Powerful people vs high-level characters

[Slobber Monster]

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.

But for the DM, rules for designing NPC's are guidelines, just like those for creating new monsters. Most of the guidelines are even focused on building appropriate abilities for the CR, which isn't really an issue if the NPC is not meant as a challenge. So if a DM wants someone with, let's say, first level peasant stats but a Perform(Dance) of +20 ...why not just assign what's needed and move on?

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.

Only if you are straightjacketed by the NPC creation guidelines.

It's designed to allow you to kill things and take their stuff.

I definitely agree with that.

 

[jmucchiello]

I don't think a ruler could be lower than 5-6th level except perhaps during the first few months of his rule. Upon coming to power, I would assume the new ruler would have hundreds of things that need to be done. Surely that will amount to 6-12 significant encounters over the course of each DAY. Even if the CR of these encounters is 1 or 1/2, that is going to pump XPs into a 1st level character really fast. Even splitting up the XPs with his advisors and henchmen, that ruler should be earning 100-200 xp a day at 1st level, 50-100 xp a day at 2nd level, etc. CR 1s down have much impact after 5th level but they still keep you xps climbing.

This also applies to the ruler who gains power by force. He just won't gain as many xps because he already has levels. But what is the CR of stopping two of your barons from engaging in a border war? Negotiating a peace treaty with a sworn enemy nation? Negotiating a favorable trade treaty with a neighbor? Even if they only happen 1-3 times a year, they will represent a far chunk of XPs.

I also like using this theory with merchant families. The son groomed to take over the business and dad both die and the son who wasn't trained to run the business takes over. He's going to gain a lot of experience fast the hard way. He won't be 1st level for long.

Now, yes, a leader could just delegate everything to his advisors and henchmen and not gain levels. But I don't think he'll live that long (or perhaps that his empire will last very long).

 

[S'mon]

But for the DM, rules for designing NPC's are guidelines, just like those for creating new monsters. Most of the guidelines are even focused on building appropriate abilities for the CR, which isn't really an issue if the NPC is not meant as a challenge. So if a DM wants someone with, let's say, first level peasant stats but a Perform(Dance) of +20 ...why not just assign what's needed and move on?

That's what I do. I have a simple rule that solves a huge amnount of problems:

"NPCS (& PCs) can earn skill ranks for non-adventuring life experience, separate from XP awards"

-So PCs who spend a year at sea get a rank in Profession (Sailor), 1st level NPC dancing-girl who is the best dancer on Ea has 20 ranks in Peform (Dance), etc. Most of my NPCs are created per the RAW (or at least, by the system in my sig) but this simple rule does wonders to restore suspension-of-disbelief and maintain the integrity of the game universe.

 

[Sir ThornCrest]

Aristocrat is a NPC rogue politician type...

in the DM'S guide see aritocrat, warrior and other npc classes.

Thorncrest

 

[Umbran]

So if a DM wants someone with, let's say, first level peasant stats but a Perform(Dance) of +20 ...why not just assign what's needed and move on?

At that point, why does the character have stats at all? Such a character is good for only one thing, a dancing die roll. If their purpose is going to be that simple, though, you don't need the die roll. Why not just say, "She dances with a grace to rival a swan on a moonlit night," and leave it at that?

 

[Evilhalfling]

The problem I had with Sean's artical is it caps high level casters at 8th.
this sets up a very low magic world. I depend on my cities to randomly have casters at 10th + levels. Perhaps a system for overlaying a cream of adventures
over the lowerer level normal populations. The best thing you be to create hot cities where large numbers of either a single class or combination of classes concentrate.

*ponders*
each city would then cater to its hight level occupants, Collages, wizard duels in one city, tournements or gladitorial matches in another. A third would be similar to Rome with a church on every corner and a ponitif ruling from the center. Possibly Organized crime of mafia level proportions where the police and authourities were helpless, citizens depending on families to protect them and the city divided into sections.

 

[Slobber Monster]

At that point, why does the character have stats at all? Such a character is good for only one thing, a dancing die roll. If their purpose is going to be that simple, though, you don't need the die roll. Why not just say, "She dances with a grace to rival a swan on a moonlit night," and leave it at that?

You're really missing the point here. Of course stat them out as much or as little as required. For some DM's (i.e. me) having a few numbers to glance at is nice in many cases because you can quickly determine how someone's skills or abilities fit into the world and compare to those of PC's.

Some people are saying that NPC classes are a weakness of D&D's rules compared to, say GURPS, because by the RAW our ballerina with Perform(Dance) +20 probably has to have a BAB of at least +5. I'm saying, no, it's not a weakness because you're the DM and can do whatever you want. In practice my games are fairly over the top so I would probably not bother to stat out a ballerina at all without making her a Half-Fey Bard / Shadowdancer / Assassin.

 

[ForceUser]

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?

I tend to make important people leveled in a mix of NPC and PC classes. For instance, the ruler of the city-state where a campaign is set is a 4th-level aristocrat/5th-level rogue. He has triple wealth for his character level, as befitting his status and personal fortune. He gained his levels in aristocrat by being highborn as well as through "role-playing XP" earned through a lifetime of politcal maneuvering in aristocratic circles. He gained his levels in rogue from a misspent youth spent as a courtier involved in numerous deceptions, thefts, frauds, blackmails, kidnappings, and outright murders. It makes perfect sense to me that this fellow would be a leveled character.

In contrast, the king of a neighboring region is a wan young man, a paltry 2nd-level aristocrat. He's viewed as a weak king who is unable to control his nobles; in fact, they control him. His status as a lowly 2nd-level character supports this--the DCs required to successfully bargain against a host of higher-level aristocrats and clergy are beyond what his +6 modifier can usually achieve.

These are examples of how I use the rules to support my concept of the character. I begin with the concept, and then I apply the rules to reflect it.

 

[Li Shenron]

Nice to see so many that don't bother too much about the NPC stats or levels.
I still notice some mental images that a king with low levels must be a "bad" king,
king-wise

Clearly the fantasy world is not very much like the real one, where the most
powerful people would probably be totally harmless in combat, and in the past
this could have been different. To some extent at least, but not for everyone.

I did not intend to stat out anyone whom the PCs aren't going to fight, because
there's no need to. But my concerns are also about spellcasters, since this may
indirectly have an effect on what magic is available throughout the settings.

 

[Orcus]

Li-

You need our Judges Guild Wilderlands setting. Though there are some high level characters that are rulers, there are many that are not. Power doesnt mean character level. If I'm a War2 but have a legion of loyal Ftr3s, then I am powerful. Or if I am a Ari1, but I am the son of the emperor, I am powerful and probably run my own province. Power doesnt come from personal level, it comes from situations--wealth, connections, resources, etc. I can be an Int 6 Com1, but if I hold the deed to the iron mine and I can protect it, I am pretty important and probably powerful. The high priest isnt always the highest level cleric. Let me give you an example, in the wilderlands there is an evil temple with a couple priests over 12th level. But the leader of the temple is a 4th level cleric. Why? Because the Fallen Paladin/Blackguard and his warband are loyal to the 4th level cleric and no one dares oppose the 4th level cleric when he made his power play to run the temple.

That is the "real world" feel that gives a setting versimilitude. I agree with you taht "king = highest level guy" is the wrong approach. Now, it should also be stated that people in power have many opportunities that others may not have that may lead to their advancement. But I, like you, agree that the leader is not by default the highest level person.

Clark