Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 2314226" data-attributes="member: 30001">Good point - the town should only be as rich as it's ability to protect what it has.&nbsp; That solves the problem of the &quot;Junior High marauders&quot; as you describe.&nbsp; &nbsp;Remember, too, that destroying a town usually attracts the attention of those beyond the town, while this is much less often the case with monsters.&nbsp; That's another reason to stick to dungeons.&nbsp; And another reason why a 1st level commoner in a civilized land would have slightly more stuff than a 1st level goblin in a dungeon.&nbsp;&nbsp;In the &quot;pre-history&quot; of your campaign world, when the first two cavemen reached 12th level fighter and decided to attack each other, the one that brought 100 of his friends with him won the battle.&nbsp; I don't think an army (especially one with a range of levels, like the 3E demographics rules, for instance) would be useless.&nbsp; 1st level guards can protect against 1st level menaces in a town (which are plenty).&nbsp; If they all die from a fireball, then the wizard with fireball is going to control the town - but at least the wizard has had to show his cards.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;AFAIK there is no such thing as a warband of 100 War1's.&nbsp;&nbsp;Yes, I agree with this.&nbsp; Furthermore, I would think that humans would have to have equivalently leveled characters to counter this - although I would think that a few dozen War1s could kill a 3rd level orc barbarian, so there are populations to consider as well.&nbsp; Orcs may have a higher proportion of leveled characters, but humans might be able to prevail by greater numbers.&nbsp;&nbsp;In what situation are you concerned about their surivival?&nbsp; War, or peace?&nbsp; In war plenty of War1s would get killed on either side, I don't see the problem with that.&nbsp; If they don't like it (and they often don't), they can run away (and they often do).&nbsp; The side that runs away first loses.&nbsp;In peace time, War1s patrol the places where they live to the best of their ability.&nbsp; Any group of War1s over a certain number has a War2 in it, and so on.&nbsp; A group of 12th level PCs who wants to take over a town should probably succeed anyway, shouldn't they?&nbsp; &nbsp;Bottom line - I think demographics solve all of the problems that you're talking about.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;Is this in the rules?&nbsp; This wasn't my understanding of the Warrior character class.&nbsp; IIRC a 1st level commoner is a &quot;typical&quot; farmer, so a 1st level warrior would be a &quot;typical&quot; warrior, not an amateur.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 2314226, member: 30001"] Good point - the town should only be as rich as it's ability to protect what it has. That solves the problem of the "Junior High marauders" as you describe. Remember, too, that destroying a town usually attracts the attention of those beyond the town, while this is much less often the case with monsters. That's another reason to stick to dungeons. And another reason why a 1st level commoner in a civilized land would have slightly more stuff than a 1st level goblin in a dungeon. In the "pre-history" of your campaign world, when the first two cavemen reached 12th level fighter and decided to attack each other, the one that brought 100 of his friends with him won the battle. I don't think an army (especially one with a range of levels, like the 3E demographics rules, for instance) would be useless. 1st level guards can protect against 1st level menaces in a town (which are plenty). If they all die from a fireball, then the wizard with fireball is going to control the town - but at least the wizard has had to show his cards. AFAIK there is no such thing as a warband of 100 War1's. Yes, I agree with this. Furthermore, I would think that humans would have to have equivalently leveled characters to counter this - although I would think that a few dozen War1s could kill a 3rd level orc barbarian, so there are populations to consider as well. Orcs may have a higher proportion of leveled characters, but humans might be able to prevail by greater numbers. In what situation are you concerned about their surivival? War, or peace? In war plenty of War1s would get killed on either side, I don't see the problem with that. If they don't like it (and they often don't), they can run away (and they often do). The side that runs away first loses. In peace time, War1s patrol the places where they live to the best of their ability. Any group of War1s over a certain number has a War2 in it, and so on. A group of 12th level PCs who wants to take over a town should probably succeed anyway, shouldn't they? Bottom line - I think demographics solve all of the problems that you're talking about. Is this in the rules? This wasn't my understanding of the Warrior character class. IIRC a 1st level commoner is a "typical" farmer, so a 1st level warrior would be a "typical" warrior, not an amateur. [/QUOTE]

Verification