[3.5] Why do all these NPCs have PC class levels? [Archive]

gbprime

2011-02-20, 11:23 AM

My take is that the top 10% of the population has PC class levels. Most folk are Commoners or Experts depending on their talent and drive. (I see the more long-lived races producing more experts than commoners, just from all those extra years of experience.) Warriors and Aristocrats are self-explanatory, and that means that there are a lot more Adepts out there than there are wizards or others.

That also, IMO, helps keep magic in check in a world. Sure, magic could be common, but if the majority of casters are actually Adepts, then the overall impact of magic is kind of limited.

What I think is even rarer are Prestige classes. Elite orders have them, perhaps 10% of that 10%. You'll see multiclassed people and you'll see high level people, but rare are the ones that sport PrC's as well.

Now since the PC's are often the rare elite of the world, this places no limits on them and kind of explains why low CR foes are willing to fight them... they expected four warriors and two adepts, not a Crusader, a Swash/Rogue... etc.

FMArthur

2011-02-20, 11:29 AM

I just see minor combat skills as being relatively common in the rougher parts of the world. It's much easier to give a man a few levels in Fighter to fit his martial skill than to keep adding Commoner hit dice until you can estimate that he can defend his bar reliably. I mostly treat mundane classes as abstract - the character doesn't know his class, he just has a skillset in a fight. Casters are actually the ones who've gone far out of their way to pick up a "class", and I make sure to distribute them with that in mind.

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 11:29 AM

Only if you stick with that unnecessary flavor.
Only if you consider it unnecessary. I don't. It's printed there for a reason, it's usually well written and I intend to use it. Better than having farmers randomly beating spellcasters for the heck of it.

Crossblade

2011-02-20, 11:33 AM

But you have to concede that a Warblade farmer with a Sorcerer daughter is a stretch. "Oh, I learned the way of the nine swords one day, while growing crops."

His father was a soldier, or his father's father... and it was just passed down the line. You do have to be able to protect your family and livestock after all.

In my world I DM, almost NPCs are assumed to have PC levels, the only way they wouldn't is if they were to be extremely weak and unimportant. Heck, I've had child street urchins be rogues, a semi important NPC be a mid level wizard (though powers were never used in front of the PC party), magistrates are more likely to be Bards, Rogues, Wizards, Sorcerers or Monks than Aristocrats....

But I do make everything up on the fly, and only decide class levels if directly engaged by the PC... and even then, non repeat NPCs usually get a D4 or10 to determine their level, then I roll appropriate D4 or D6s (proportional to their D4-D10 level) to decide what their skill rank in a needed skill is. Then I roll their result.

TL;DR: Some DM worlds or styles are easier for the DM to run if the NPCs have PC levels as opposed to mixing NPC classed NPCs and PC classed NPCs.

dsmiles

2011-02-20, 11:40 AM

Personally, I see nothing wrong with it.

On the other hand, I usually don't bother to stat out NPCs unless they are supposed to have a major impact on the party (such as the BBEG and his/her/its minions). If the players want to kill Farmer Hucklebuck and his family, it takes a dagger thrust (each). Great, now the party is full of murderers...

Serpentine

2011-02-20, 11:43 AM

But you have to concede that a Warblade farmer with a Sorcerer daughter is a stretch. "Oh, I learned the way of the nine swords one day, while growing crops."As mentioned, it depends on a lot of things. Aside from the aforementioned refluffing - which, even if you don't like it, is perfectly valid - there's also background. Maybe he used to be a soldier, and he's retired to a more peaceful life. Maybe she's adopted - maybe she's the reason he retired from a life of warblading to become an apparently humble farmer.
Or more simply, maybe the local village has a particularly well-trained militia, and magic just pops up randomly in the population every now and then.

If the DM hasn't explained it - at least for their own benefit - yes, it might be kinda silly. Especially if even when pressed they don't just come up with a reason for it. But there's plenty of ways the DM can explain it.

Gnome Alone

2011-02-20, 11:44 AM

Only if you consider it unnecessary. I don't. It's printed there for a reason, it's usually well written and I intend to use it. Better than having farmers randomly beating spellcasters for the heck of it.

Seriously. Not that it's a requirement to use the pre-written RP aspects of a class, but I see its inclusion as at least "optional," not just automatically "unnecessary." I mean, hey, you wanna re-work everything into your own world, great, but that's no reason to get all up-in-arms against other people using the "flavor" of classes as if it's relevant. (I can hardly stand writing the word "flavor" in this context, but I can't think of anything better off the top of my head. But I'll be damned if I ever divide a class into "fluff" and "crunch." I find those terms and that way of looking at it pretty silly.)

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 11:45 AM

His father was a soldier, or his father's father... and it was just passed down the line. You do have to be able to protect your family and livestock after all.
Care to tell me why he isn't a soldier, gains a lot more money and provides for his family a lot better?

But I do make everything up on the fly, and only decide class levels if directly engaged by the PC... and even then, non repeat NPCs usually get a D4 or10 to determine their level, then I roll appropriate D4 or D6s (proportional to their D4-D10 level) to decide what their skill rank in a needed skill is. Then I roll their result.
That's... very, very weird. :smallconfused:
It basically means NPCs in your world don't have class levels at all. They have random abilities instead.

TL;DR: Some DM worlds or styles are easier for the DM to run if the NPCs have PC levels as opposed to mixing NPC classed NPCs and PC classed NPCs.
That's what I said in the first post.
IMHO, this mostly smells of laziness and creates a world where the PCs are not as important as they actually should be. Just check the DMG community generating guidelines. Most people are Commoners. A metropolis should have something like four level 17 wizards at the most.
I particularly like Eberron demographics even better - your metropolis has at the very best three level 14 Wizards and that's only in Aundair (other places cap at 11). That's very unlikly, even - you need to roll 18 in 3d6.

TL;DR For some DMs, having the world actually make sense is somewhat important.

As mentioned, it depends on a lot of things. Aside from the aforementioned refluffing - which, even if you don't like it, is perfectly valid - there's also background. Maybe he used to be a soldier, and he's retired to a more peaceful life. Maybe she's adopted - maybe she's the reason he retired from a life of warblading to become an apparently humble farmer.
Or more simply, maybe the local village has a particularly well-trained militia, and magic just pops up randomly in the population every now and then.

If the DM hasn't explained it - at least for their own benefit - yes, it might be kinda silly. Especially if even when pressed they don't just come up with a reason for it. But there's plenty of ways the DM can explain it.
But that's a special cookie. That's not a problem. The OP makes it seem like everyone in the game is a special cookie, though.

Serpentine

2011-02-20, 11:55 AM

Care to tell me why he isn't a soldier, gains a lot more money and provides for his family a lot better?Because he doesn't want to, because he's bound somehow, because he wants to be there for his daughter, because soldiering is much more dangerous than farming, etc. etc. so on and so forth.

Most people are Commoners. A metropolis should have something like four level 17 wizards at the most.In your game. In my game, a metropolis will have one or two epic level Wizards, a handful of 15+ level Wizards, a dozen-odd 10-15 level Wizards and an academy or two full of 1-10th level Wizards. And then there's the rest.
And... Well, I suppose a disproportionate number of people will be Commoners, but outside of a truly feudal society I don't actually think it's all that realistic to say most are. If anything, a majority might be Experts and the like.

TL;DR For some DMs, having the world actually make sense is somewhat important.It makes a lot of sense to me that in a world as dangerous as D&D, it's just a lot more practical for people to learn to not get eaten by housecats.

But that's a special cookie. That's not a problem. The OP makes it seem like everyone in the game is a special cookie, though.He said "NPCs we meet". How many people don't they meet?

Greenish

2011-02-20, 11:57 AM

Care to tell me why he isn't a soldier, gains a lot more money and provides for his family a lot better?Tends to get you killed, that sort of business.

I prefer the Eberron approach too, but each for their own.

dsmiles

2011-02-20, 12:00 PM

IMHO, this mostly smells of laziness and creates a world where the PCs are not as important as they actually should be. Really? I honestly don't think PCs are all that important. In a world that consists of millions or billions of people, do you really think the world revolves around the PCs? Are they really all that special? They can become important, but they shouldn't just be important, unless they've been chosen by the gods, or a prophecy, or whatever.

J.Gellert

2011-02-20, 12:05 PM

*A random farmer family (or what's left of them) which turned out to have a warblade and a loli sorceress.
*A barkeep with rogue when a fight broke out. Apparently most of the others were fighters.
*Kidnapped refugees which turned out to be low level wizards. apparently they got separated from their components and all of them prepared spells requiring them at the time and they were fresh out of cantrips. Things quickly got silly when they got them back.
*An annoying journalist who turned out to have a couple of ranger.

Personally I hate it, so I know what you mean. But there's nothing you can do, so just roll with it.

Heh, it reminds me of the old days of NWN1, where everyone wanted to be DM and you'd have things like...

"Default" guard: Level 9 cleric. They can and will raise dead each other.
Elite NPCs: Level 13 at the minimum.
DMPCs: 15++
PCs: Levels 1-7. This is a low-level roleplaying server, people!

So yeah, there's worse. An annoying journalist with 2 levels of ranger isn't that bad :smallbiggrin:

Lord_Gareth

2011-02-20, 12:06 PM

I really must disagree, Shinken - not only is most of WotC's flavor badly written, but it's all written with Grayhawk in mind. Reshar never existed on Toril, or in Eberron. He didn't walk the planes, visit Ravenloft, or travel to the Kamala. He certainly didn't show up in my campaign world. Refluffing is a necessity much of the time, especially if you don't want to deal with WotC's "drunk monkey with a typewriter" approach to worldbuilding.

Starbuck_II

2011-02-20, 12:18 PM

Care to tell me why he isn't a soldier, gains a lot more money and provides for his family a lot better?

When his wife died, her only wish was for him to take good care of their daughter. So he had to quit the army and become a simple farmer... it was what she would have wanted.
He still remembers his training and it comes in handy when bandits or predators attack his crops.

stabbitty death

2011-02-20, 12:23 PM

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 12:26 PM

When his wife died, her only wish was for him to take good care of their daughter. So he had to quit the army and become a simple farmer.
Yes, because soldiers can't have daughters. :smallsigh:

MichielHagen

2011-02-20, 12:28 PM

In my games the PC's can be special, or they can be joe average, it depends on the campaign.

In my games a lot of NPC's (also enemies) don't have class levels, but rather abilities. Sure, i'll stat the warrior opponent as a fighter at first. But if i want him to have the ability to....cast "fly" i will not give him 5 levels of wizard, i just give him "fly" as a spell-like ability. If i want him able to use the "Shadow Garrote"-maneuver, he has that ability. Simple as that.
I might take away a feat or BaB or something to compensate.

As a DM i do not need to abide by the rules, the characters have the abilities that fit their needs, to support a story or to create an interesting encounters.

Someone else pointed out a DM needed to explain the reasons behind the class levels of a NPC, i see no reason why a DM would need to. If he has an interesting background he wishes to share, sure, if not....

dsmiles

2011-02-20, 12:28 PM

Yes, because soldiers can't have daughters. :smallsigh:No, because a dead soldier can't take care of anyone. :smallamused:

Fox Box Socks

2011-02-20, 12:29 PM

I was always under the impression that class levels were only the result of exceptional ability, training, skill, and / or experience. A farmer that occasionally hunts wolves might have a level or two of Warrior, but Fighter or Warblade implies a level of training of aptitude he shouldn't have. If he wanted those slaves to actually be fledgling arcanists, Adept is a more reasonable choice than Wizard. PC classes should be special, not something that's just tacked on to any old NPC.

Little girl with levels of Sorcerer made me smile, though.

MichielHagen

2011-02-20, 12:30 PM

Yes, because soldiers can't have daughters. :smallsigh:

For gods sake, it's a very logical reason which does not even apply to fantasy-settings but also real-life. You do not know how many new fathers have changed jobs because of this.
He is not saying every soldier should, but it could be a perfectly reasonable background for this particular soldier.

Draz74

2011-02-20, 12:36 PM

Yes, because soldiers can't have daughters. :smallsigh:
Soldiers generally have to travel a lot more than farmers ...

And... Well, I suppose a disproportionate number of people will be Commoners, but outside of a truly feudal society I don't actually think it's all that realistic to say most are. If anything, a majority might be Experts and the like.
QFT. Outside of a truly oppressive feudal society, the Commoner class doesn't really make much sense at all. It's too pathetic. Only deadbeats would pick Commoner levels instead of at least Expert levels, if they're not forced to do so by "the system" or other limitations.

Thrawn183

2011-02-20, 12:37 PM

PC levels can often give NPC's the abilities they need without giving them so many levels that they become supermen. It's often easier to make soldiers with a couple levels of fighter than warrior if they're supposed to have certain feats, as an example.

Also, a couple of levels isn't all that big a deal. When you're level 9, a sorceror that can barely cast burning hands doesn't exactly make you defunct.

Edit: I also like small communities having a realistic chance of defending themselves from things like lions, tigers, bears and elephants.

Vknight

2011-02-20, 12:37 PM

Ok well I take this approach.

3.5
In this edition I handle things like this.

-Most of the Populous is peasants. So there classess are the simpler ones without all that much flair, Commoner, Warrior, Fighter, Rogue(1Level), Monk(2Levels).

-Merchants and others with skills will have access to better things Adept, Expert, Wizard, etc

-Next there are people that have a lineage, or power things that make them a threat to the party. This can be Nobles, or Retired Knights but they generally have something special to them.

-Now we get the nasty stuff these are the guys that are around PC level and are the big threats. Generally equal to if not higher these are the rival party members among other things.

-Next are the Bruisers people that are above player level and a threat to the whole party.

-Finally the BBEG, the End alll the Be All he is among a very small group providing a threat no others may match.

4e
Peasants and the like are generally minions. Guardsmen and others in smaller places are Lvl1-3 soldiers, With the Captain being 2-5.
In grows depending on the countries economy, beliefs, military strength, and community size.

Current Campaign the guards are 2-4, with the Captain being Lvl6.

dsmiles

2011-02-20, 12:40 PM

Barlen

2011-02-20, 12:46 PM

As others have mentioned the farmer was probably a soldier of some sort before he became a farmer. He could have been fairly poor and didn't have and land so he joined the army to earn the money and then retired.

In the "old days" it wasn't that uncommon for men to be soldiers for a few years while they were young and then to retire to farming. The real life expression "he bought the farm" (which implies he died and got his permanent retirement) comes out of this.

A similar case is the fighter/rogue who retires and opens a saloon/inn (hence your bartender). I would almost see this as the norm, particularly in a fantasy world.

Ok, granted, the reporter/ranger just seems weird.

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 12:46 PM

No, because a dead soldier can't take care of anyone. :smallamused:
Most soldiers are not fighting wars. He could also join the city guard. Or he could start a military academy. With farming he can barely feed his daughter.

For gods sake, it's a very logical reason which does not even apply to fantasy-settings but also real-life. You do not know how many new fathers have changed jobs because of this.
He is not saying every soldier should, but it could be a perfectly reasonable background for this particular soldier.
Like I said before, for a special cookie it works (in a way, see below). The OP has made it pretty clear though - this is not a special cookie. All NPCs are like this.
You're also not considering that a D&D farmer doesn't gain much money. An untrained laborer (because Profession is not a Warblade skill) gains 1 silver piece a day. That's hardly enough for him to survive, let alone his daughter.
At his field of expertise, he would gain at the very least 3 sp a day (more using A&EG guidelines).
This is basically about a career soldier dropping his job to fry burgers so he can take better care of his daughter. This doesn't make any sense for me.

