Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Friend of the Dork" data-source="post: 5736363" data-attributes="member: 91954">Interesting theories, but I don't think they hold up. First of all, trying to apply realism with the xp system is nearly impossible to begin with - in RL people gain experience yes, but training and learning is most  important to increasing our skills. The lvl 1 Commoner becomes so because his mother, father and others teached him how to farm, handle animals and being useless in combat <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />In D&D PCs gain levels simply by defeating challenges, mostly in combat. Now of course combat experience will make you better at it, but in RL it's the training that allows you to survive that combat in the first place, and subsequent training that improves your skill further. Thus age alone is a poor measurement for xp. The farmer applying their trade over the years will get better at farming, but the level system also makes them better at fighting for some reason. And really, who needs +15 profession farmer?But time allows you the potential to experience, train and learn. So I agree a 30 year old farmer is probably not 1st level anymore - he has achieved things just by surviving that far, and is not unlikely to have to fight some, expecially in a society where there are no police to fight your battles for you, and you are expected to defend your family as well as honor. At the very best those 3 methods are simple guidelines. Method A's weakness is in using party xp for basis - xp meant for a group of 4 should not be divided by only 2 people, and peasants usually work in the village community. That's alot of people to share the xp with! I'm not talking about the "Little house on the prairie" or similar frontier farmstead, but feudal society where most people lived in villages and worked their Lord's land. Thus essentially halving xp makes them even lower levels, and it also depends on wether you use the Pathfinder system of slow, medium or fast progression (I suppose you use the same as for the group). With these rules it takes at least 4 years to become lvl 3 - and starting age is probably between 17-20, same as the lowest minimum starting age for PCs. Thus 18 year old 1st level commoners should not be uncommon. although a 21 one could be 3rd level as he started out with responsibilities earlier, through early marriage or a dying father perhaps. Hmm I've gotten lost.. my point is that a very tranquil village might have either a higher amount than usual of low-level commoners, or a higher than normal amount of mid-level but old ones. An old Commoner might be level 6 but with a Str of 4, an average of 1 hp/lvl (for a total of 6, go retroactive Con modifier!)  +0 to hit, 1d6-2 damage with his club... see where I'm going with this? He might laugh at a Sleep spell, but he will easily go down in one swing from a lvl 1 warrior. He will probably not want to fight anyway, but will have quite a few skill points, and as Senility and poor eyesight don't exist in D&D/PF he could have a very good Perception skill. Oh, and about my example: It's an adventure only compared to RL, as we are talking about 2 (life or death) combat encounters in 3 years... alot for a Commoner, not for a PC. I don't generally give out alot of xp for bar brawls, unless they turn nasty. Point was that people gain experience at different rates depending on how dynamic their lives are. Bob the couch potato will probably gain less experience than Jim the sailor.</blockquote>

Verification