Powerful people vs high-level characters

[Umbran]

Except I think the RAW in this case create more conceptual problems than they solve, because combat ability is tied to levels

In a highly violent world of epic stories, this is a feature, not a bug. If you're doing grim'n'gritty, yes, it is an issue.

Ever read the "Wheel of Time" books? I'm told they contain the concept of "Tav'ieren" (perhaps not spelled properly). In general, people with this quality are important to teh universe, and people without it aren't. People without it have a hard time hurting or influencing people with it. Anyone with enough oomph to impact the universe notably through skills is important enough that they're also difficult to kill.

e.g. just what the heck is a 20th level commoner supposed to be modeling?

An older guy who's had a really interesting life, but never actually taken professional training as anything. A farmer who's lived through a whole mess of wars through his lands and managed to survive. While he's not an epic fighter by any means, he's still learned so much (about everything in life) that he's a force to be reckoned with.

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?

By noting that "masterwork" level crafts are done by hitting a measly DC of 20. You can do that Taking 10 with a high stat and proper skill and feat choices at level 1. The thing that makes him the best painter in the world isn't that he has loads of skill, it's that very few people study painting enough to have the skill at all, much less have used a feat on it.

(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.

The name is not terribly important. They have the really broad skill choice so that the DM can choose to makehim an Expert in any particular field, which may require many different skills. A really good Locksmith won't just have Open Lock. He's probably got a couple of craft skills in there, Disable device, and a Profession skill to handle the bookkeeping of running a business, plus some Diplomacy for business transactions...

 

[SWBaxter]

I'm asking this because I've always seen DMs and published material tie this "power" to character level, and frankly I think it often sucks.

It might suck, but if you're creating a world that both runs by D&D rules and attempts to be somewhat plausible, then leaders pretty much need to tie power to level. In game terms, level is how you get more skills to be the crafty diplomat or wise sage, it's how the high priest demonstrates that he is in fact a given deity's chosen representative, it's how a charismatic leader qualifies for fanatical followers, etc.

Now it's quite possible to simply ignore all that and say that NPCs operate by different rules. The problem only crops up if you assume the rest of the world operates by the same rules as the player characters. However, it seems to me that is a default assumption of 3E D&D, and the way a lot of groups prefer to run the game.

 

[Victim]

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.

You can make skilled but mechanically weak NPCs by having low physical stats (not always appropriate for blacksmiths and what not), stacking skill feats, and going crazy with synergy bonuses - especially between different background skills. It's not unreasonable to say that craft blacksmithing, armorsmithing, and weapon smithing all have synergy with each other. You could use the same array of related skills for many crafting professions. This is where the broad range of expert skills helps, since a character can load up on synergy granting crafts or professions. At second level, a human could have 14 INT, Skill focus, a +2/+2 skill enhancer, 5 ranks, maybe +4 in synergy, and masterwork tools. If your campaign uses a low level baseline, then that +18 is pretty huge, especially since it's a skill PCs probably won't take.

A 20th level commoner is essentially a wizard who has somehow lost the ability to cast spells. Granted, the will save and skills are a bit different, but whatever.

 

[WayneLigon]

How do you create the important people in your campaign? People such as the leaders, kings or rulers of the world: political rulers, uber-riches, military chiefs, aristocrats and sages for example. Basically how do you make the "powerful people", which are "powerful" in a meaning of the world similar to the real world?

The normal political rulers, guild members, and rich tend to be fairly low level, sometime with a couple of feats that boost their skill bonus to some target I want to reach. Otherwise, there's little need for them to be high level. They have cash and/or they command the loyalty of thousands. Both are far more powerful than any PC ever made.

Military chiefs in many of my states tend to be fairly high level, based on the idea that you don't get to be military chief unless you're a damn good fighter. In some states where you can buy positions or inherit them, this is not true. Sages tend to be fairly high level experts or mages; 5-8th level or so, usually with a couple of really nice items.

 

[Slobber Monster]

In a highly violent world of epic stories, this is a feature, not a bug. If you're doing grim'n'gritty, yes, it is an issue.

Ever read the "Wheel of Time" books? I'm told they contain the concept of "Tav'ieren" (perhaps not spelled properly). In general, people with this quality are important to teh universe, and people without it aren't. People without it have a hard time hurting or influencing people with it. Anyone with enough oomph to impact the universe notably through skills is important enough that they're also difficult to kill.

I just don't feel that NPC classes are any more useful for modeling this than PC classes - i.e. I don't think NPC classes are bad just superfluous.