As others have mentioned the farmer was probably a soldier of some sort before he became a farmer. He could have been fairly poor and didn't have and land so he joined the army to earn the money and then retired.
You do remember the OP said he was a 'random farmer', right? What about the bar, with the Rogue barkeep and where everyone else was a Fighter? Or the refugees - all wizards?
This is not about a single farmer and his unique daughter. It's about almost everyone having PC class levels. And a random farmer who fights better than he fights and yet remains a farmer is just plain weird.

In the "old days" it wasn't that uncommon for men to be soldiers for a few years while they were young and then to retire to farming. The real life expression "he bought the farm" (which implies he died and got his permanent retirement) comes out of this.
All fine and dandy when it happens once. Not the case here.

A similar case is the fighter/rogue who retires and opens a saloon/inn (hence your bartender). I would almost see this as the norm, particularly in a fantasy world.
Seeing it as the norm is very weird. Some people would do it, yes. Makes a lot of sense - barkeeping is a lot less dangerous than dungeon delving. But it simply can't be the norm, because very few people have actual Rogue levels. There will be far more inns/taverns in a village than Rogues.

Ok, granted, the reporter/ranger just seems weird.
Not to mention the wizard refugees.

Vknight

2011-02-20, 12:56 PM

Well farming he can barely feed his daughter? We don't know what he's farming he could be selling components for spells, growing exotic foods using magic from his daughter. And he can be selling those wolves he fights gold. Combine this with a large amount of money from a previous and dangerous life.

Also Farmer means he could have Cows and other animals, don't froget Farm hands, yeah he cannot feed them. What with money, former glory, a reliable source of income from any 1 of 3 sources.

MichielHagen

2011-02-20, 12:57 PM

Most soldiers are not fighting wars. He could also join the city guard. Or he could start a military academy. With farming he can barely feed his daughter.

Like I said before, for a special cookie it works (in a way, see below). The OP has made it pretty clear though - this is not a special cookie. All NPCs are like this.
You're also not considering that a D&D farmer doesn't gain much money. An untrained laborer (because Profession is not a Warblade skill) gains 1 silver piece a day. That's hardly enough for him to survive, let alone his daughter.
At his field of expertise, he would gain at the very least 3 sp a day (more using A&EG guidelines).
This is basically about a career soldier dropping his job to fry burgers so he can take better care of his daughter. This doesn't make any sense for me.

Saying a farmer cannot make enough money to take care of his daughter seems to be more non-sensical than anything else i have seen in this thread.
Any you already made little sense so far, with your first post as an exception.

A farmer is the most used profession and they do seem to have childeren...lots of 'em.

Vknight

2011-02-20, 01:01 PM

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 01:04 PM

Saying a farmer cannot make enough money to take care of his daughter seems to be more non-sensical than anything else i have seen in this thread.
Any you already made little sense so far, with your first post as an exception.

A farmer is the most used profession and they do seem to have childeren...lots of 'em.

Those farmers have actual ranks in Profession, because they get it as class skill. A Warblade doesn't.

Also Farmer means he could have Cows and other animals.
He also doesn't have Handle Animal as a class skill.

snoopy13a

2011-02-20, 01:04 PM

After the Roman Army went from a milita made up of primarily middle-class farmers to a professional army made up of the landless lower classes (the reforms of Marius), they would reward long-serving soldiers with land.

So, it is entirely logical for a a village, especially a border village where the land could be newly granted, to have ex-soldier farmers. You could even plausibly have a situation where every farmer in the village is a 40-something military vet of 20 years (say level 3-5) with a young family.

A land-owner was usually a person accorded with respect in ancient times. You should not equate "farmer" with "serf." A farmer may be an old professional soldier or adventurer who saved up money to buy land or was granted land as a reward for service.

Alternatively, the nation is like the Greek city-states (excluding Sparta where the small upper-class were all soldiers in order to maintain their control of their Helot slaves) or the early Roman Republic and does not have a standing professional army. Instead, the army is made up of the upper-class noblity (who generally become cavalry) and the middle-class small landowning farmers (who become the infantry). The lower-classes (non-landowners) were generally not trusted to serve. So, the farmer could be a militia veteran and has served in campaigns and wars.

So, it is entirely plausible and even likely in some campaign worlds for a farmer to have combat experience.

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 01:08 PM

In your game. In my game, a metropolis will have one or two epic level Wizards, a handful of 15+ level Wizards, a dozen-odd 10-15 level Wizards and an academy or two full of 1-10th level Wizards. And then there's the rest.
This just enforces my point, really. If you're going to houserule demographics, you should let the players know beforehand.

Suichimo

2011-02-20, 01:09 PM

But you have to concede that a Warblade farmer with a Sorcerer daughter is a stretch. "Oh, I learned the way of the nine swords one day, while growing crops."

One day after surveying some farm land that he had acquired in an old friend's will, the farmer comes across an old, battered scarecrow. The farmer jumps when, suddenly, the scarecrow speaks to him. The scarecrow tells the farmer his story, practicing the Sublime Way, about how an enraged Wizard turned him into what he is now, and how he foolishly never sought to learn Iron Heart Surge. Having already come to terms with his fate, the scarecrow then offers to teach what he know of the Sublime Way to the farmer in exchange for telling his loved ones his plight. Who knows, maybe after enough years of scaring off crows he will finally gain a level and bring the knowledge of Iron Heart Surge to the forefront and be freed from his curse.

MichielHagen

2011-02-20, 01:13 PM

Even one Cross-class rank in profession (farmer) would already make you earn 11 gp in an average week. Which by your logic would be more than a soldier makes.

I have no interest in further discussing the RAW, it's not like you'll every see a housecats kill a random commoner in the streets of a town. Just use your common sense.

mootoall

2011-02-20, 01:15 PM

Ok, granted, the reporter/ranger is a little weird. How else is he gonna track his leads? And he probably has favored enemy: celebrities.

Cogidubnus

2011-02-20, 01:18 PM

It's all setting-dependent. While what the OP's described does seem daft, some places may have lots of NPCs with PC levels. The PCs may be just little fish and really have to fight for their chance (particularly suitable if your PCs are hired mercs. After all, if all other mercs had NPC levels, the PCs would be the most in-demand swords for hire in the world).

On the flipside, my current campaign includes a PC with a single level of Commoner. The barman, an ex-vet who took over after his brother died, has 2 levels of Warrior, and yet is tougher than all the PCs because he has 2 HD, +2 BAB and so on compared to their one.

As for who should be what, in a traditional DnD setting, you're talking Iron Age or feudal society, so most people are commoners. Some are experts, but only in large urban centres. That sailor? He's a commoner, hired for the one trip, no profession ranks but he does his best. That pirate? Also probably a commoner, maybe with 2-3 levels from killing defenceless sailors. Whereas the ship's captain and mate would be experts, as would the experienced hands, and the best pirates could be anything - Swashbucklers, even.

Frozen_Feet

2011-02-20, 01:47 PM

In the "old days" it wasn't that uncommon for men to be soldiers for a few years while they were young and then to retire to farming.

It's still not that uncommon for young men or women to be soldiers for a year or two before acquiring a civilian trade. It's called "conscription". :smallwink: In many settings, it would be entirely plausible for every male over certain age to have some martial skill. Granted, this can be modeled with few extra levels and BAB, but still.

Likewise, for many commoners, defending themselves from roving raiders and wayward soldiers was routine. Look at the legendary origins of several martial arts (Karate or Ninjutsu, for example) - being banned from using actual weapons and with little no protection provided by the law, the common folks started learning esoteric arts brought from the continent to defend themselves with bare hands and everyday farming implements.

Against a background like this, a random farmer secretly having levels of Swordsage under his belt doesn't sound nearly as unreasonable. :smallbiggrin:

Overall, I have nothing against using PC classes for NPCs. The divide is mostly arbitrary and unnecessary anyway, the could've just flavored the base classes so that levels 1 through 5 are "ordinary people". D&D 3.5's class structure has become increasingly bloated over the years and several "base" classes are needlessly specific and should've been PrCs from the start.

That's the second time I've seen that term on this forum recently...what does it mean?
"Loli" comes from "Lolita", which is a perfectly respectable name for a girl was a perfectly respectable name for a girl before a certain book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita) by Vladimir Nabokov.

Basically, it refers to sexualized or sexually precocious underage female, though some people somewhat disturbingly apply the term to any underage girl.

bloodtide

2011-02-20, 01:48 PM

I've always given NPC's all sorts of levels. It make the game much more interesting. I just hate the idea of worthless NPC's. And a couple levels can give a NPC a lot.

For example, you take the town guardsman, he has a couple levels in fighter and a single level in wizard. But that single level in wizard lets him use a wand, and he does have a wand of web to use in tavern brawls.

The first twist is that the NPC are not good characters. The fighter only has a strength of 10. The cleric only has a low wisdom and such. Not to mention low constitutions and hit points. They have more then enough to get by as townsfolk, but they won't be going after monsters.

The second twist is to make them ineffective. Sure Gort is a 6th level wizard, but he has no attack spells anyway. And even if he did he is the worst tactician in the world. And he has no optimization. His feats slots are filled with things like skill focus. Even if he was to hit something with a spell, it would do little damage and have a low DC.

Tavar

2011-02-20, 01:51 PM

That's the second time I've seen that term on this forum recently...what does it mean?

That depends. I believe it comes from a shortened version of Lolita, but beyond that it has a couple different meanings. Here it probably means that the sorceress was a child, but it can also describe the sexual attraction to a female child.

PetterTomBos

2011-02-20, 01:59 PM

QFT. Outside of a truly oppressive feudal society, the Commoner class doesn't really make much sense at all. It's too pathetic. Only deadbeats would pick Commoner levels instead of at least Expert levels, if they're not forced to do so by "the system" or other limitations.

I think the problem alot of people see lie here. I do not imagine the NPCs as "picking" their careers. If they have food on the table and something (even remotely as such) meaningful to do in their lives, why bother? Why use your (highly limited) free time for begging the local adept for training, when you can use that time with your significant other. Or practice that perform(psalmsinging) check. Or,or,or..

Still, I give my NPCs lvl.s, even tho I wont allways have a sheet up ready for them. And after that I tweak it, and bend the rules for them. I see the PC classes as the most effective ways to study for adventuring, still others have other ideas of studying. That cleric casting resurrection on the party? He might not be able to change spell, but focus all his power on resurrection spells, and perhaps a climbskill or w.e.

What is good for a PC is not necessarily good for an NPC and vica versa.

LOTRfan

2011-02-20, 02:05 PM

This just enforces my point, really. If you're going to houserule demographics, you should let the players know beforehand.

That is not houseruling demographics. Following the population guidelines in the DMG, that is perfectly possible. You could get a level 21 commoner inhabiting a metropolis following the DMG guidelines

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 02:17 PM

LOTRfan

2011-02-20, 02:29 PM

... I apologize, I was wrong.

Perhaps, however, she is using the alternate rules find in both the Epic Level Handbook and the Planar Handbook/Manual of the Planes (don't remember which).

hewhosaysfish

2011-02-20, 02:31 PM

That is not houseruling demographics. Following the population guidelines in the DMG, that is perfectly possible. You could get a level 21 commoner inhabiting a metropolis following the DMG guidelines

Yesterday, following a discussion with some friends about the class and level breakdowns of DnD*, I actually tried to roll up a randomised settlement using the tables from the DMG.
I got a small town (pop. 901-2000) with a level 12 commoner living in it. Following the rest of the guidelines rules I could then work out that the town contained 2 level 11 commoners, 4 at level 10, 8 at level 9, 16 at level 8, 32 at level 7, 64 at level 6, 128 at level 5, 256 at level 4, 512 at level 3, 1024 at level 2.
That's 2047 commoners of above level 1.

So a poplation of 901-2000, minus 2047 commoners of above first level, minus other NPC classes, minus PC classes, gives us...

A negative number of 1st level commoners.
Oh joy.

And if you run the numbers, one out of every 256 thorps will have over 4000 commoners in a population of 20-80.

*because DnD is a place, in which all games of DnD are set.

Vknight

2011-02-20, 02:45 PM

Ok well this is enlightening, we now have agreed to the fact the Warblade can be a farmer but were stuck on the role of PC classes.

Remeber Classes are just training with specific schools of thought, skill, and knowledge.

Ravens_cry

2011-02-20, 02:48 PM

All those make perfect sense to me. Sorcery is generally fluffed as in the blood. When it appears is not under your control.
Others have given several justifications for the Warblade, which I agree with.
Whether as a knack he picked up, training for an ex-soldier, et cetera, all seem reasonable explanations.
Rogue Barkeep? Ex adventurer, (ex) thieves guild member, well read and learned fellow? Why not?
Wizard refugees, why not? A famine or plague will make a low level wizard run just as easily as a commoner.
The journalist? Favoured enemy doesn't just give you combat options; it also helps with the social skills, and that is a journalists stock in trade, their bread and butter.
So your not the super special PC snowflake you thought you were? Oh poo.:smallsigh:
Sure, this can go a bit far, but I think if done right this can make the world seem more cohesive and the party not just being in a world but part of it.

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 02:52 PM

Yesterday, following a discussion with some friends about the class and level breakdowns of DnD*, I actually tried to roll up a randomised settlement using the tables from the DMG.
I got a small town (pop. 901-2000) with a level 12 commoner living in it. Following the rest of the guidelines rules I could then work out that the town contained 2 level 11 commoners, 4 at level 10, 8 at level 9, 16 at level 8, 32 at level 7, 64 at level 6, 128 at level 5, 256 at level 4, 512 at level 3, 1024 at level 2.
That's 2047 commoners of above level 1.

Incorrect.
(...)assume there are twice that number of characters half that level.

So, 1 level 12 commoner, 2 level 6 commoners, 4 level 3 commoners.

Sure, this can go a bit far, but I think if done right this can make the world seem more cohesive and the party not just being in a world but part of it.
I completely agree. This is an example of a player complaining of a world where this does not seem to be done consistently. Looks like everyone they meet has special abilities. And that just ain't right.

Swooper

2011-02-20, 02:52 PM

And if you run the numbers, one out of every 256 thorps will have over 4000 commoners in a population of 20-80.
This is hilarious. :smallbiggrin:

Lesson learned: Don't take WotC worldbuilding rules any more serious than their frail grasp on basic economics. :smallamused:

Edit: Aw, shinken had to go and ruin it :smallfrown:

F.H. Zebedee

2011-02-20, 02:56 PM

Seems kinda assinine to me to have everybody be 4 HP max commoners. That's... A bit too weak for how people really are. In my games, if you're a (typical) child, you're a commoner. If you're a (typical) slave, you're a commoner (or an expert, sometimes). Most adults are experts with no real combat specialization at all. They tend to have a level or two and have most of their skills and feats dedicated to their main trade, with a few esoteric choices like we all have. (It's silly to insist that somebody would max their profession skill and not have much else. That's incredibly rare in real life. Virtually everybody has some skill besides what they do. So the blacksmith with a rank in Perform: Sing isn't really too much of an oddity.)

I think Bloodtide has the right way of doing things. The things that seperate PCs and NPCs is less a matter of class, and more a matter of minmaxing. While a character is free to be tweaked into a combat engine, an NPC, for the most part, lacks that decisionmaking ability. They don't really go "I have high CHA, I'll be a bard!"

They just have the skills they acquire from daily life, and thus are given the class that'd represent that.

