Desdichado
Hero
Ahoy, d4! Harn do be a setting, useful for plunderin' by any system you care to. It's claim to fame is it's "medieval realism" though.
Sell me on "Magical Medieval Society" WE
- Thread starter BigFreekinGoblinoid
- Start date
The problem with the old system
[pirate]Ahoy, mateys, this be me pirate speech fer the moment. [/pirate]
The problem with using the 1st Edition AD&D numbers is that 1st Edition was based on a very different premise, in terms of how adventurer classes fit into society. 1st Edition was based on the ideas:
3rd Edition D&D reverses those assumptions. Adventurers are common. Adventurers are not significantly better than everyone else. An uncommon commoner (5th+ level) can outfight a low-level adventurer (1st level).
In a world in which Commoners have levels, the presumptions of the old 1st Edition system just don't apply any more.
That being said, the DMG does have a 'credibility gap' in my view; as Joe mentioned, the way the DMG system works, there is a huge vacuum between the highest and second highest level people in each class, especially in big cities.
The DMG essentially says, there are twice as many supporting characters of half the level you are talking about; repeat until you reach 1st level. That means, if you generate a 20th level Rogue, say, he is supported by 2 10th, 4 5th, 8 3rd, 16 2nd, and 32 1st level Rogues. 0 of them are levels 11-19. If you roll less well for a 2nd or 3rd high-level character, you may get a 17th and 15th, which will help fill in a couple of 9th level and a couple of 7th level, but from then on, you are just adding to the masses at 1st-4th.
I much prefer MMS:WE's handling, which produces a smoother curve, and even MORE low-level types with which to work.
On a related note, I have seen several products add new Base classes to the system, but I have not noticed any of them addressing the question of how these characters fit into cities. No one mentions what die to use in determining the maximum level character of that class in a city. No one addresses the question of "Are come settlements too small, or too large, for this character type ?" While I am at it, publishers and designers have been quick to jump on the Prestige Classes, but no one (not even the DMG) addresses the question of how they fit into the settlements.
[pirate]There now, mateys, lessee how ye like that. If'n ye don't agree, I'm sure we can find a new home fer ye, at th' end o' a oak plank.[/pirate]
[pirate]Ahoy, mateys, this be me pirate speech fer the moment. [/pirate]
The problem with using the 1st Edition AD&D numbers is that 1st Edition was based on a very different premise, in terms of how adventurer classes fit into society. 1st Edition was based on the ideas:
- Adventurer classes are not common
- All adventurer-capable creatures are significantly better than the core population
- No one who is not an adventurer is going to be able to compete with an adventurer, even a beginner.
3rd Edition D&D reverses those assumptions. Adventurers are common. Adventurers are not significantly better than everyone else. An uncommon commoner (5th+ level) can outfight a low-level adventurer (1st level).
In a world in which Commoners have levels, the presumptions of the old 1st Edition system just don't apply any more.
That being said, the DMG does have a 'credibility gap' in my view; as Joe mentioned, the way the DMG system works, there is a huge vacuum between the highest and second highest level people in each class, especially in big cities.
The DMG essentially says, there are twice as many supporting characters of half the level you are talking about; repeat until you reach 1st level. That means, if you generate a 20th level Rogue, say, he is supported by 2 10th, 4 5th, 8 3rd, 16 2nd, and 32 1st level Rogues. 0 of them are levels 11-19. If you roll less well for a 2nd or 3rd high-level character, you may get a 17th and 15th, which will help fill in a couple of 9th level and a couple of 7th level, but from then on, you are just adding to the masses at 1st-4th.
I much prefer MMS:WE's handling, which produces a smoother curve, and even MORE low-level types with which to work.
On a related note, I have seen several products add new Base classes to the system, but I have not noticed any of them addressing the question of how these characters fit into cities. No one mentions what die to use in determining the maximum level character of that class in a city. No one addresses the question of "Are come settlements too small, or too large, for this character type ?" While I am at it, publishers and designers have been quick to jump on the Prestige Classes, but no one (not even the DMG) addresses the question of how they fit into the settlements.
[pirate]There now, mateys, lessee how ye like that. If'n ye don't agree, I'm sure we can find a new home fer ye, at th' end o' a oak plank.[/pirate]
jgbrowning
Hero
Darth Shoju said:Excellent
*does Mr. Burns finger-thing*
If you'd like to look at the bibliography, it's also in the free PDF download. Just go here,
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=1678&
download "A Magical Medieval City Guide," and I think it's on page 42? If I'm remembering properly.
joe b.
Darth Shoju
First Post
jgbrowning said:
Excellent me hearty. 50 dubloons for thee when next we make port!
HARAHARHAHARHAHAR!
[seriously though, thanks!]
Silveras said:
I retain these assumptions - my campaign world started in 1e in 1986 and to do otherwise would do major violence to the setting.
1% of population is uncommon but not particularly so, certainly no more than 1% of medieval Europe's population were professional warriors, for instance.
Adventurer-classes _are_ significantly better than the NPC classes in 3e. This hasn't changed.
Your final point is somewhat true about 1e and its 0th-level NPCs, but I find that having NPC 3rd level Commoners and 4th level Aristocrats doesn't change this much, and where it does it's only in a good way. A 5th level Commoner can still be easily 'charmed', and averages around 12hp. He'll be less well equipped than a 1st level PC Fighter, also. I don't have 20th-level Commoners.
I see no need to apply your '3e assumptions' for a workable 3e campaign. Having adventurers make up 10% of the population and an Archmage in every city of 25,000 ('metropolis', but a smallish city IMC) would trash my campaign setting.
Similar Threads
