Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GuardianLurker" data-source="post: 743768" data-attributes="member: 786">Re: Re: *SIGH* One more time....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.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.</blockquote>

Verification