From what I've seen of the local Amish, being a farmer is not going to make you a 4 HP, 10 STR, 10 CON fellow. You might only be an expert, but you're going to have 12 CON and 13ish STR, minimum, and possibly multiple levels. Being a farmer isn't "Plant the seeds, wait around for them to grow." It is a hardcore profession where almost every day is spent breaking your back doing things that take every bit as much exertion as almost any martial arts program.

The difference is that you're not training in fighting, you're acquiring other skills. You won't be a Fighter or a Warrior even, but you certainly won't be a pitiful creature a breeze would knock over. I'd figure on them having a few ranks in Profession: Farmer, Handle Animal, and one or more of the following: Heal, Perform (Something), Intimidate (Have YOU ever hit on a farmer's daughter? Don't tell me they don't have ranks in Intimidate.), Survival, Use Rope, Craft, etc.

So, as a whole, I guess I'm not opposed to NPC levels (or, for that matter, giving NPCs a few PC levels if they deserve 'em.) But I'm very opposed to there being Commoners everywhere. I'd argue that in a Pre-Industrial society, it's quite likely Commoners are the rarest NPC class, and possibly rarer than some PC classes. It really undersells people as a whole, considering all the different things that can kill a commoner which an average Joe could survive.

EDIT: Also, I saw the Warblade farmer as a guy who had enough killing, and decided for a less violent lifestyle. Prolly settled down with his "exotic" wife he met in his travels (read: some kind of bizarre ancestry), thus the daughter's inherent mystic abilities.

To say that he's picking a worse lifestyle is kinda silly. I know firsthand that in real life, two people running a farm can produce enough food to live off of easily (winter gets a bit tight, but it's still doable). If he didn't want to stay in the military, that's his perogative. Some people just want a change of pace, and farming certainly is one.

Thinking that he's making a bad decision to quit the military is underselling both the horrors of warfare and the positive aspects of farming. If you only look at the GP earned, you're failing to see characters as human beings with motivations beyond crunch-based gameplay.

It's like saying "Why didn't that guy beat his dog to death for XP?"

Ravens_cry

2011-02-20, 02:58 PM

I completely agree. This is an example of a player complaining of a world where this does not seem to be done consistently. Looks like everyone they meet has special abilities. And that just ain't right.
It does feel a little Very Special Episode, I will admit.:smallamused:

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 02:59 PM

From what I've seen of the local Amish, being a farmer is not going to make you a 4 HP, 10 STR, 10 CON fellow. You might only be an expert, but you're going to have 12 CON and 13ish STR, minimum, and possibly multiple levels.
That's within the nonelite array (used for creatures with levels in NPC classes) 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8. Higher level commoners are also very possible and common in the D&D demographics. So... yeah.

Godskook

2011-02-20, 02:59 PM

This just enforces my point, really. If you're going to houserule demographics, you should let the players know beforehand.

"Homebrew campaign setting"

And really, I can't believe you're arguing so hard for RAW on a forum with a sub-fora dedicated to homebrewing

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 03:04 PM

"Homebrew campaign setting"

And really, I can't believe you're arguing so hard for RAW on a forum with a sub-fora dedicated to homebrewing

I don't see how that has anything to do with anything else. We also have a forum for friendly banter, so I shouldn't ever complain about people doing off-topic conversation if they're being friendly? :smallconfused:
Also, I see no reason why a homebrew campaign setting wouldn't follow the demographics. Is there a need to have a world were every farmer can perform a Sudden Leap? Did you really build your world in such a way that there is a need for more wizards, clerics and the like? Do you want players to feel less special? This is as important to me as 'my game is undead heavy'. If I'm going in a campaign where every farmer knows Kung-fu and is 6th level, I'd like to know beforehand, yes. What is the problem with that?

It's like saying "Why didn't that guy beat his dog to death for XP?"
Except XP doesn't work like that.

F.H. Zebedee

2011-02-20, 03:18 PM

Do you want players to feel less special?

Yes, actually, I do. I want my players to feel like part of their world. I don't want them to feel pointless (My NPCs are pretty much never higher than level 10, no matter what. After level 10, the PCs are beyond most any human opposition), but I do want them to feel like there's plenty more going on in the world than their singular quest.

Players should feel special via their role in the plot, not via a DM making them the only non-villainous folks with PC classes.

A DM should work to give all RPers stuff to work with and a meaty role in the plot (bar the players who don't WANT a big role in the plot, which I've seen a few of. Some people are content just being Fighter #2 and stabbing stuff.) I don't see it as a DM's duty to make sure that they're the only people who can kick any butt.

The DM's job is making sure that the PCs are the main characters in a story they (the PCs, that is) decide, not making the rest of the world suck so they can be "special".

(Granted, making all NPCs PC classes IS taking it too far. But I think the concept of a Commoner Class (or at least, the steaming pile that is the current Commoner) is taking it too far in the opposite direction.)

Lord_Gareth

2011-02-20, 03:20 PM

Unless you're running Scion or Exalted, PCs are not automatically special. They should remain the focus of the campaign, of course, but that doesn't seem to be the problem here.

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 03:30 PM

Yes, actually, I do. I want my players to feel like part of their world. I don't want them to feel pointless (My NPCs are pretty much never higher than level 10, no matter what. After level 10, the PCs are beyond most any human opposition), but I do want them to feel like there's plenty more going on in the world than their singular quest.
I don't understand. Do you need your farmers to be Warblades for that?

Players should feel special via their role in the plot, not via a DM making them the only non-villainous folks with PC classes.
Please, don't throw strawmen at me. Having farmers have Commoner levels is very different from having only the player characters having levels in PC classes. I've been advocating the use of DMG demographics this whole thread, making your point really weird.
But I agree that players should feel special via their role in the plot. Having any giving farmer being good enough to fight them one-on-one though makes it seem like they don't have a role in the plot, or that their role in the plot is forced. "Why do we need to save the village from goblins? Farmer McFarmy is a Warblade and his daughter is a Sorcerer, they can solve this better than we do."

A DM should work to give all RPers stuff to work with and a meaty role in the plot (bar the players who don't WANT a big role in the plot, which I've seen a few of. Some people are content just being Fighter #2 and stabbing stuff.) I don't see it as a DM's duty to make sure that they're the only people who can kick any butt.
I don't see it as well and that's not what I was advocating. Again, please don't use strawmen arguments. It's just rude.

The DM's job is making sure that the PCs are the main characters in a story they (the PCs, that is) decide, not making the rest of the world suck so they can be "special".
Again a strawman. Not having all farmers be Warblades is hardly having the rest of the world suck. It's having the rest of the world actually be the rest of the world. Like I said time and time again, having a veteran fighter with a sorcerer daughter popping out now and again is actually good for verossimilitude. Having stuff like this happening all the time is not. It leads you to believe everyone knows magic and everyone can fight - then you have to wonder "why do I bother saving these people, if they are so capable?"

(Granted, making all NPCs PC classes IS taking it too far. But I think the concept of a Commoner Class (or at least, the steaming pile that is the current Commoner) is taking it too far in the opposite direction.)
A gross exaggeration. Commoners can be quite powerful with Handle Animal optimization or charging feats.
In fact, a Commoner could take better care of his daughter by training dogs than by being a Warblade.

Optimator

2011-02-20, 03:40 PM

Maybe it's just a heroic setting.

F.H. Zebedee

2011-02-20, 03:46 PM

You seem not to get that as a whole, we simply don't like the RAW for population distribution.

You yourself are creating a strawman in that you act like we're all debating for constant Warblade farmers. We aren't. Virtually NONE of us want this, from what I've seen.

I'm just debating that the RAW gives us way too many Commoners, when Experts, Warriors, and even Aristocrats should be the majority of the population.

(And assuming that a Commoner would go for cheesing Handle Animal really goes and violates the big rule that some of us have said before: In our games, the division between NPC and PC is the ability to optimize well. It's assuming that the guy would go for that option like he was a PC, instead of using his training as a veteran soldier to do what he needs to do.)

I'm not arguing that Commoners can't be potent if tweaked right. I'm arguing that an un-tweaked Commoner is too weak for the role they should be playing, whereas Expert is about right for the average man on the street.

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 03:53 PM

Maybe it's just a heroic setting.

That's anything but heroic.

You seem not to get that as a whole, we simply don't like the RAW for population distribution.
No one even said that up until now, so you can't really blame me. :smallamused:

You yourself are creating a strawman in that you act like we're all debating for constant Warblade farmers. We aren't. Virtually NONE of us want this, from what I've seen.
I never said anyone was debating for this.

I'm just debating that the RAW gives us way too many Commoners, when Experts, Warriors, and even Aristocrats should be the majority of the population.
I disagree. Let's see why.

I'm arguing that an un-tweaked Commoner is too weak for the role they should be playing, whereas Expert is about right for the average man on the street.
Really? See, Experts get 6 skill points per level. We are human, so we get one extra skill point per level. So at level 1, you mean an average person would have SEVEN maxed skills? That's way too much.
Expert is good for, say, a lawyer (needes social skills and Knowledge skills). Not most people are lawyers. In fact, a very small subset of the population are lawyers.
Heck, I have trouble thinking of seven skills I have (let's, see... Knowledge (history), Knowledge (local), Sense Motive, Speak Language, Bluff, maybe Jump from the basketball years and that's about it). And I'm a very educated person, I speak three languages dabbling in many others and I'm taking my second college course. Do you really think most average people get that many skill points? In a society where you don't get as much access to teaching as out own?

Frozen_Feet

2011-02-20, 03:54 PM

It's also good to remember that unlike the PCs, the NPCs are not tackling "level appropriate" threats. Think of it this way: level 10 Commoner, with his +5 Bab and 4 + 9d4 + con hit points, and 13 x 2 skill points is a tough cookie compared to, say, level 5 Warrior. So while the Commoner class is weak, a Commoner character can be expectional in given surroundings.

Savannah

2011-02-20, 03:57 PM

This just enforces my point, really. If you're going to houserule demographics, you should let the players know beforehand.

Why? No, really, why would a player care? I would be rather put off by a DM sitting me down before the game and going, "Now, I want you all to know that instead of strictly following the DMG community guidelines, in my world cities usually have [demographics breakdown]." I expect the DM to do what makes sense for their world and as long as it doesn't make the game harder for me, I don't care. In fact, I don't even consider that to be "houseruling". Now, if there's a hard cap on NPC levels, I'd want to know that, just so I'd have an idea that I won't be able to purchase spells of x level or similar things that might impact my playing. But in general, I don't care about demographics at all.

I've been advocating the use of DMG demographics this whole thread, making your point really weird.

Honestly, I don't see what is so special about the DMG demographics guidelines. They're just guidelines for one specific world type (fairly realistic medieval european). If your game is different, of course you'd want to use different demographics. Also, remember that the guidelines use only PH and DMG classes. Once you throw in other sources, you have to either work out your own demographics tables (waaay more work than most DMs want to do) or just wing it.

In fact, a Commoner could take better care of his daughter by training dogs than by being a Warblade.

Well, only if there's a market for trained dogs.... Most farmers can train their own dog, so who would he sell them to? Not to mention that, if you apply that logic, every commoner should be training dogs. But then, there will be way too many dogs for the number of buyers, and our original farmer will be far worse off than when he started. When you really look at them, D&D economics are a joke. In my opinion, they should be regarded as loose guidelines rather than iron-clad rules.

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 04:08 PM

Why? No, really, why would a player care? I would be rather put off by a DM sitting me down before the game and going, "Now, I want you all to know that instead of strictly following the DMG community guidelines, in my world cities usually have [demographics breakdown]." I expect the DM to do what makes sense for their world and as long as it doesn't make the game harder for me, I don't care. In fact, I don't even consider that to be "houseruling". Now, if there's a hard cap on NPC levels, I'd want to know that, just so I'd have an idea that I won't be able to purchase spells of x level or similar things that might impact my playing. But in general, I don't care about demographics at all.
You think you misunderstood my point. Let me try to illustrate it better.
Let's say you're a Rogue. You get in a small village and you try to sell a fake statue. You fail, because the salesperson is a retired Beguiler. You manage to run, but you lose valuable gold with wand charges during your escape. You try to get some extra money, so you use Sleight of Hand to pick someone's pocket. It turns out this dude is actually a Swordsage and he beats the living crap out of you. You get thrown in jail. You use Escape Artist and go through the bars, but the guards are all Dungeoncrasher Fighters and they ping-pong you around.
See my point yet?

Honestly, I don't see what is so special about the DMG demographics guidelines. They're just guidelines for one specific world type (fairly realistic medieval european). If your game is different, of course you'd want to use different demographics. Also, remember that the guidelines use only PH and DMG classes. Once you throw in other sources, you have to either work out your own demographics tables (waaay more work than most DMs want to do) or just wing it.
I just substitute similar classes. So a Warblade takes a Fighter 'spot' or something.
My point is not that 'you're doing it wrong' if you don't follow the guidelines, it's that a world were everyone has levels in PC classes stretches verossimilitude really hard.

Well, only if there's a market for trained dogs.... Most farmers can train their own dog, so who would he sell them to? Not to mention that, if you apply that logic, every commoner should be training dogs. But then, there will be way too many dogs for the number of buyers, and our original farmer will be far worse off than when he started. When you really look at them, D&D economics are a joke. In my opinion, they should be regarded as loose guidelines rather than iron-clad rules.
You misunderstand. My point is that a bunch of trained dogs fight better than a Warblade.

F.H. Zebedee

2011-02-20, 04:26 PM

Fhaolan

2011-02-20, 04:45 PM

You also have to remember that in most 3.5 D&D campaign settings, a simple farmer commoner will likely not survive one season. The sheer number of predatory monsters and bandit-types roaming loose is overwhelming, even in civilized areas.

When every village is being plundered/destroyed once a week as it appears to be normal, or even at the slower rates of once a month or once a year, the surviving populace will adapt in order to reduce the amount of devastation. Which means normal villagers will be *deliberately* training to gain skills similar to PCs. Likely most of the really skilled people will have skills that allow quick-response teams.

In much the same way that when cities tended to burn down a lot, fire departments were either organized by the governments, or if the government ignored it, were organized by civilians.

Part of the thing is that people aren't stupid. Yes, many gamers tend to believe that people *are* stupid, and DM's tend to play NPCs as morons, but when survival depends on a minimum amount of common sense, NPCs who don't have that level of common sense won't survive. And it's common sense that farmers capable of defending their farms from the horde of monsters that are constantly trying to eat everything in sight, are going to prosper much better than the farmer who can't even defend himself from a housecat.

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 04:54 PM

You also have to remember that in most 3.5 D&D campaign settings, a simple farmer commoner will likely not survive one season. The sheer number of predatory monsters and bandit-types roaming loose is overwhelming, even in civilized areas.
Except most campaign settings are not like that. Greyhawk isn't, Eberron isn't, Forgotten Realms isn't, Rokugan isn't, Dragonlance isn't. 'Most homebrew settings' would be a bad generalization because you don't actually know most homebrew settings, so you can't state anything about them.

Haarkla

2011-02-20, 05:13 PM

You think you misunderstood my point. Let me try to illustrate it better.
Let's say you're a Rogue. You get in a small village and you try to sell a fake statue. You fail, because the salesperson is a retired Beguiler. You manage to run, but you lose valuable gold with wand charges during your escape. You try to get some extra money, so you use Sleight of Hand to pick someone's pocket. It turns out this dude is actually a Swordsage and he beats the living crap out of you. You get thrown in jail. You use Escape Artist and go through the bars, but the guards are all Dungeoncrasher Fighters and they ping-pong you around.
See my point yet?
I dont consider it remotely unreasonable that jailhouse guards are well trained fighters. Or that guy walking down the street of a fantasy world is a trained warrior. I do run a low magic world however.

