Powerful people vs high-level characters

[Slobber Monster]

Agreed. This is just one of many, many problems with d20. I just finally went to the trouble of exploring GURPS and it easily allows for high skill ranks on weak combat characters. GURPS also deals with magic, armor, and a host of other things better. After years of house rules and variant systems plugged into my D&D game I think GURPS just does it better. If you're unhappy with any of D&D's silly problems you should check it out.

Too bad it lacks the plethora of support D&D has.

- feydras

Just assign the NPC whatever skill ranks they need to fulfill their role in the world. There's no rule that says NPC's have to be constructed as precisely as PC's ...the only reason to bother is to make sure their CR is where you want it. Even by the rules a talented commoner can be reasonably expected to have up to a +11 or so in one skill (14 base stat, max ranks, 2 feats).

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

IIRC, you get XP for overcoming challenges. Not just slaying monsters... would figure most rulers have to overcome rather a lot of challenges? There's no reason they couldn't get to high levels without lifting a sword. What's the CR of negotiating peace treaties with other nations?

Don't reckon the mechanics require a ruler to be high level, I'd figure being king gives you a very serious circumstance bonus to any social rolls you undertake? I'd consider Intimidate to be rather more meaningful if you're backed by an army, ninjas and a pet court wizard?

I like to keep my political NPC types low level. Simply because it makes me laugh to see a low level aristocrat bothering high level PCs, safe in the knowledge that Very Bad Things will happen to them if they try direct strongarm tactics.

 

[Evilhalfling]

Heridtary rulers tend to be 5th - 8th level just from on the job training, and experainace in making life or death decisions. Rulers who have had to win their postion, in arms, warfare, or magical might etc. They may range as high as 12th. If you have a 7th level Aristocrat with several advisors, wizards, clerics and sorcerers found in his large city (d4+12) x3 who is really ruling?
If you use DMG demopgraphics (ha!) who are your 3 other aristocats (d6+12) if not the king?
I have had higher level rulers such as immortal wizard kings or polymorphed gold dragons, but these are special cases, and they both created thier kingdoms

It honestly never occured to me to make the villian in a dungeon/vile organization to be lower level than thier bodyguards, as it flies against most of fantasy literature. (although not realism)
I have seen it done in planescape and heard mention of it in Ebberron, but mostly with allies or non combat intended organizations. *ponders the next BBEG at ECL -3*

 

[Umbran]

Just assign the NPC whatever skill ranks they need to fulfill their role in the world.

Technically, there's nothing stopping you from doing this. However, the rules (even if they're only guidelines) are generally there for a reason. A good, experienced GM doesn't need the written rules to have a good game, but to one of lesser experience or mastery, the rules can provide excellent support. I would not advise tossing that support away lightly.

 

[Arnwyn]

Do you follow this habit or not?

I do, and I do it purposefully.

In my game world where the mechanical concept of "levels" exists, and has a very clear impact on the abilities of people, and where extremely dangerous monsters and characters also exist (even magic missile is horrifying to normal commoners), and where violence is a very easy way to get what you want, the one "in charge" is usually powerful in terms of levels - it's needed to even have a chance to survive any coups and the like. Further, since the skill system is built with levels in mind, it's another reason for higher level people in charge.

But, that's just my game. I can see why others do things differently.

 

[JoeGKushner]

For me, the first and foremost thing in my mind, is that it's a game. It's not some psuedo fantasy Europe but a game where characters can (rapidly) advance to near epic levels.

I have no problem with most rulers having some sort of power that goes beyond the social. If they didn't, they'd quickly fall prey to something else.

Now that something doesn't have to be an adventurer. There are thousands of monsters, many of them quite good, at stealing people's identies, abilities, etc... If every king is a 3rd level aristocrat, you've not playing D&D as those people would be dead and taken over by some shape changer.

In highly civilized areas where people don't just go swinging their swords, sure, it might be possible to have long bloodlines where nobility or merchant houses rule, but even then, you'll probably have a 'power' behind the throne. Look at Waterdeep. It's got some of the most powerful characters around.

If the game is like Grim Tales or Black Company, low magic and possibly high fatality in combat due to even a chance hit of a cirtical passing the Massive Damage Threshold, then yes, I can see where even standard guards become dangerous. In standard D&D, nope.