An older guy who's had a really interesting life, but never actually taken professional training as anything. A farmer who's lived through a whole mess of wars through his lands and managed to survive. While he's not an epic fighter by any means, he's still learned so much (about everything in life) that he's a force to be reckoned with.

He is by the RAW, a CR 10 encounter - in practice, not really ...but still, this doesn't cause any cognitive dissonance for you?

By noting that "masterwork" level crafts are done by hitting a measly DC of 20. You can do that Taking 10 with a high stat and proper skill and feat choices at level 1. The thing that makes him the best painter in the world isn't that he has loads of skill, it's that very few people study painting enough to have the skill at all, much less have used a feat on it.

If this is the criteria for "best in the world" at something, then any first level PC can start out as best in the world in a variety of skills. It's not wrong, exactly, but it is an unusual setting assumption.

I've already pointed out elsewhere that first level anything can easily be excellent at one or more skills via a high base stat and feat selection. My point is that I don't think 20 level NPC class progressions are an especially useful tool in the kit for filling most other campaign needs for "normal" people. Not a wrong way to do it, but not really the best way either.

 

[Umbran]

I just don't feel that NPC classes are any more useful for modeling this than PC classes - i.e. I don't think NPC classes are bad just superfluous.

I think the NPC classes are a bit better at modelling non-adventuring sorts in such a world than the PC classes are. YMMV.

He is by the RAW, a CR 10 encounter - in practice, not really ...but still, this doesn't cause any cognitive dissonance for you?

No, because I recognize that the class is not trying to model my real world. Rather than feel dissonance, I change my view of the world the NPC lives in to fit the reality the rules represent. In the game-world, anyone who has gotten to high level has by necessity been through a lot of stuff (not necessarily combat, but heavy stuff nontheless). If he can survive getting to that point, he's a force to be reckoned with.

If this is the criteria for "best in the world" at something, then any first level PC can start out as best in the world in a variety of skills. It's not wrong, exactly, but it is an unusual setting assumption.

Well, be careful - "best in the world" is relative. It is probably easy to be best in the world at Craft (Painting), because few people ever take the skill at all. Fewer still max out the skill. Fewer still also take feats, and have natural aptitude. It is far more difficult to be best inteh world in a skill that more people would use. There are probably far more blacksmiths than artists in the fantasy world, so being the best blacksmith will take more.

But then, we still don't have the cognitive dissonance. If there are more blacksmiths, that's probably because blacksmiths are more important and useful. As story elements, they need to be capable of playing an active role in the story, and that means having some more hit ponts and abilty to survive in a fight without keeling over.

My point is that I don't think 20 level NPC class progressions are an especially useful tool in the kit for filling most other campaign needs for "normal" people. Not a wrong way to do it, but not really the best way either.

Well, again, "best" is relative to the task you feel is at hand.

If you feel the task at hand is to provide a source of skills the PCs don't have, and not much else, then you are correct, these are not the best way to go about it.

If instead, you feel the task at hand is to provide useful characters as story elements in a game of high action, then the NPC classes do a nice job. The best blacksmith in the world is going to be a commodity. He won't live a normal life in a world where some of those who deal with such commodities are wizards and high priests and kings. If the guy has skills and nothing else, he turns into a McGuffin, rather than an active character in the story.

 

[JoeGKushner]

For those who worry about the whole hit points tied to level which is tied to skill ranks... I have bad news for you. You're playing D&D, a level based game.

Same problem Rolemaster and HARP have.

Hero and GURPS both handle such issues and neither of them have the one thing that bugs me about 3rd ed... cross class skills!

No, seriously, the game isn't designed to handle certain issues that might creep up like that. It's designed to allow you to kill things and take their stuff.

 

[Vlos]

Not that this is directly on topic, but I think it could be applied. Sean Reynolds wrote an article a while back about Peasants and their leveling (link below).

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/theoryaboutpeasants.html

In the article he states about normal experiences and that peasants advance as they age. Now you could logically apply the same principle to non-peasants. So a Kings experiences are still encounters, where they gain "knowledge" thus they could advance, even though they may not be out adventuring.

Just some additional input.

 

[Chairman7w]

Hong wrote: "Because that lets you stage cool fights when the PCs overthrow him, a la Luke vs the Emperor, Broken Sword vs the King of Qin, etc."

Arrgggghhh!! I just started reading that!!!

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Arrgggghhh!! I just started reading that!!!

Only half of those things are strictly true.