My point is not that 'you're doing it wrong' if you don't follow the guidelines, it's that a world were everyone has levels in PC classes stretches verossimilitude really hard.
IMO a world where NCPs have levels in classes similar, but strictly inferior, to the PCs stretches versimilitude harder.

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 05:16 PM

IMO a world where NCPs have levels in classes similar, but strictly inferior, to the PCs stretches versimilitude harder.
Care to explain why? Most people don't know how to fight. I believe their classes shouldn't be able to do so. Most people don't know how to use magic. I believe their classes shouldn't be able to do so. How is that stretching verossimilitude?

Flawless

2011-02-20, 05:17 PM

If you're going to houserule demographics, you should let the players know beforehand.

This is what really annoys me about 3rd edition. It's approach on rules makes many players believe that everything written in a book is rule that must be adhered to unless you specifically make a house rule about. And if you do, people will complain and try to persuade you not to. I mean, when it comes to basic stuff, that's the way it should be. If you nerf casters or make full attack a standard action, that's a house rule. But demographics? Or WBL? Or magic item access?

PairO'Dice Lost

2011-02-20, 05:23 PM

Really? See, Experts get 6 skill points per level. We are human, so we get one extra skill point per level. So at level 1, you mean an average person would have SEVEN maxed skills? That's way too much.
Expert is good for, say, a lawyer (needes social skills and Knowledge skills). Not most people are lawyers. In fact, a very small subset of the population are lawyers.
Heck, I have trouble thinking of seven skills I have (let's, see... Knowledge (history), Knowledge (local), Sense Motive, Speak Language, Bluff, maybe Jump from the basketball years and that's about it). And I'm a very educated person, I speak three languages dabbling in many others and I'm taking my second college course. Do you really think most average people get that many skill points? In a society where you don't get as much access to teaching as out own?

I don't think it's all that unrealistic. Taking a farmer as an example, he might have ranks in:
Craft (Woodworking) to keep his tools/fences/barn/etc. in good repair
Handle Animal, to train his dogs/horses and handle his livestock
Heal, to take care of wounded animals, help with birthing, etc.
Knowledge (Nature), to know about crops and weather and such
Profession (Farmer), for obvious reasons;
Survival, for pasturing sheep, hunting, predicting weather, etc.
That's the 6 skill points from class right there, and he would benefit from being human or having a high Int to pick up things like Knowledge (Local) for interacting with tax collectors and other officials, Ride if he has a large plot of land, Swim if his farm is on the river, and so forth.

-------------------------------------------------------

My campaign settings are not "medieval Europe + magic" as the DMG demographics assume. Society tends to be a bit closer to Renaissance-era Europe and places more emphasis on personal freedom and expression, as one would assume from the existence of Renaissance-era technology in D&D as well as the variety of sapient races; it has more plentiful magic, due to the prevalence of adepts and the ease of becoming a spellcaster (e.g. sorcerers, favored souls, and warlocks don't need training, and temples and wizard guilds are common tropes); NPCs are of higher level on average due to the many monsters and other threats they face.

Thus, NPCs in my worlds are mostly around level 5, with lower level characters being children and teenagers just setting out into the world (Episode 4 Luke Skywalker might be level 1-2, for instance); level 6-10 characters are exceptional but not at all unique, being made up of veteran soldiers, career politicians, and such; level 11-15 characters are the cream of the crop, being made up of legendary generals, world-class wizards, and the like; level 16+ characters are extremely rare. (I've also made changes to the economy and other areas, but those aren't germane to the discussion.) In short, a world that takes the D&D rules into account to establish verisimilitude, a world that doesn't just slap magic and elves onto medieval Europe and call it fantasy, and a world that isn't Greyhawk can have vastly different assumptions than the DMG.

However, I very much agree with true_shinken's argument. All of my campaign tweaks are fine because I tell my players beforehand "Okay, you guys are starting at level 3 for this one, so that makes you a bunch of young adults out on your first adventure; lots of folks are going to be a bit higher-level than you for a while" or "This campaign, you're starting at level 7; write up a good background and expect to be influential, 'cause you're on par with the noble scions and wizards' guilds and society will pay attention to you" or whatever the case may be. Tell the players when they create their level X characters that level X is higher or lower than average or just about normal; tell them whether their wizard or cleric is the first real spellcaster who's bothered to come out to [wherever they are] in a few months or whether there's a few dozen of each at the village temple to Boccob.

Likewise, if you change the assumptions, play the NPCs realistically according to those assumptions. A bunch of wizard refugees who can't cast spells at the moment should be asking for spell component pouches and explaining the situation to their rescuers, not acting helpless and innocent and busting out the spells later; you shouldn't discover a farmer is a warblade because he's Joe Random Dirt Farmer until the plot demands he smite a PC, you should get the idea he has some combat training in advance from the way he moves or other cues. In this particular case, the DM seems to be pulling class levels out of thin air, not just changing up assumptions about NPCs and PC classes, so rather than trying to come up with explanations for why NPC X has levels in class Y (of which there are many and varied good ones) we should be helping the OP come up with a way to express to their DM that they don't like being uninformed about the world and don't like how the NPCs seem arbitrary and what they want to do about it.

Haarkla

2011-02-20, 05:27 PM

Care to explain why? Most people don't know how to fight. I believe their classes shouldn't be able to do so. Most people don't know how to use magic. I believe their classes shouldn't be able to do so. How is that stretching verossimilitude?
I mean why warriors, they are like fighters but not as good.

And commoner is so stupid, shouldn't a hearty peasant have more HP than a studious wizard.

Why would anyone ever become one of those classes?

The Glyphstone

2011-02-20, 05:34 PM

Soldiers generally have to travel a lot more than farmers ...

QFT. Outside of a truly oppressive feudal society, the Commoner class doesn't really make much sense at all. It's too pathetic. Only deadbeats would pick Commoner levels instead of at least Expert levels, if they're not forced to do so by "the system" or other limitations.

This is the approach I take. A Commoner is actually worse off than a 1-Hit Die Humanoid with no class levels (d4 compared to d8, worse proficiencies and saves and skills, etc.). When I make a world, the only people with Commoner levels are beggars/cripples and children - everyone else is usually an Expert, Warrior, or Aristocrat.

archon_huskie

2011-02-20, 05:43 PM

I think the most problematic statement is that the farmer can't raise enough money to feed his daughter.

Farmer . . . money . . . Feed his daughter

Why not just eat the food he grows?

It sounds to me that your GM has created a high level, high magic fantasy world that does not conform to real world economics or stat distribution.

It is not a big deal though, how many GMs really are experts in economics?

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 05:48 PM

I don't think it's all that unrealistic. Taking a farmer as an example, he might have ranks in:
Craft (Woodworking) to keep his tools/fences/barn/etc. in good repair
Handle Animal, to train his dogs/horses and handle his livestock
Heal, to take care of wounded animals, help with birthing, etc.
Knowledge (Nature), to know about crops and weather and such
Profession (Farmer), for obvious reasons;
Survival, for pasturing sheep, hunting, predicting weather, etc.
That's the 6 skill points from class right there, and he would benefit from being human or having a high Int to pick up things like Knowledge (Local) for interacting with tax collectors and other officials, Ride if he has a large plot of land, Swim if his farm is on the river, and so forth.
That's fine for a landowner, an above average person. That would be an Expert. A serf is more in line with what you expect from a commoner. But I see your point, I agree.

However, I very much agree with true_shinken's argument. All of my campaign tweaks are fine because I tell my players beforehand "Okay, you guys are starting at level 3 for this one, so that makes you a bunch of young adults out on your first adventure; lots of folks are going to be a bit higher-level than you for a while" or "This campaign, you're starting at level 7; write up a good background and expect to be influential, 'cause you're on par with the noble scions and wizards' guilds and society will pay attention to you" or whatever the case may be. Tell the players when they create their level X characters that level X is higher or lower than average or just about normal; tell them whether their wizard or cleric is the first real spellcaster who's bothered to come out to [wherever they are] in a few months or whether there's a few dozen of each at the village temple to Boccob.
Yes, that's what I've been trying to say this whole time. Players have assumptions, if you don't tell them you're not going towards what's expect, well... they can get disappointed. Thanks for explaining it so well.

Lord_Gareth

2011-02-20, 05:48 PM

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 05:50 PM

Frozen_Feet

2011-02-20, 06:04 PM

I don't think it's all that unrealistic. Taking a farmer as an example, he might have ranks in:
Craft (Woodworking) to keep his tools/fences/barn/etc. in good repair
Handle Animal, to train his dogs/horses and handle his livestock
Heal, to take care of wounded animals, help with birthing, etc.
Knowledge (Nature), to know about crops and weather and such
Profession (Farmer), for obvious reasons;
Survival, for pasturing sheep, hunting, predicting weather, etc.
That's the 6 skill points from class right there, and he would benefit from being human or having a high Int to pick up things like Knowledge (Local) for interacting with tax collectors and other officials, Ride if he has a large plot of land, Swim if his farm is on the river, and so forth.

I think it'd help to look at what "maxed skills" at level one actually means. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10393933&postcount=22) Based on those calculations, modifier of +5 is the difference of being a complete amateur and competent enough to do something as your job. Max ranks at level 1 means +4 on its own.

Remember that level 1 is the sum of everything learned from birth to young adult - so it's the point when the character is expected to "fly off the nest" and be somewhat capable of fending for himseld.

Life in a rural environment easily requires being competent at more than two or three skills. The above set of six skills would, based on my observations of real life, be both realistic and reasonable for a common person.

If we want to hold onto the belief that majority of folks are Commoners, they must be commoners way above level 1 to have all skills they would need for everyday life.

PairO'Dice Lost

2011-02-20, 06:08 PM

I think the basic problem we're running into for this argument is that one side believes in player entitlement - players deserve to be the special, shining stars of the world - and the other (myself included) does not. Does this seem fair to say?

It's more like D&D itself runs on the premise that the players are special and some people don't tell their players they are subverting that.

I would disagree with both of these positions. D&D doesn't inherently assume PCs are special, nor do people automatically assume that PCs are special. Rather, D&D assumes that PC classes are rare and higher levels are rare--though not special; going by the DMG demographics, level 5+ wizards or level 2+ rangers or whatever aren't unique, you just aren't likely to see them everywhere--and thus that people with both, PC classes as well as the levels to make use of them, are sufficiently rare that adventuring parties have a reason to exist. PCs are "special" because they're different to a greater or lesser degree, hence the spotlight focus on them, not necessarily because they're better. Low-level PC-classed NPCs are fine, because PCs know that they can eventually outlevel them. High-level NPC-classed NPCs are fine, because PCs know that even at slightly lower levels their own classes are superior. Players can accept tons of 1st-level PC classes in a world without too many questions, and they can accept tons of high-level commoners without too many questions, because both are supported by the default demographics but put in tons of NPCs who are both high-level and PC-classed and suddenly there's a problem, because if the NPCs have your classes and your levels, what's the point?

For instance, in LotR (bad D&D example, I know, just bear with me) the Fellowship encountered several high-level NPCs and monsters (Elrond, Saruman, Shelob, etc.), but as there were only a few of them, the Fellowship was fine with this because they could logically have other things to do or other constraints on their time, so the PCs have a reason to do their quest. The Fellowship also encountered many PC-classed NPCs (e.g. every elf ever), but as the PCs had Aragorn, Gandalf, and other powerful people among them, the Fellowship was fine with this because they logically could do things that legions of mooks couldn't accomplish. If, however, they had run into a bunch of people who had the power of a Gandalf-level wizard and the prevalence of the Rohan, then there's no reason for the Fellowship to exist because they're outclassed in power and number.

TL;DR: Classed NPCs can be more powerful than the PCs, or more common than the PCs, but shouldn't be both, or there's no reason they can't do whatever they PCs are doing instead. PCs don't have to be super special snowflakes, they just have to be abnormal enough for there to be a reason for the plot to happen.

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 06:13 PM

jseah

2011-02-20, 06:21 PM

TL;DR: Classed NPCs can be more powerful than the PCs, or more common than the PCs, but shouldn't be both, or there's no reason they can't do whatever they PCs are doing instead. PCs don't have to be super special snowflakes, they just have to be abnormal enough for there to be a reason for the plot to happen.
I think that's a dangerous assumption. At least on what the players are doing.

Going into a game assuming that there's a plot, and that it revolves around your characters seems a bit strange to me.
I only just realized that this is perhaps why I always got a weird feeling from reading about other people's characters and campaigns.
A world the DM creates for the players to play in, does not necessarily have to have a plot the players *must* interact with.

I wonder where that assumption comes from?

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 06:24 PM

I wonder where that assumption comes from?
From the GM advice sections in most RPG books, I believe.

MeeposFire

2011-02-20, 06:26 PM

Because that is how stories go. Movies, books, or whatever are usually character driven. While the setting may not say it revolves around characters the stories inevitably do in most cases.

dsmiles

2011-02-20, 06:29 PM

From the GM advice sections in most RPG books, I believe. I'm a firm believer that it filtered in from earlier editions, where the DM was expected to buy published adventures (which all happened to be PC-centric). I'm also a firm believer that the world does not revolve around the PCs and their silly antics.

PairO'Dice Lost

2011-02-20, 06:30 PM

That's what I meant. You are the master of saying what I wanted to say, except better.

:smallbiggrin:

I think that's a dangerous assumption. At least on what the players are doing.

Going into a game assuming that there's a plot, and that it revolves around your characters seems a bit strange to me.
I only just realized that this is perhaps why I always got a weird feeling from reading about other people's characters and campaigns.
A world the DM creates for the players to play in, does not necessarily have to have a plot the players *must* interact with.

I wonder where that assumption comes from?

When I say "the plot" I'm not talking about a particular overarching plot that the PCs must complete, I'm talking about whatever the PCs are doing. The world doesn't have to revolve around the characters, but the game does (by definition, because they're the ones we play), so the PCs have to have something to do.

If the PCs have run into a bunch of aberrations in the sewer, the plot is "Let's kill the things living under the city." If there are a bunch of NPC rangers of higher level than the PCs, why haven't the monsters been wiped out already?

If the PCs decide to take a break from killing things and taking their stuff to help cure a village of a plague, the plot is "Let's help heal the villagers." If there are a bunch of NPC clerics of higher level than the PCs, why hasn't the plague been cured already?

And so forth. For the PCs to have something to do, the rangers and clerics and other classed NPCs have to have something to do (i.e. there aren't many classed NPCs to go around) or have to be unable to solve the problem (i.e. they aren't powerful enough), because if neither of those is true the PCs have nothing to do but sit around twiddling their thumbs.

Fox Box Socks

2011-02-20, 06:32 PM

I think that's a dangerous assumption. At least on what the players are doing.

Going into a game assuming that there's a plot, and that it revolves around your characters seems a bit strange to me.
I only just realized that this is perhaps why I always got a weird feeling from reading about other people's characters and campaigns.
A world the DM creates for the players to play in, does not necessarily have to have a plot the players *must* interact with.

I wonder where that assumption comes from?
Just speaking for myself, I go into any RPG with the assumption that the PCs are going to be the protagonists.

If I played in a game where the most important things happening at any given time were happening to NPCs halfway across the world, I would be more than slightly pissed off at the guy running the game.

Tavar

2011-02-20, 06:38 PM

true_shinken, here's a problem. Show where it's clear that the Npc's are more powerful than the PC's. Right now it just seems that they're more common, and seemingly less powerful. Where's the problem there?

