I try to be objective according to my own reasoning that I use IMC. EVerybody gets some XP every year and thus everybody is roughly from 1st to 6th level generally determined by age. That's generally the base. If they are foppish nobles who do nothing but lay around and bask in excess, they probalby are at that base. Besides that, most of the world is rather fuedal and in constant warfare so it's not unusual that leaders would be of higher level just protecting what is theirs, probably twice that level. In the more peaceable areas, there are scheduled tournies which are meant to simulate war and give such nobles experience. Some of the best nobles (and adventurers) do nothing but travel from one tournie to another and spend all year pariticipating in these large combats. Once in power, nobles are usually in constant conflict with those around them. These conflicts are social in nature but I've always hated the body count only nature of XP in D&D and reward these social encounters appropriatly, thus they also are experienced in nature. The largeer and more dynamic the more experienced they are. Still if varys according to age and a young king is typically going to be an inexperienced king unless he once was an adventurer or had some other background that gave him greater than average experience.