Worse than we thought...

I don't really see a problem with high level NPC classed characters making an appearance once in a blue moon. It makes more sense than the alternative.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

My players asked me this once...then I had them attacked by a group of 3 +5 Vorpal Scythe wielding disgruntled former-postmen Commoners. That got the players quiet. And running. :D :D
 

Re: Re: *SIGH* One more time....

AuraSeer said:
You don't.
If you're not using the ELH, then it's impossible for anyone to advance past 20th. Higher levels simply do not exist.

If you are using the ELH, find the page where it says that there is no epic advancement for NPC classes. Commoners (and experts, and warriors, and so on) still top out at 20.

Exactly but you don't need the ELH to know that. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the DMG already mentions that 20th level is the maximum for NPCs found in a community.

So GuardianLurker, some of us did get your point the first time and still can't see where the problem is.

As mentioned, they're quick'n'dirty rules. If the distribution of levels is what is bugging you, feel free to ignore any roll you consider inconsistent.
 

Re: *SIGH* One more time....

GuardianLurker said:
All right let me try one final time :

I am NOT trying to question the existence of, or justify the mere occurence of, high-level commoners.

Those of you who have been replying along the lines of "a high-level commoner == crusty old coot" are completely missing my point.

No, but you seem to be missing ours.

GuardianLurker said:
Which is this :
In a community where the most experienced adventuring class (you know, the ones who *take* most of the risks) is 5th, how does a stay-at-home commoner achieve over twice the experience levels?

By living longer, and not moving away. Let's face it, in a thorp of 50 people, there's not a hell of a lot for a 5th level character to do. Most of the ones from an adventuring class are going to leave and...wait for it...adventure. That 13th level commoner, though - why leave? He lives here. His family's probably lived here for generations.

GuardianLurker said:
I could (and do) support the existence of high-level commoners in parity (or a little bit less) than their adventuring peers, but in excess?

I'd be surprised if they weren't in excess. There are a lot more commoners than there are members of PC classes, and commoners are a lot less likely to get killed at an early age than members of PC classes, by virtue of not throwing themselves headlong into danger as a means of generating income.

J
 

Re: Re: *SIGH* One more time....

drnuncheon said:


No, but you seem to be missing ours.



By living longer, and not moving away. Let's face it, in a thorp of 50 people, there's not a hell of a lot for a 5th level character to do. Most of the ones from an adventuring class are going to leave and...wait for it...adventure. That 13th level commoner, though - why leave? He lives here. His family's probably lived here for generations.
Actually, you're the first person to actually phrase it that way. People may, or may not, have been trying to imply it - I certainly didn't infer it. All anyone else has talked about is *how* the "old coot" got there, which wasn't really my concern.

And yours is a valid point, though I'll offer that if there are enough opportunities to advance to 13th level for a commoner, there's enough for an adventuring class as well. XPs are XPs after all. But its not unreasonable to say that higher-level adventures leave the little one-horse towns because they're little one-horse towns. It's called "Brain Drain" and it happens in the real world too.



I'd be surprised if they weren't in excess. There are a lot more commoners than there are members of PC classes, and commoners are a lot less likely to get killed at an early age than members of PC classes, by virtue of not throwing themselves headlong into danger as a means of generating income.
Actually, aside from 1st level (where the NPC classes suck up the remaining population), I'm not sure that's true. Certainly in any given settlement there are more Commoners than any other class, or probably any other two classes. But the commoners are also much weaker than any of the PC classes, so I'd expect their mortality curve to be steeper than "normal". Also, I've always thought of the commoners to the source of all the PCs, so most (all?) of the exceptional people (the ones most likely to become high-level) are members of the adventuring classes already. Though I admit that both of those are basically unfounded opinions.

That still doesn't answer the problem of epic-level PCs in a non-epic world. It's a little hard to explain that as anything other than a mistake. The only real option is to Rule 0 it, and ignore the 21+ results, or make them all 20th level or something.
 

Re: Re: Re: *SIGH* One more time....

GuardianLurker said:

XPs are XPs after all.
I don't agree. PC classes should only advance through adventuring, combat, or other adventurer-type activities.

If all you've done since your previous level is hang around town and take care of a peaceful farm, I'd only allow you to advance in an NPC class. (Even if you spent time training with weapons, you didn't get any practical experience, so you aren't as good as someone who went out and fought monsters. You can get a level of warrior, but not fighter.)
 

AuraSeer said:

I don't agree. PC classes should only advance through adventuring, combat, or other adventurer-type activities.

Guess you're not going to have any fighters who climbed up through the ranks leading your standing army then, since almost none of the standard activities for a trooper in a standing army involve any of those.