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 06:40 PM

I'm a firm believer that it filtered in from earlier editions, where the DM was expected to buy published adventures (which all happened to be PC-centric). I'm also a firm believer that the world does not revolve around the PCs and their silly antics.

This is not a D&D matter. It happens on every RPG book I have ever read.

dsmiles

2011-02-20, 06:44 PM

This is not a D&D matter. It happens on every RPG book I have ever read.All of which were written after Dungeons and Dragons. Coincidence? I think not. :smallwink:

jseah

2011-02-20, 06:53 PM

For the PCs to have something to do, the rangers and clerics and other classed NPCs have to have something to do (i.e. there aren't many classed NPCs to go around) or have to be unable to solve the problem (i.e. they aren't powerful enough), because if neither of those is true the PCs have nothing to do but sit around twiddling their thumbs.
This is also another assumption I find dangerous.

Just because other people are more powerful than you does not mean they are about to solve all the problems. Specifically, they're not about to start solving *your* problems.

And even if you are going with a classical ogre invasion of some village which just happens to contain an archmage, there's nothing much to prevent the archmage from just upping and leaving with his friends and family.
Leaving the players with an ogre problem to solve and a possible division in the village. Whether they see it as a problem... well, that's the players' decision, no?

Besides, the game doesn't have to revolve around the players solving everyone else's problems. Most people don't do that, why should the players be expected to? (unless that's part of the background, but then you asked for it)

EDIT: thanks for the other replies, I don't know much about the older D&Ds and I haven't read a single module before (despite GMing a number of times)
I'll read the discussion closely.

EDIT2: not reading modules is actually a lie. I scanned through tomb of horrors before and a bit of the hyperconscious one. Perhaps a few paragraphs here and there of some others.
But I've never actually read a module from start to end with the intention of seeing if it could be a game.

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 06:58 PM

Just because other people are more powerful than you does not mean they are about to solve all the problems. Specifically, they're not about to start solving *your* problems.
Except we're talking about adventurers. They solve other people's problems. Why would the farming family need to pay an adventuring group to kill the kobold tribe when Farmer McFarmy and his daughter Miss Sorceress can solve the problem for free?

MeeposFire

2011-02-20, 07:01 PM

Except we're talking about adventurers. They solve other people's problems. Why would the farming family need to pay an adventuring group to kill the kobold tribe when Farmer McFarmy and his daughter Miss Sorceress can solve the problem for free?

Well that would depend on the cost of hiring adventurers versus the cost associated with not working for the length of time to deal with that problem wouldn't it? If it costs 10gp to hire the adventurers and it would cost you close to 10gp and put your life in danger to not work and deal with the problem yourself you might choose to hire somebody.

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 07:03 PM

Well that would depend on the cost of hiring adventurers versus the cost associated with not working for the length of time to deal with that problem wouldn't it? If it costs 10gp to hire the adventurers and it would cost you close to 10gp and put your life in danger to not work and deal with the problem yourself you might choose to hire somebody.
There are tables with costs for hiring adventurers. It's really expensive. Just consider how much you spend with each spell the wizard casts....

jseah

2011-02-20, 07:04 PM

How about putting it another way.

The players wander into a town during their travels. Many of the buildings are empty, and when questioned, the villagers mention a bunch of kobolds are infesting the area and people don't want to stay.

One farmer ex-soldier could kill a few but the whole tribe could take him down. If everyone in the village got up in arms, the kobold tribe could easily be wiped out. But since it takes a significant number of people to do it, it's hard to get momentum, especially since a few influential people just left and started the fear cascade.
Maybe some retired paladin rode in with a few other brave and good men/women and they never came back.

That's the village's problem. Whether the players choose to make *their* problem as well is up to them.

Fox Box Socks

2011-02-20, 07:13 PM

Starbuck_II

2011-02-20, 07:15 PM

There are tables with costs for hiring adventurers. It's really expensive. Just consider how much you spend with each spell the wizard casts....

Actually, no, when you hire the spellcaster he gets hazard pay if going in danger, but he doesn't charge/spell.

The spellcaster has to choose hire/day or by spell, he can't double dip.

Yahzi

2011-02-20, 07:22 PM

When his wife died,
Why didn't he go on a quest and get her Raised? I mean, it's only 5,000 gp.

And that's assuming she died from immediate, violent trauma - since nobody dies from disease or minor trauma in a world where villages have 5th level priests.

But since it takes a significant number of people to do it, it's hard to get momentum, especially since a few influential people just left and started the fear cascade.
I'm pretty sure it's harder to get momentum behind leaving your land than it is to get it behind kill those guys. I mean, taking RL as an example. And in the D&D world, where killing things is the basis for entire economies, it should be even easier. :smallbiggrin:

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 07:25 PM

Actually, no, when you hire the spellcaster he gets hazard pay if going in danger, but he doesn't charge/spell.

The spellcaster has to choose hire/day or by spell, he can't double dip.

No.

Daily wage only. Each casting of a spell costs additional money (see Hiring Spellcasters, below).
Emphasis mine.

Squark

2011-02-20, 07:25 PM

EDIT: True Shinken: That's how it works when you hire a spellcaster to cast a few, specific spells. When you hire adventurers, you pay a flat rate, and promise them the loot they find. Or do you give your PCs a higher payment for each spell they cast. :smallconfused:

Yahzi: Err, the DMG flat out states that most people don't get raised from the dead, because most people either don't have access to 5000 GP, which is an enormous amount of gold compared to what a typical farmer makes a year, or because, quite simply, most people don't feel like going back. It's generally assumed that unless a person has unfinished business (i.e. Saving the World), they find contentment in the afterlife. Of course, this is actually kind of odd. It depends a lot on how this wife died. But I think most of the people defending NPCs with PC classes have kind of moved on from this warblade farmer, so why don't we all do the same.--------------------------------------------------------------
As far as the OP's examples go- As long as the NPCs aren't upstaging the PCs (The PCs need not be the most important people in the world, but the should be the most important people in the story), I don't see a problem. If the DM did justify why these people had the class levels (An urban ranger makes sense for a journalist, the farmer could be a retired veteran (Although I think Fighter makes more sense. Martial Adepts should feel special, I feel), and Sorcery/Psionics/Favored Soul... -ery could all manifest early on in life. The troup of wizard refugees probably went a bit far, if they didn't make a point of asking for help getting a spellbook/spell components early on. Unless mages are persecuted, but that doesn't seem to be a case. Also, the wizards seem to have, "Gotten silly" indicating the OP's DM did go a bit to far).

Still, in a monster filled world, there's no reason that NPC's might pick up a PC class level or two. But if it delves into Fox Box Socks' example, where the PCs are thwarted when they try to do anything by NPC equals, then it becomes a problem.

The PCs may not be the most important people in your world (unless your playing a campaign sort of like Lord of the Rings, in which the players are the world's last hope or the like) But they are the most important people in your campaign, by virtue of being, you know, the main characters. The world doesn't need to revolve around them. But the story should, since that's part of playing an RPG- You make choices, and the world responds.

Frozen_Feet

2011-02-20, 07:32 PM

My own opinion in the matter is: the PCs may or may not be special depending on their class choice. However, they don't matter unless they make themselves matter. If my PCs dawdle around and do nothing, they're special in the same way as hairballs puked by a rare owl are; unique and extremely hard to find, and utterly useless in the same time. The world only starts revolving around the PCs if they take the effort to get at the center of it all. They can be protagonists of their own stories, without being larger-than-life in any shape or form.

They are adventurers. This means they adventure, you know, go to exotic places for the thrill of it. This means causing problems by poking your nose in the wrong place more often than solving them in any shape or form. They have the option to cease being adventurers in favor of becoming something else at any given point. They can go from actors to reactors any time they want. But if they're too passive, the world sure as hell will go on without them.

MeeposFire

2011-02-20, 07:32 PM

To be honest if you hire an adventurer (or group) you are going to pay whatever you agree to pay. If the wizard says you need to pay per spell to use him then you are going to have to pay him for that if you accept that rate (which would be dumb on the farmer's part). If I hire a party for 10 gold to kill the rats in my barn and they accept then it costs 10gp. Whether they accept that rate will be determined by a host of factors such as is 10gp a lot of money in this world?

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 07:34 PM

True Shinken: That's how it works when you hire a spellcaster. When you hire adventurers, you pay a flat rate, and promise them the loot they find. Or do you give your PCs a higher payment for each spell they cast:smallconfused:
I quoted straight from the hireling rules in A&EG. It's specifically about hirelings and bringing them into dungeons.
Player characters usually just take some money and are done with it because they choose to do so. Of course, such money is always a lot more than 20 gp anyway, so the point is moot.
But yes, your 7th level Cleric should be getting around 280gp each time he casts Cure Critical Wounds. That's the standard fare. Of course, you can choose not to charge it, as most people do. Adventuring can get you access to more wealth than simply spellcasting for hire anyway.
I should point out that there are no rules that I know of to get someone with PC levels to go into a dungeon do some work. Adventurers don't get a 'price table'.

Squark

2011-02-20, 07:37 PM

I generally assume the world doesn't operate that differently for PCs than NPCs. So I see no reason why NPC adventurers should have a byzantine form of payment if my PCs don't.

I'm going to be frank- Those rules were written with game balance in mind, not economic sense. They're meant to prevent PCs from abusing hirelings, not to base an economic system in your campaign.

NPC adventurers should behave similarly to PCs, they're just not doing stuff as important (to your campaign, at least)

EDIT: Not to nitpick, but these statements are really confusing

There are tables with costs for hiring adventurers. It's really expensive. Just consider how much you spend with each spell the wizard casts....

I should point out that there are no rules that I know of to get someone with PC levels to go into a dungeon do some work. Adventurers don't get a 'price table'.

I think I understand sort of what you're saying now, but... Can you see why someone might misunderstand you?

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 07:41 PM

NPC adventurers should behave similarly to PCs, they're just not doing stuff as important (to your campaign, at least)
Hirelings are not adventurers, that's where you got confused. Adventurers are supposed to be really rare.

Not to nitpick, but these statements are really confusing

Indeed. Sorry.

Squark

2011-02-20, 07:45 PM

AH, that's what you mean. I think the problem is, well...

Do many people use hirelings any more? I've never come across them, actually.

PairO'Dice Lost

2011-02-20, 07:46 PM

This is also another assumption I find dangerous.

Just because other people are more powerful than you does not mean they are about to solve all the problems. Specifically, they're not about to start solving *your* problems.

It's not the PCs' problems we're talking about here--remember, the OP involved NPCs needing to be rescued and a farmer whose family was mostly wiped out. The PCs made other peoples' problems their problems, and didn't like it when they turned out to be superfluous.

And even if you are going with a classical ogre invasion of some village which just happens to contain an archmage, there's nothing much to prevent the archmage from just upping and leaving with his friends and family.
Leaving the players with an ogre problem to solve and a possible division in the village. Whether they see it as a problem... well, that's the players' decision, no?

Yes, an archmage, singular. There you have an example of a single higher-level NPC, which I noted there was no problem with. Had there been a bunch of low-level wizard apprentices left behind, there would also have been no problem, as the PCs are more powerful than said apprentices and can handle the ogre better. If there had been a bunch of archmages around, both higher-level and more numerous than the PCs, that's the problem area. It's perfectly reasonable for a single person who could handle the problem to instead ignore the problem. It's perfectly reasonable for numerous people who couldn't handle the problem avoid the problem. It is not perfectly reasonable for a group of people who are strictly superior to the PCs in number and power level to avoid the problem, and then expect the PCs to handle it, because if the PCs fail then the NPCs wasted a group of PCs (when the NPCs might have been able to do the same with fewer losses/failures) and if the PCs succeed then the NPCs could have as well (trivializing the PCs' accomplishment).

Besides, the game doesn't have to revolve around the players solving everyone else's problems. Most people don't do that, why should the players be expected to? (unless that's part of the background, but then you asked for it)

It doesn't, but if and when the PCs choose to solve everyone's problems (as in the OP) they should be able to do so without worrying about being overshadowed.

How about putting it another way.

The players wander into a town during their travels. Many of the buildings are empty, and when questioned, the villagers mention a bunch of kobolds are infesting the area and people don't want to stay.

One farmer ex-soldier could kill a few but the whole tribe could take him down. If everyone in the village got up in arms, the kobold tribe could easily be wiped out. But since it takes a significant number of people to do it, it's hard to get momentum, especially since a few influential people just left and started the fear cascade.
Maybe some retired paladin rode in with a few other brave and good men/women and they never came back.

That's the village's problem. Whether the players choose to make *their* problem as well is up to them.

Once again: Many weak NPCs is not problematic; they aren't brave/coordinated/etc. enough to stand up to the kobolds. One more powerful NPC is not problematic; he can't do everything himself. Many more powerful NPCs is problematic. The situation in the OP seemed to imply that the PCs weren't needed because the farmer and wizards could take care of themselves; in this scenario, if the ex-soldier farmers were more powerful and more numerous than the PCs, how could you expect the PCs to solve anything? If it's "because they're the protagonists/they're Heroes" you get back to the PC-centric world problem.

Starbuck_II

2011-02-20, 07:55 PM

Hirelings are not adventurers, that's where you got confused. Adventurers are supposed to be really rare.

Indeed. Sorry.

Wow you are right A&EG does list adept as 3 sp/day + spellcasting rates.

But A&EG does list hiring PC class NPCs. 1 gp/level/day (example is Fighter 1 is 1 gp/day). Interestingly, hiring a Leader NPC grants his followers +1 AC/hit.
Why do NPCs get these abilities but not PCs?

AH, that's what you mean. I think the problem is, well...

Do many people use hirelings any more? I've never come across them, actually.

I've never had a DM allow it, but otherwise I would.

true_shinken

2011-02-20, 08:00 PM

But A&EG does list hiring PC class NPCs. 1 gp/level/day (example is Fighter 1 is 1 gp/day). Interestingly, hiring a Leader NPC grants his followers +1 AC/hit.
Why do NPCs get these abilities but not PCs?
Well, it mentions you can get a Fighter as the leader of a group of mercenaries for 1gp/level/day. You specifically only get a Fighter and you specifically need to hire other mercenaries as well and the leader must be at least a level ahead of them.
As for that, well, it's an ability the mercenary captains get. It's not like the PCs can't get similar stuff. DMGII has a section just for unique abilities such as this.

archon_huskie

2011-02-20, 09:03 PM

There is an article about calibrating expectations in DnD a year ago. It deals with the notion that people need to be high level and have a lot of ranks in skills to be competant.
http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html

To skip to the meat and bones of the article let's take an average level 1 commoner who is a blacksmith.

He's got - +4 skill ranks in craft(blacksmithing), +3 from the Feat skill Focus: craft(blacksmithing), +2 from an assistant or mastercraft tools, +1 Intelligence Modify. That's total of +10 bonus check. The commoner could take 10 and mastercraft an item.

Now give this commoner an 18 Int (+4), both the assistant and mastercraft tools, and make him a dwarf. He now has a +17 bonus to his rolls. So that's a 37 when he rolls a nat 20. At level 1, he's making near legendary items!

MickJay

2011-02-20, 09:06 PM

From the GM advice sections in most RPG books, I believe.

To be honest, I much more enjoy a game where there is a plot, and PCs can interact with the world (and have an impact on what is happening), but they don't have to do it. Village under attack? If it's assumed that this is part of THE PLOT!, PCs will obviously stay and help defend it. If PCs don't feel there's a plot they should be following, they might decide and help, or just move on. And if they choose the latter, they won't necessarily be "punished" for not following a particular plot hook, either. They might later regret their decision (or not), but the world will move on anyway. This approach tends to create (as far as I'm concerned) a much more realistic, less prone to meta-gaming and ultimately immersible world.