Now Eberron takes a different path and it'll be interesting to see how that works long term after a few years go by and RPGA characters start hitting the epic levels but for now, it works.

 

[S'mon]

For 'normal people' IMC I use the following level distribition (adapted from Traveller: The New Era!) for NPCs

1- Novice
2 - Trained
3 - Experienced
4 - Veteran
5 - Elite
6-9 Ultra-Elite/High Level and
10-14 Heroic/Very High Level to
15+ Legendary

Being a relatively 'high fantasy' campaign, rulers tend to be Level 10+, as in the 1983 World of Greyhawk boxed set; I pretty much accord with the distribution set down there. Being able to deal with the high-level rulers of kingdoms on equal terms is one of the rewards for PCs who succeed in reaching high levels.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I used Romance of the Three Kingdoms and Spycraft as a guide... but I have to tell you, DnD does not do leadership well in the core rules.

First of all, IMO there are two kinds of important people, those who deserve their position, and those who inherited it.

If someone just overthrew the king and founded a new dynasty, he's probably a high-level character with a high Int score. There is no good PC class in core DnD to cover it, but I suggest the Noble or Marshall, or similar classes, from some DnD supplements. Or make your own. (I can't stand how the Marshall's tactical abilities are FX!) I'm also tired of leaders being high-level mages or barbarians with no tactical or social skills (eg look at King Obould's stats in the FRCS... even before he became a "Chosen of Gruumsh" he was a very different character in the novels than he was in the FRCS).

I'm also tired of the highest-ranking warrior in a regiment simply being the best fighter. Yeah, he kicks butt, but that says nothing about his leadership abilities.

If the leader worked his way up the ladder to become town mayor or head of the assassin's guild, again, he's probably high level.

If he inherited his position, he's probably lower level, and doesn't strictly need high Int. However, some rulers insist their offspring work to get to their position, so their offspring will probably have some levels on them. In the Eberron camapgin setting, you'll notice lots of kings who are Aristrocrat 3/Fighter 1 and things like that... guess how that guy got his position? (Most of the Eberron kings range in level from 4 to 13.) While monarchs-in-training are supposed to get actual training, it doesn't always work out that way. This is especially true if the previous ruler thinks he will live long, or if he only trained his oldest son, but said son dies in an accident, and now he has to train that wild 17 year old fop how to be a ruler ... etc.

Regardless of how good the person on top is, he's going to have henchmen and advisors. The henchmen are there because the leader can't be everywhere at once, and are frequently better than him in one or two aspects (eg his first warleader might be a fighter/marshall with a better BAB and troop-leading ability than the leader, his champion is a high-level fighter with a better BAB, his bodyguard is a dwarven defender with ... you guessed it ... a higher BAB, his chief warmage, a Sor 10/Marshall 3, casts spells but good, and his two court mages are also potent spellcasters but they don't have tactical abilities or good Con scores, his spymaster has a really high Diplomacy score in order to subvert people and his own minions are mainly mid-level rogues, etc).

His advisors are probably lower level but maxed out some crucial skill (eg Sense Motive) that the leader does not have.

 

[Slobber Monster]

Technically, there's nothing stopping you from doing this. However, the rules (even if they're only guidelines) are generally there for a reason. A good, experienced GM doesn't need the written rules to have a good game, but to one of lesser experience or mastery, the rules can provide excellent support. I would not advise tossing that support away lightly.

Except I think the RAW in this case create more conceptual problems than they solve, because combat ability is tied to levels - e.g. just what the heck is a 20th level commoner supposed to be modeling? How do you create someone who is the greatest painter in the world, but is not a serious combat threat to first level PC's? If CR isn't a concern, I don't think there's really any danger in just assigning the required skill level to the NPC.

(As an aside, what is the Expert with its incredibly broad skill selection really supposed to be modeling? Maybe "Generalist" would have been a better name for the class as written. It would made more sense to me to give the Expert fewer skill points, and instead a couple of bonus Skill Focus type feats.)

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Levels in aristocrat are better for ruling than levels in Fighter.

Yep. Just go heavy with levels of aristocrat. It's what the NPC would get anyway.

Hey, even in the Star Wars d20 RPG, the Emperor has two or three levels of aristocrat. It's just that all the other levels are levels of mass ouchiness.