Or aged, high-level wizard-sages who've lead a life of magical research and teaching as a court magician.

Actually, unless you use the Story Awards variant, under the standard 3e rules, it's impossible to earn XP for anything other than defeating monsters and traps. Do you really want to argue that *those* XPs aren't applicable to PCs and NPCs equally?

Even with the Story Awards variant, it'd be hard for me to come up with flavored XP.

If I applied the "flavored XP" consistently to everything, I'd be saying things like "No, Joe, you can't advance as a fighter. I know you defeated the Hideous Ravenous Bug-blatter Beast of Traal single-handed, but you did it using Rogue-type activities, so it's gotta be as a Rogue." or "I'm sorry Sir Gwarimir the Paladin, but because you helped out that sick free-holder take in his harvest (thus demonstrating the charity and humility proper for a paladin), you don't have quite enough XPs to advance to 5th and gain your special mount."

I like my life - I'd think I'd like to keep it.
 

I for one am willing to admit that the guidelines for determining the number of people in a settlement of x level of x class, as they are written in the DMG, are crap.

I think that's what you're wanting, right, affirmation of your opinion that the D&D universe can't possibly exist the way the DMG says?

I think most people will, to some extent or another, agree with you on this.

That said, let's talk about epic commoners!

"Remember ol' Herb? Man that boy was somethin'. He could plow a hundred acres a day, with his bare hands. He could raise a barn with his eyelashes. I know, 'cause I saw him do it all. Without him, we wouldn't have that fancy irrigation network. Set that up on an idle weekend, he did. I sure miss the crusty ol' coot."

OK, now lets talk about commoner population. Remember, I just tossed the DMG out the window.

In agricultural societies, often 90% or more of the population was rural farmers. With the technology available, you needed that many to support the city folk, who couldn't make food for themselves. Of these 90%, a good chunk would probably have a level of warrior, so they could serve in local defense in times of need. Of those 10% remaining, mostly in the city, many would be experts or warriors or fighters (for the militia and army). Lots would be petty rogues. In a D&D world, I would expect a tremendously small percentage to be other classes.

So that's why I think there would be a good number of high-level commoners compared to adventuring classes. Sheer numbers, uninfluenced by DMG silliness.


Also, I'd like to add that when the going gets tough, adventurers die and commoners flee, or surrender (taking the risk of slavery). That's why I don't think their death rates would be higher than adventurers. All they really have to lose is their lives, and there's nobody standing by to resurrect them if they screw up. They will live, however wretched it might be, before they give up their lives needlessly.
 
Last edited:

How I'd get some farmer to 13th level....
OK there's the menial daily stuff. He's killed tons of plants. Yeah they don't give much experience, but they give itty bits. And some animals lie dead in his wake. Some animals he's subdued and branded. Some he takes their fur. Then there's all the rats and creepy crawleys he's killed.
Then there are the big honking traps he's managed to avoid. Like that huge blizzard? Or drout. Or flood. Or heck managing not to fall from the hay loft.
Finally we'll throw in the other bits, like the occasional raider, horse thief, snake oil salesman, etc. He's beaten all of 'em and can smell them coming a mile away.

As for those in a city being really high (20) level. Well to me that's the queen's maid, the palace steward, etc.

Anyways that's the mechanics I see to get them there. No its not entirely within the rules as written, but its fairly close.
-cpd
 

Re: Re: Re: *SIGH* One more time....

GuardianLurker said:

And yours is a valid point, though I'll offer that if there are enough opportunities to advance to 13th level for a commoner, there's enough for an adventuring class as well. XPs are XPs after all.

Sure. But most adventurers don't want to sit around for 70 years waiting for those opportunities.

See, you're comparing this 78-year-old 13th level guy with a 30-year-old 13th level adventurer, and forgetting that the commoner has had more than twice the time to get those levels.

If you compared people of equal age, I'd probably agree that the adventurers would be higher level.

GuardianLurker said:
Actually, aside from 1st level (where the NPC classes suck up the remaining population), I'm not sure that's true. Certainly in any given settlement there are more Commoners than any other class, or probably any other two classes. But the commoners are also much weaker than any of the PC classes, so I'd expect their mortality curve to be steeper than "normal".

Commoners don't tend to go exploring ruins, hunting dragons, fighting orcs, disarming traps, telling off the local thieves' guild, or any of the other things that tend to get adventurers killed. That was my point - they don't seek out dangerous situations.

I mean, my life expectancy as a programmer (Expert) is way higher than a professional mercenary's (Fighter), simply because I don't go putting myself in mortal danger on a daily basis...and I bet there are a lot more high-level programmers than there are high-level mercenaries.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top