In short, I find an open-ended and multiple-path environment with which PCs can interact much better than a highly developed plot that is revolving around the party.

As to whether NPCs should have class levels or not - it depends purely on what sort of game the GM has in mind. If already a level 3 PC group is supposed to be a band of saviors for the oppressed commoners, then class levels of NPCs should be kept to a minimum; if level 7 PCs are meant to only to start being exceptional, then there's going to be a lot of NPCs with 1-5 PC levels.

Savannah

2011-02-20, 09:56 PM

Let's say you're a Rogue. You get in a small village and you try to sell a fake statue. You fail, because the salesperson is a retired Beguiler. You manage to run, but you lose valuable gold with wand charges during your escape. You try to get some extra money, so you use Sleight of Hand to pick someone's pocket. It turns out this dude is actually a Swordsage and he beats the living crap out of you. You get thrown in jail. You use Escape Artist and go through the bars, but the guards are all Dungeoncrasher Fighters and they ping-pong you around.
See my point yet?

Well....I see where we disagree. See, I'd just work harder next time. I don't expect my characters to be able to do risky things (sell fake goods, pick pockets, bust out of jail) without injury. They're adventurers; basically everything they do carries significant risk. Besides, I'd have a party with me to help out, even if they were hanging back while I was picking the guy's pocket. (If I didn't have a party, then I'd expect the DM to lower the difficulty, perhaps by making the NPCs lower level, to compensate). I still wouldn't expect the DM to let me know in advance what he's done with demographics* Oh and while we're on your examples, dungeon crasher fighters still don't have Spot or Listen as class skills. If I flub my Hide and Move silently checks then, yeah, I'm going to get my ass kicked for trying to break out of jail; that's the point of guards.

*This is assuming the DM is reasonable. If he's deliberately trying to kill my character, that's one thing and something I want to know in advance. If his world just happens to be a dangerous place but he's being fair, I'll figure it out as I go.

Serpentine

2011-02-20, 10:08 PM

AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGH CHILD LOST MY WHOLE HUGE POST ARGH.
I can't bring myself to try to type it again right now. I'll just say this: Every "problem" you come up with, I can come up with half a dozen perfectly reasonable reasons why it happens that way. And I think the problem is that you're looking at these NPCs as classes in a rules-governed world where things like Resurrection are "freely" available and render death harmless. We (or at least, I) see them as imperfect, scared people with with their own fears, priorities and risk thresholds, with stories and backgrounds and their own reasons for doing the things they do - which, by the way, don't actually have to make all that much sense, because people don't always make much sense.

Also: multiclassing, Shuriken was strawmanning with the whole "all farmers are Warblades!" nonsense, and the most I feel the need to inform my players about the demographics of my world is what's necessary for them to make their characters - more often about race than about level.

Fhaolan

2011-02-21, 01:39 AM

Agree with Serpentine. People are people.

<Had a long post, decided to remove it. It didn't contribute to any ongoing discussion, and I'm not sure there is actually a discussion going on here. Just people listing points at each other.>

jseah

2011-02-21, 03:09 AM

It doesn't, but if and when the PCs choose to solve everyone's problems (as in the OP) they should be able to do so without worrying about being overshadowed.
Thanks for your response, but this bit is what we probably disagree on.

Solving other people's problems is hard. The players are a random bunch of strangers after all, what makes them able to solve the problem?

I feel that by garuanteeing the players ability to solve someone else's problems (or be the only people to reasonably try to), you give them way too much slack.
It's just weird to me.

MeeposFire

2011-02-21, 03:17 AM

Why bother putting problems in a story if you do not want the protagonists to solve the problem most of the time. Stories tend to revolve around protagonists. It seems kind of strange to often put obstacles into the character's path that they cannot solve. You might as well make it a footnote and move on for the most part since they cannot do anything.

Ravens_cry

2011-02-21, 03:20 AM

It's one thing to be overshadowed, its quite another to feel 'Hey, why am I the only one doing anything?' with the NPC as gormless wretches with nothing to do but twiddle their thumbs till the heroes arrive.:smallyuk:

MeeposFire

2011-02-21, 03:32 AM

Ravens_cry

2011-02-21, 03:42 AM

Of course there are NPCs that can handle their own problems but the story is not about them so we can conveniently ignore those stories. We need only concern ourselves with the character's stories which should involve doing things that they do, not watching the DM's NPCs doing stuff, that is best left to the DM's imagination or something. If you do not like the situation because you feel that the local populace can do the job then the DM has failed to provide convincing quests but that is different from saying the game should not revolve around the protagonists which the game very well should.
It may be a puppet show, but you should still hide the strings. One way to do that is to make it so the NPC feel like the have lives and motivations and concerns that don't directly affect the the player or even the present crises, like they might very well be capable of taking care of other problems, even most, but this, this is beyond them for whatever reason.
In a sandboxier world, this means they will in fact need to be capable, and many of the "PC" classes can help with that.

PairO'Dice Lost

2011-02-21, 03:46 AM

Thanks for your response, but this bit is what we probably disagree on.

Solving other people's problems is hard. The players are a random bunch of strangers after all, what makes them able to solve the problem?

I feel that by garuanteeing the players ability to solve someone else's problems (or be the only people to reasonably try to), you give them way too much slack.
It's just weird to me.

Note I never said they have to be able to solve everyone's problems, or be successful in solving others' problems; they just simply shouldn't be rendered superfluous due to the NPCs' own capabilities more often than not. Again, the OP mentioned two scenarios like this, one in which the "kidnapped refugees" were actually wizards who were able to handle themselves once they got their spell component pouches back, the other in which a farmer was a warblade and his daughter a sorceress (and presumably this was revealed when they handled things on their own instead of the PCs).

These situations aren't a problem in and of themselves--in fact, it's more realistic to not have the NPCs be useless pansies, as Ravens_cry mentioned, but rather have them take responsibility for themselves sometimes--but the problem comes in when this is a regular occurrence. This comes down to the either/or point again: a bunch of weaker NPCs who can mostly hold their own but need a bit of PC help are good for forging relationships and showing a living world, the very occasional competent NPC who can breeze through things the PCs can't is good for giving PCs some connections and showing the PCs that protagonists are not unique, but frequent use of NPCs who don't need or want the PCs involved in any way simply makes the presence of the PCs pointless.

Serpentine

2011-02-21, 03:46 AM

Well, there's two big aspects that come to my mind:
1. Right place, right time (or wrong, as the case may be). The party just happens to keep turning up at just the right time to be the NPCs best option.
2. It's their job. If you want to, you could grow your own food, weave your own clothes and build your own house. But instead, you buy your food from the grocery store, buy your clothes from clothing shops, and hire builders to build your house. Why? You could do it too, so why don't you? In the same way, farmers and shopkeepers don't go out and destroy kobold mines because that's not their job - it's adventurers' jobs. Let them take all the risks.

I once had an encounter which involved a family of wyverns using a fairly busy road as their hunting grounds. The party turned up, and killed them all (all of them. Including the baby wyverns. I was a bit disturbed by that... I guess it's better than letting them starve to death, though...). A bit further down the road, they came across a group of soldiers from the next decent-sized town down - all with their own personal PC classes. They were on their way to take out these wyverns that were making the road so extra-dangerous. If the PCs hadn't gotten their first, they would have succeeded - quite possibly with more injuries, but they would've done the trick. But the PCs did get there first. And the soldiers didn't really mind having the job done for them (although they were a bit uncomfortable about the whole "slaughter of babies" thing too...).

MeeposFire

2011-02-21, 03:52 AM

JamesonCourage

2011-02-21, 05:11 AM

I would like to point out I am not saying you should not do your best to make a believable world if you want to put forth that effort. I am just rebuking the idea that the protagonists are not the center of the game. If having NPCs with a bunch of class levels that are smart and competent help you get into a game that is fine so long as the protagonists are still doing important things and are still the center of the story.

Yea the town guard can be used to keep order in the streets and can be shown to do that effectively, they may still need to hire a group of heroes to infiltrate the thieves guild and our party is there in the nick of time.

I'd suggest people read through this thread I started on another board:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/301505-players-heroes.html

It effectively discusses this exact issue, and it is very recent. There are arguments for several different play styles.

Personally, I much prefer the world where the PCs are not inherently important. They can be, mind you, but they are owed nothing simply for being a PC. But this gets discussed at some length in the thread, and if you have questions, there's a good chance someone has brought up a similar point of view to your own in that thread.

faceroll

2011-02-21, 06:28 AM

Just because you are talented doesn't necessitate that you have the interest to solve a problem. It's often cheaper and safer and more pleasant to hire someone else to solve the problem. You are busy using your talents for something more rewarding. Why are their immigrants digging ditches? I know many college kids that are physically more fit, more educated, and have great skills in some wizardly discipline, but they will go on to hire people that are their inferior in almost every way. Why would they do that?

Most of you have the ability to clean out your own septic tank, yet you'll hire someone else to do it. Most of you can cook, but you'll spend more money on purchasing things other people put together for you. Why?

Care to tell me why he isn't a soldier, gains a lot more money and provides for his family a lot better?

Because he doesn't want to be away from his family for months at a time, leaving them alone to fend off rapacious bandits. His wife doesn't want him to come home with the scent of death on him anymore. He's seen enough killing. He wants to turn to an honest trade. Swords to plowshares. He has an old injury that prevents him from fighting professionally. It is too dangerous, he has a child now. He lost his father when he was a child, he doesn't want his daughter to grow up without a dad.

etc etc etc etc etc
and etc

I completely agree. This is an example of a player complaining of a world where this does not seem to be done consistently. Looks like everyone they meet has special abilities. And that just ain't right.

Why

Heck, I have trouble thinking of seven skills I have (let's, see... Knowledge (history), Knowledge (local), Sense Motive, Speak Language, Bluff, maybe Jump from the basketball years and that's about it). And I'm a very educated person, I speak three languages dabbling in many others and I'm taking my second college course. Do you really think most average people get that many skill points? In a society where you don't get as much access to teaching as out own?

But can you craft anything, build anything, hold a profession, handle an animal, or ride a horse. I think you're selling the abilities of those without book learnin' short, I'm afraid.

There are tables with costs for hiring adventurers. It's really expensive. Just consider how much you spend with each spell the wizard casts....

Those are for NPC hirelings. Guess why they're hiring the PCs?

Squark

2011-02-21, 07:31 AM

I see no problem with giving the local village a decent number of fighters among their number; It makes sense that they can repel wolves/bandits when the PCs aren't around, they could easily have served in the military for a while before they got their land, and it makes it realistic that the village can at least hold out for a little while if the PCs fail to stop whatever threat the village is facing (so the PCs have time to come up with a new plan).

I'm not saying these village fighters should upstage the PCs. They shouldn't, and I don't think any of us are actually arguing that.

Tyndmyr

2011-02-21, 08:08 AM

It's a pattern i'm seeing in the current game i'm in. Just about every NPC we meet turns out to have a class level or two. Our DM handwaved it as that the setting is so ridiculously dangerous that almost every1 gets a class level or two for survival. Off the top of my head, we've met:

NPCs with PC classes aren't inherently bad. After all, it'd be a weird world if the party wizard were the only one in existence.

*A random farmer family (or what's left of them) which turned out to have a warblade and a loli sorceress.

Ok, this one's a bit odd. Warblade could be justified by ex soldier, etc...and sorcery does just happen...but in such a case, they should no longer be random farmer scenery, but NPCs of some importance. Even in a tiny village, having magical powers is worth a fair bit.

*A barkeep with rogue when a fight broke out. Apparently most of the others were fighters.

I won't blink at that. Bartenders traditionally have PC levels. Hell, half of them are retired PC adventurers. At the rate bar fights happen in D&D world, they have to be. Generic fighters drinking in a bar isn't that big a thing.

*Kidnapped refugees which turned out to be low level wizards. apparently they got separated from their components and all of them prepared spells requiring them at the time and they were fresh out of cantrips. Things quickly got silly when they got them back.

That's a touch odd. Sounds like a dose of handwavium.

*An annoying journalist who turned out to have a couple of ranger.

Seems like an unusual mix, unless it's an urban variant.

true_shinken

2011-02-21, 11:20 AM

Also: multiclassing, Shuriken was strawmanning with the whole "all farmers are Warblades!" nonsense, and the most I feel the need to inform my players about the demographics of my world is what's necessary for them to make their characters - more often about race than about level.

IT'S SHINKEN DAMNIT >.<
And that's not a strawman. It's what the OP is complaining about - there are so much capable NPCs around that they needing the player characters' help breaks verossimilitude.

Serpentine

2011-02-21, 11:25 AM

No, he wasn't. He listed exactly one (1) Warblade farmer, and absolutely noone is saying it is a-okay for every farmer to be a warblade. Thus, your
Do you need your farmers to be Warblades for that?... Not having all farmers be Warblades is hardly having the rest of the world suck.is pure strawmanning.

Tyndmyr

2011-02-21, 11:34 AM

No, he wasn't. He listed exactly one (1) Warblade farmer, and absolutely noone is saying it is a-okay for every farmer to be a warblade. Thus, your is pure strawmanning.

Right. One farmer being a warblade? That you can justify easily with some backstory.

However, if that sort of thing becomes common, there's a problem. While he didn't actually say "every farmer is a warblade", he did say that they all have class levels. When the farming family resembles an adventuring party, you live in a very odd world indeed.

dsmiles

2011-02-21, 11:39 AM

IT'S SHINKEN DAMNIT >.<
And that's not a strawman. It's what the OP is complaining about - there are so much capable NPCs around that they needing the player characters' help breaks verossimilitude.
What I'm still trying to figure out is how the characters know anything about classes let alone what class an NPC is without meta-game information to begin with. That's not something a character would know. "What class are you?" is usually met with a, "What the hell are you talking about, are you a psycho or something?" in any IC context.

Tyndmyr

2011-02-21, 11:42 AM

Well, all the casters, I can see. The levels of ranger/warblade, I dunno why they're coming up. I mean, there are situations in which it would be obvious, but if this is really happening for each NPC you meet, it strikes me as an unusual amount of NPCs fighting things while players watch. Definitely odd.

true_shinken

2011-02-21, 11:46 AM

What I'm still trying to figure out is how the characters know anything about classes let alone what class an NPC is without meta-game information to begin with. That's not something a character would know. "What class are you?" is usually met with a, "What the hell are you talking about, are you a psycho or something?" in any IC context.

Both spells and maneuvers can be identified with skills. What I think happened here, though, is that the DM told them. Like 'don't mess with this guy, he is a warblade' or something like that.

No, he wasn't. He listed exactly one (1) Warblade farmer, and absolutely noone is saying it is a-okay for every farmer to be a warblade. Thus, your is pure strawmanning.
Not really. I'm just using 'farmers as warblades' as a shorthand for 'too many NPCs with levels in powerful PC classes making the world lose verossimilitude'. Sorry if it came out otherwise.
Even then, it wouldn't a strawman, it would be reductio at absurdum, but nevermind.

Gnome Alone

2011-02-21, 11:49 AM

No, he wasn't. He listed exactly one (1) Warblade farmer, and absolutely noone is saying it is a-okay for every farmer to be a warblade. Thus, your is pure strawmanning.

It's not a strawman argument, it's evocative - he's using the idea of all farmers being warblades as a shorthand for the OP's DM's ludicrous over-powering of every seemingly unimportant background character.

And it's not that silly of an example, because every time shinken or someone else says something to the effect of: the Lord of the Rings doesn't work if Pippin, Fatty Bolger and Sam's dad all have Gandalf-level aptitude, a bunch of people propose some ludicrously convoluted scenario justifying NPC super-powers. Which can work if it's just an occasional thing, but the OP has it happening to him all the freakin' time. And then every time someone points that out, people chime in with the idea that the protagonists shouldn't be the center of the story. Huh?

I mean, they don't have to be the most powerful people around to be the center of the story, but if nearly every single Conrad Commoner is swimming with arcane energy or martial adeptitude, yeah, why shouldn't the PCs just retire and become barkeeps themselves? Because the warblade farmer is lazy and the PCs are bored? Not the most compelling storytelling I've ever heard.

true_shinken

2011-02-21, 11:55 AM

I mean, they don't have to be the most powerful people around to be the center of the story, but if nearly every single Conrad Commoner is swimming with arcane energy or martial adeptitude, yeah, why shouldn't the PCs just retire and become barkeeps themselves? Because the warblade farmer is lazy and the PCs are bored? Not the most compelling storytelling I've ever heard.
You, sir, are awesome. I get surprised how often someone here in the playground says exactly what I wanted to say a lot better than I ever could. Have a cookie.

dsmiles

2011-02-21, 12:00 PM

Both spells and maneuvers can be identified with skills.Ah, but not classes. Perhaps the farmer is just a guy who was trained in the local militia, which happened to be led by someone who knew some maneuvers (Expert/Commoner with the Martial Study/Martial Stance feats). Militiamen are not full-time soldiers. Did they actually see the budding young sorceress cast any spells? Did they even make skill checks to identify them? If magic runs in the blood, does it even matter if she's a sorceress and her father isn't? Perhaps it skips a generation. Perhaps the DM has a system in place to determine whether any given NPC has magic in the blood. I know I do, and it's not something the characters need to be privy to. I use the same system with random psionics. Need the players know beforehand? Not particularly. That's all meta-game information. Players need only concern themselves that some people can naturally use magic/psionics (sorcerers/wilders), and some can't. The system doesn't matter to the player characters because they get to choose their class.
Leaving a little mystery to the world breaks verisimilitude less than knowing every single mechanic behind the creation of the world, IMO. Mechanics are a meta-game concept. Meta-gaming is the worst culprit in the "breaking verisimilitude" camp.

Gnome Alone

2011-02-21, 12:02 PM

You, sir, are awesome. I get surprised how often someone here in the playground says exactly what I wanted to say a lot better than I ever could. Have a cookie.

Aw, shucks. Delicious cookie.

true_shinken

2011-02-21, 12:14 PM

Mechanics are a meta-game concept. Meta-gaming is the worst culprit in the "breaking verisimilitude" camp.
You're ignoring the very real possibility that the DM just told them 'this is a warblade, his daughter is a sorcerer'. You're going to great lenghts to create conjectures basically saying the OP is wrong - and this is all wild conjecture. What we do know and what the OP did tell us, is that the farmer was a warblade and his daughter was a sorcerer. As far as we know, those are facts.
But a high level Commoner optimized for combat because he is a veteran is a pretty good idea, actually. Might use that one eventually.

dsmiles

2011-02-21, 12:22 PM

You're ignoring the very real possibility that the DM just told them 'this is a warblade, his daughter is a sorcerer'. You're going to great lenghts to create conjectures basically saying the OP is wrong - and this is all wild conjecture. What we do know and what the OP did tell us, is that the farmer was a warblade and his daughter was a sorcerer. As far as we know, those are facts.
But a high level Commoner optimized for combat because he is a veteran is a pretty good idea, actually. Might use that one eventually.If that's the case, and the DM is putting that sort of meta-game information out there, then he's in the wrong for doing that, but not for making the farmer a warblade, and his daughter a sorceress. The players have no need to know the classes of NPCs.

EDIT: Who says the commoner needs to be high level? A 3rd level Human commoner gets 3 feats. Martial Study (x2) and Martial Stance. Instant militiaman.

mrcarter11

2011-02-21, 12:39 PM

Almost all my NPC's have PC class levels. The reason is because I generally have PC's fight NPC's rather then monsters.. I use a homebrew world that I built ftr. And the reason I use NPC's for combat, rather then monsters is I find class levels present a more difficult fight for the PC's.. If the game is gestalt, you better believe that the NPC's you have to fight are too. I don't use the NPC classes, your average people are gonna be rogues, rangers, fighters, barbarians, that sort. I can see a lot of people being wizards, simply because of the power it represents. Maybe not huge level ones, but level 5-6 at least. Almost everyone has something that they are good at. That something could be related to their intelligence, meaning I don't see what's wrong with building NPC's have a 30 PB..

true_shinken

2011-02-21, 12:45 PM

If that's the case, and the DM is putting that sort of meta-game information out there, then he's in the wrong for doing that, but not for making the farmer a warblade, and his daughter a sorceress. The players have no need to know the classes of NPCs.
Again, the problem is not that one farmer was a warblade. The problem is that everyone in the game seems to be as capable as the player characters or more and yet they depend on the player characters to solve their problems.

[B]Who says the commoner needs to be high level? A 3rd level Human commoner gets 3 feats. Martial Study (x2) and Martial Stance. Instant militiaman.
I just figured he was a farmer first, then was trained to do battle, then went back to being a farmer.
I just noticed maneuvers suck for large scale battle, though.

Almost all my NPC's have PC class levels. The reason is because I generally have PC's fight NPC's rather then monsters.. I use a homebrew world that I built ftr. And the reason I use NPC's for combat, rather then monsters is I find class levels present a more difficult fight for the PC's..
That's your gaming style and I won't discuss it. But apart from cheesed spellcasters, monsters are a lot tougher than people with class levels.

If the game is gestalt, you better believe that the NPC's you have to fight are too.
Well, if you kick the NPC classes out of the window, the gestalt rules even agree with you.

I don't use the NPC classes, your average people are gonna be rogues, rangers, fighters, barbarians, that sort. I can see a lot of people being wizards, simply because of the power it represents. Maybe not huge level ones, but level 5-6 at least. Almost everyone has something that they are good at. That something could be related to their intelligence, meaning I don't see what's wrong with building NPC's have a 30 PB..
Let me just make sure that I got this straight. Most people in your world are around levels 5 and 6 and a lot of them are wizards, because they are more powerful?
I take this is a world where there is no entertainment as well, where people rely on Create Food traps to eat, where no one hires a Fighter because they are weak (specially because a lot of people are wizards).
And of course people are good at stuff. You need people that are good at farming, people that are good at weaving baskets, people that are good with cooking, people that are good at cleaning. Or you can have everyone be wizards and solve everything with magic. Hello, Tippyvere.

dsmiles

2011-02-21, 12:52 PM

Again, the problem is not that one farmer was a warblade. The problem is that everyone in the game seems to be as capable as the player characters or more and yet they depend on the player characters to solve their problems.Are they? "A class level or two" (as the OP puts it) doesn't make them even as capable as a 3rd-4th level character, let alone more powerful. Unless the DM is uber-optimizing said NPCs and the PCs are kind of lackluster builds.

I just figured he was a farmer first, then was trained to do battle, then went back to being a farmer.
I just noticed maneuvers suck for large scale battle, though.That's a reasonable assumption, and yes, yes they do. Full attack is the better option in large scale battles. (More attacks = more hits = more damage = more killin'.)
However, in party-sized battles, maneuvers are clearly superior. (One hit with more damage = more chance of killing a single monster.)

true_shinken

2011-02-21, 12:54 PM

Are they? "A class level or two" (as the OP puts it) doesn't make them even as capable as a 3rd-4th level character, let alone more powerful. Unless the DM is uber-optimizing said NPCs and the PCs are kind of lackluster builds.
Yes, they are. Didn't you see the refugee wizards example?

dsmiles

2011-02-21, 01:02 PM

Yes, they are. Didn't you see the refugee wizards example?Wizards are already lousy with overpoweredness. Why would a low-level wizard separated from his/her components and thrown in a cell with no component-free spells available and later rejoined with their components and proceeding to pwn the battlefield be any different from a low-level PC wizard pwning the battlefield. Low level NPC wizards do exist you know, and they're just as overpowered as low-level PC wizards.

bloodtide

2011-02-21, 02:13 PM

Let's say you're a Rogue. You get in a small village and you try to sell a fake statue. You fail, because the salesperson is a retired Beguiler. You manage to run, but you lose valuable gold with wand charges during your escape. You try to get some extra money, so you use Sleight of Hand to pick someone's pocket. It turns out this dude is actually a Swordsage and he beats the living crap out of you. You get thrown in jail. You use Escape Artist and go through the bars, but the guards are all Dungeoncrasher Fighters and they ping-pong you around.
See my point yet?

This is a bit extreme. But even in this type of world the rogue can get along. Maybe he does not try to sell the statue to a good salesperson, that is always a mistake for a thief or con man. You want to seek out an easy target not a wise savvy one. The same goes with picking a pocket, you go for a soft target. If a guy looks 'tough' at all, go to the next guy. In fact, you want the fat rich guy. And there are lots of ways to get out of a jam.

But also, the rogue PC should be optimized for things he wants to do. So vs another non-optimized NPC they should still have a good chance of winning.

But, you also don't want the other extreme: Rogue guy sells a fake item for thousands of gold, heck he sells dozens of them. He can out do all most every single useless NPC in the world. and he can pick the pocket of anyone, as they have no chance of detecting him. And if he was in a jail, he could just just leave no problem. This does not make for a fun adventure. It might be fun for a bit to 'auto win' at everything, but it will get boring. You need conflict, that is things going badly, to have fun.

The Cat Goddess

2011-02-21, 02:56 PM

I played in a very long running campaign (to the point where we started playing the children of our previous PCs).

In this game from the beginning, it was clear there were some NPCs who were capable of completely out-classing the PCs. But usually, those NPCs had problems of their own to deal with. In fact, one of the storylines was us having to convince the world-weary super-swordsman to defeat the enemy kingdom's despotic sword-master Emperor. It was also up to the PCs to get the NPC in, since he might have been the best swordsman around... he wasn't exactly good at sneaking.

While the game progressed, we learned more and more about the world. We would hear of heroes in other lands doing great things... and be inspired to be heroes that those NPCs would hear stories of.

Sure, not every NPC was someone amazing... but most every NPC we met (not just saw working in the fields, but actually talked to) was someone... and that made the whole world that much more alive for us.

papr_weezl8472

2011-02-21, 03:20 PM

The Cat Goddess

2011-02-21, 03:31 PM

I've played in games where there were NPCs in the world that were powerful enough to solve all the world's problems and bored enough to have nothing in particular better to do than help the PCs. That sort of thing totally kills any sense of significance to player actions. I can understand these objections as well as anyone.

At the same time, I don't see the DMG guidelines as being some sort of perfect ideal for NPC power demographics. I've had good times in games where the average Joe was a good bit more powerful than those guidelines would suggest.

I'm not suggesting that having every random person built like a PC is a good way of doing things. I suppose it could probably be done well and tastefully, rather than how the OP (waaay back in the beginning of the thread) described his game. But at the same time, there's plenty of room to deviate heavily from the DMG guides and still have a compelling and believable setting.

If you assume a D-n-D game with Wizards in it...
and you assume that there are Wizard schools...
and you assume that there are 9th level spells...

Isn't it likely that there will be 17th+ level Wizards?

Sure, the Grand ArchMage could solve the problem of the rampaging Giants... but he's a busy guy! Those Eldritch Horrors aren't going to research themselves, after all... Let the PC's handle the Giant problem.

pasko77

2011-02-21, 03:31 PM

But you have to concede that a Warblade farmer with a Sorcerer daughter is a stretch. "Oh, I learned the way of the nine swords one day, while growing crops."

No, you don't understand. I invented these movements while growing crops. :smalltongue:

dsmiles

2011-02-21, 03:33 PM

Wax on, wax off, Daniel-san. :smallwink:

Roc Ness

2011-02-21, 03:38 PM

I've never used NPC classes, ever.

That said, I find a Warblade farmer with a Sorceress daughter as something that stretches my belief. I probably would have just gave them a single level of Human Paragon, just about equivalent to two levels of Commoner.

mrcarter11

2011-02-21, 03:52 PM

To the wizards thing: Not quite, I was merely saying I see no point in making it something rare. It's a class, that of course people would see the power in, so yes people are drawn to it. Earlier in the thread, it was mentioned how Wizards are a rare class, and I don't think that's right..

MickJay

2011-02-21, 04:24 PM

I've played in games where there were NPCs in the world that were powerful enough to solve all the world's problems and bored enough to have nothing in particular better to do than help the PCs. That sort of thing totally kills any sense of significance to player actions. I can understand these objections as well as anyone.

That hardly makes PCs actions less significant. There is a problem, and it needs to be solved. Since a powerful NPC is not going to deal with this (despite the fact that he or she could), the problem won't go away on its own, and it will be every bit as severe. Ultimately, it is up to the PCs to ensure that the village isn't destroyed by orcs, that a curse is lifted from a princess, that the food caravan reaches the starving people. Perhaps that wizard living in his lofty tower could have had solved all these problems without leaving home, but he didn't. It's the PCs who are heroes - they cared enough to help, and presumably it came at a price. Their actions changed the world (presumably for the better) every bit as much as they would have if that wizard wasn't there.

Fox Box Socks

2011-02-21, 04:26 PM

Perhaps it's my 4th edition showing, but I've always kind of been confused why NPCs needed levels, period.

dsmiles

2011-02-21, 04:27 PM

Perhaps it's my 4th edition showing, but I've always kind of been confused why NPCs needed levels, period.No, that's your AD&D showing. Pretty much all unimportant NPCs were 0-level humanoids.

Ravens_cry

2011-02-21, 04:36 PM

Perhaps it's my 4th edition showing, but I've always kind of been confused why NPCs needed levels, period.
It's your fourth edition showing that more explicitly separates the PC from the NPC. This can also be seen in first edition AD&D where there was human brigands separately stated out in the Monster Manual.
I personally dislike the separation of PC and NPC. If a NPC can do something unless inherent to that type of creature, so can, in theory, the PC. Otherwise, it just feels arbitrary to me.

Fox Box Socks

2011-02-21, 05:18 PM

Maybe I'm dragging this conversation off in an ugly direction, but my only DMing experiences are with 3.5 and 4e (I played a bit of AD&D, but never ran a game). And when I was running 3.5, the most annoying part, more annoying than the learning curve or the "I'm playing X build" problem or the various balance issues, was that NPCs were built with the exact same tools that PCs were.

Beyond level 8 or so, it would often take me an hour or more to create interesting NPCs. Sometimes they would be epic villains or evil henchmen that would last as antagonists for multiple sessions, or even entire campaigns. Mostly though? They had a life expectancy of 5 rounds. I could make a Hobgoblin Warblade, give him a neat backstory, comb through books and optimization guides to give him a unique combat hook that would make him stand out from the other mooks, and then he would confront the PCs and, after putting up a good fight, get slaughtered. Which is fine; he's a bad guy, his job was to provide a difficult challenge that can eventually be overcome. But I put so much time and effort into him only to have him get blinded by Glitterdust, then cut to pieces by the party's meatshield. Figuring out how to accomplish what I wanted my monsters to do via feats and hit dice and skill points and obscure prestige classes was really, really time consuming. And I'm a busy man, with a job and bills and obligations and stuff to do, so time was a commodity.

Eventually I started cutting corners. First it was making up prestige classes that let them do what I wanted them to do. If I wanted a guy to be able to cast spell X in addition to his other abilities and didn't want the party to get their hands on a magic item that lets them cast spell X, then bad guy took one level of "DM Says So", which gives you spell X as a spell-like ability 3 times a day and conveniently has the same hit dice, skills, BAB/Save progression, and class features as whatever class that guy was before. From there, it was a short jump to making up feats that the PCs couldn't take that did arbitrary things like "you gain as much spell resistance as I think you need to have in order to not get killed" or "you gain a huge bonus to all your saves so that the Wizard doesn't one-shot you with Flesh to Stone or whatever". I did this for a while, then it hit me; if I was making up feats and prestige classes for my NPCs to take just so they could do what I wanted them to do, why did they need feats and prestige classes at all? Why couldn't I just set their saves and AC and abilities the way I wanted to?"

I know that the PCs being built with the same tools it takes to build NPCs is something that's rather important to a lot of people, because it gives the system a sense of uniformity, that a Wizard 20 became a Wizard 20 the exact same way that evil Fighter10/Cleric10 became a Fighter10/Cleric10. But it was a lot of work for minimal reward for me. I was initially wary of 4e's focus on powers and surges and diagonal movement not costing extra (Pythagoras, dammit, Pythagoras!), but learning that NPCs were built as NPCs and not as PCs is was convinced me that the system was worth a shot.

true_shinken

2011-02-21, 06:12 PM

This is a bit extreme. But even in this type of world the rogue can get along. Maybe he does not try to sell the statue to a good salesperson, that is always a mistake for a thief or con man. You want to seek out an easy target not a wise savvy one. The same goes with picking a pocket, you go for a soft target. If a guy looks 'tough' at all, go to the next guy. In fact, you want the fat rich guy. And there are lots of ways to get out of a jam.
This is my point. That easy target for a con? He is a Duskblade. The soft target for the pickpocketing? Tough luck, he is a Druid. The fat rich guy? Artificer. Get my reasoning? In a world where everyone has PC classes, there are no soft targets, no weak people to protect, no one normal.

If you assume a D-n-D game with Wizards in it...
and you assume that there are Wizard schools...
and you assume that there are 9th level spells...

Isn't it likely that there will be 17th+ level Wizards?

Sure, the Grand ArchMage could solve the problem of the rampaging Giants... but he's a busy guy! Those Eldritch Horrors aren't going to research themselves, after all... Let the PC's handle the Giant problem.
The DMG guidelines for demographics show that yes, there are level 17 wizards, but they are very very very rare.

To the wizards thing: Not quite, I was merely saying I see no point in making it something rare. It's a class, that of course people would see the power in, so yes people are drawn to it. Earlier in the thread, it was mentioned how Wizards are a rare class, and I don't think that's right..
Becoming a wizard is very hard. You need another wizard to teach you. Wizards don't go around teaching everyone their tricks. There is plenty of reasons for wizards to be rare. In fact, I only know of one setting where wizards (make that spellcasters) are somewhat common (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_Tail) and even then, it's only 1/10th of the population.

Savannah

2011-02-21, 06:17 PM

Frozen_Feet

2011-02-21, 06:22 PM

This is my point. That easy target for a con? He is a Duskblade. The soft target for the pickpocketing? Tough luck, he is a Druid. The fat rich guy? Artificer. Get my reasoning? In a world where everyone has PC classes, there are no soft targets, no weak people to protect, no one normal.

Agree with Savannah here. You reasoning does not apply if the PCs and other threats are higher level than the general populace.

A level 10 Commoner is a tough cookie compared to Level 1 Commoner, or Level 5 Warrior. Level 1 Duskblade with no ranks in Sense Motive - easy pickings for a level 5 Rogue. Level 1 Druid, similarly easy.

Heck, that Level 10 Commoner could be big and threatening to the fat rich Artificer!

jseah

2011-02-21, 06:24 PM

Hmm, reading all the responses makes me feel stranger. I'm almost understanding something but I still don't get it.
Why should a PC's actions be significant in some way? (in the save the world way)

Here onwards is my view, feel free to disagree:
There is no fundamental difference between a PC and an NPC. The fact that a player sits behind one character, while the other is run by the GM does not change how they fit into the world. They are both characters, they both have problems they want to solve, they have personalities and goals.

All characters have these things. Just because the PCs are the characters of the game does not mean their personalities and goals are more important in some cosmic sense.
PCs solve their own problems.

Sometimes people (PCs or NPCs) get problems they can't solve. Other people can help them. Sometimes this is the PCs helping the NPCs. Sometimes its the other way around.
But most of the time, the problems you deal with are your own. NPCs deal with their problems, players deal with player problems. Only when for some reason a problem can't be solved by the directly involved, then it spreads from being someone else's problem to becoming your problem as well.

Fox Box Socks

2011-02-21, 06:34 PM

This is my point. That easy target for a con? He is a Duskblade. The soft target for the pickpocketing? Tough luck, he is a Druid. The fat rich guy? Artificer. Get my reasoning? In a world where everyone has PC classes, there are no soft targets, no weak people to protect, no one normal..
Being a Duskblade doesn't automatically make you immune to being conned, just like Druids don't have an "Immunity to Pickpocketing" class feature. The problem you're describing doesn't stem from too many NPCs having class levels, it stems from too many NPCs being too high level, which is roughly the same problem as when a DM throws an incredibly difficult combat encounter at the PCs.

It isn't a question of whether or not they're Duskblades or Commoners, it's a question of how many hit dice those Duskblades or Commoners have.

true_shinken

2011-02-21, 06:46 PM

Only if all NPCs are magically the PCs' level or above. If the majority only have one or two levels (like was stated in the OP) and the PCs are even a moderate level, then there are plenty of soft targets.
So it takes two assumptions. First, you need the NPCs to be lower level than the PCs. Second, you need the PCs to be at a moderate level. From what the OP described, he seems to be in the low levels, so your argument holds no water.
Apart from that, you disregard that classes have different amounts of power and except for the ranger all the classes mentioned are on the higher end of the power spectrum. We don't know which classes the PCs are playing, but of course farmer Warblades are going to make a Fighter feel useless. That sounds like a pretty bad thing in my book. I'll direct you back to Gnome Alone's post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10418799&postcount=135). Unimportant background characters shouldn't be more powerful or as powerful as the player characters in a heroic fantasy game. That much seems pretty simple to me. If you have a problem with that, I'm afraid there is no point to this discussion whatsover, because that is a point I'll never concede.

Agree with Savannah here. You reasoning does not apply if the PCs and other threats are higher level than the general populace.

A level 10 Commoner is a tough cookie compared to Level 1 Commoner, or Level 5 Warrior. Level 1 Duskblade with no ranks in Sense Motive - easy pickings for a level 5 Rogue. Level 1 Druid, similarly easy.

Heck, that Level 10 Commoner could be big and threatening to the fat rich Artificer!
Why Wouldn't a Duskblade have ranks in Sense Motive? :smallconfused:
And everything your mentioning is exactly why the DMG has those demographic guidelines, so you get a grip on why high levels are rare and stuff like that.
Heck, if everyone knows how to fight you wouldn't have as much wild places. People would expand their city walls, kill the animals and stuff like that. It's what happened in our world when we got our hands on good enough weapons. Magical 'everyone knows how to fight' should have the same effect.

PairO'Dice Lost

2011-02-21, 07:07 PM

I know that the PCs being built with the same tools it takes to build NPCs is something that's rather important to a lot of people, because it gives the system a sense of uniformity, that a Wizard 20 became a Wizard 20 the exact same way that evil Fighter10/Cleric10 became a Fighter10/Cleric10. But it was a lot of work for minimal reward for me. I was initially wary of 4e's focus on powers and surges and diagonal movement not costing extra (Pythagoras, dammit, Pythagoras!), but learning that NPCs were built as NPCs and not as PCs is was convinced me that the system was worth a shot.

Speaking as someone who's DMed Basic D&D and AD&D in its various incarnations, I have to say I hold the opposite stance. One of the best things 3e did, in my view, was to stop building monsters out of arbitrarium and using a system that meant NPCs, PCs, and monsters were all the same. For example, monsters not having listed ability scores or ability modifiers calculated into their stat blocks (flat HP bonuses rather than adding Con to each HD, for instance, since only fighter types had that) meant they didn't quite interact with the system as PCs did. What happens if a monster puts on a belt of storm giant strength? Can a dragon create a magic item without the chance of permanent Con loss? Most NPCs being 0th level made it nice and easy to stat them up (i.e. you didn't) but it made PCs and "important" NPCs really stand out, which isn't necessarily desirable if you're not working with the assumption that PCs are special.

As a DM, I could obviously modify these things easily, but as a player I couldn't rely on every DM to rule the same way, so I couldn't always count on something to work the same way. With 3e, if you cast a bull's strength on a basilisk you know it'll work the same way as it would if you cast it on a dragon, or an orc, or on yourself.

Now, an important thing to note is that "Building PCs and NPCs with the same system is a good thing" and "3e's system for building NPCs is fast and easy" are not the same statement. As you pointed out yourself, making NPCs can take two or three times as long (or more) as their total "on screen" time. There should really have been more thought given on WotC's part to providing NPC templates, quick builds, and such...though sadly, as we all know, WotC barely knows their own game and can't build sample characters without a few errors in every stat block. :smallwink: The fact that WotC failed at providing an easy-to-use character creation system in 3e doesn't mean that the underlying concept is flawed.

The solution to this problem in 3e is not, I think, moving back to an AD&D-style "here's a monster with mechanics that sort of resemble the PCs', figure out yourself how it works" or switching to a 4e-style "we're not even going to try to make them like PCs" system. Rather, the solution is to make a 3e character creation system without all the trap options that doesn't take as much time, one in which making an archer or fire wizard or other basic concept is a matter of throwing together a few levels and a feat and you're done instead of dumpster-diving for good stuff. Given that that's not going to happen if you aren't already planning on doing that, a realistic solution is twofold:

1) Have a bunch of stock characters. I occasionally stat up NPCs when I have nothing better to do, so if I need to pull out an NPC in game I usually have something close enough to let me tweak it on the fly and throw it in. If you find that finding the perfect spell for your NPC casters is difficult and time-consuming, go through and write up three or four lists of common sets of spells that you can use for them; making each NPC unique only needs a few tweaks based on their theme, but the bread-and-butter spells can stay mostly the same. One hint I've noticed: after a PC character dies or the game ends, grab a copy of their sheet for inspiration. A player who only needs to focus on building one super-blaster or melee lockdown build or whatever is going to put a lot of effort into it, which means you only have to tweak it and you save yourself a lot of time and effort.

2) If you're going to homebrew a feat or PrC, make it available to the PCs as well. If you have to homebrew it in the first place, it's probably either one of two things: it's too hard to get in the first place in 3e, because it requires too many prerequisites or levels or is simply over-costed, in which case the PCs might benefit from the same thing, like the 3/day SLA example you mentioned...or it's good enough that it's not fair not to give it to the PCs--for instance, if you don't want to have your enemy wizards flesh to stone'd, your options are to either (A) make them immune to it, in which case there's no reason PCs can't have an "anti-FtS" spell as well, or (B) give them high enough saves to let them ignore SoDs, in which case it's easier and more fair to just disallow SoDs.

Tavar

2011-02-21, 07:21 PM

Why Wouldn't a Duskblade have ranks in Sense Motive? :smallconfused:
Because it only has so many skill points, and thus can't spend them on every little thing that it wants.

And everything your mentioning is exactly why the DMG has those demographic guidelines, so you get a grip on why high levels are rare and stuff like that.
Heck, if everyone knows how to fight you wouldn't have as much wild places. People would expand their city walls, kill the animals and stuff like that. It's what happened in our world when we got our hands on good enough weapons. Magical 'everyone knows how to fight' should have the same effect.
That depends on quite a bit. A low level warblade with some fighter/assorted class support can defend a town easily enough against low level threats. But there's a lot out there that'd eat them alive, especially if, instead of staying on the defensive, they go on the offensive.

I think that's a big disconnect. The people arguing that the demographics don't make sense are saying that, as it stands, isolated villages of commoners cannot survive against any of the manifold threats that the DnD world throws at them. With better classes, they can survive, but they can't throw the enemies back. Not without support. Like, say, some PC's.

Edit: Plus, this from a couple pages ago:
true_shinken, here's a problem. Show where it's clear that the Npc's are more powerful than the PC's. Right now it just seems that they're more common, and seemingly less powerful. Where's the problem there?

Savannah

2011-02-21, 07:31 PM

So it takes two assumptions. First, you need the NPCs to be lower level than the PCs. Second, you need the PCs to be at a moderate level. From what the OP described, he seems to be in the low levels, so your argument holds no water.
Apart from that, you disregard that classes have different amounts of power and except for the ranger all the classes mentioned are on the higher end of the power spectrum. We don't know which classes the PCs are playing, but of course farmer Warblades are going to make a Fighter feel useless. That sounds like a pretty bad thing in my book. I'll direct you back to Gnome Alone's post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10418799&postcount=135). Unimportant background characters shouldn't be more powerful or as powerful as the player characters in a heroic fantasy game. That much seems pretty simple to me. If you have a problem with that, I'm afraid there is no point to this discussion whatsover, because that is a point I'll never concede.

You've got a couple of assumptions here, yourself. 1) OP's group is low level. 2) OP's group contains lower tier characters than the NPCs they're meeting. 3) The farmer and daughter are unimportant background characters (yes, the OP describes them as "random", but we don't know if the DM considers them to be random farmers). 4) OP is playing a heroic fantasy game. Unless the OP comes back to confirm them, your assumptions are no more valid than any of mine.

Furthermore, it is a perfectly valid game where the PCs start out as not terribly special characters, in terms of power level, and then gradually become heroes of the land. This could be modeled quite well by giving every NPC a level or two of PC classes, so that at first the PCs are nothing special, but eventually they become awesome. Also, it is a perfectly valid game where the PCs are struggling against things that far overpower them (for example, the commoner games I've seen recruiting in the pbp forum aren't lacking in players wanting in). I'm not saying that every game is like this, and it is also perfectly valid to play the way you are advocating. However, we have no evidence that the game the OP is in runs like you are advocating. So I'm trying to point out that what you are saying cannot work is, in fact, perfectly fine for many groups. (I say many groups, as a number of other people in this thread are also saying they see no problem with it.)

If you're going to bring up tiers, then you must remember that tiers are measures of potential power, and not absolutes. If you give me a warblade and an optimizer a fighter and then have us fight, I guarantee I'll get my ass kicked, simply because I don't like optimizing my characters very much. If I put a warblade fighter in my game and have an optimizer playing a PC fighter, I don't see how the warblade is going to make him feel useless (assuming he had the choice to be a warblade at the beginning; if it's more of a "ha ha, this NPC is a warblade but you have to be a fighter" than it's not a problem of NPC power level, but of having a power tripping jerk for a DM).

Why Wouldn't a Duskblade have ranks in Sense Motive? :smallconfused:

Because not every single person in the D&D world is identical to every other member of their class? I'm not terribly familiar with duskblades, but in what I believe to be a similar example, you could make a perfectly playable rogue with no ranks in Disable Device or Open Lock. Just because they're class skills (and you have class features related to them) doesn't mean they're absolutely necessary to every member of the class.

And, incidentally, having ranks in Sense Motive is not a guarantee that you can't pull one over on the NPC. If the player has a higher Bluff, or if the duskblade rolls badly on their Sense Motive check, or if the player rolls well on their Bluff check, they could very well pull off a scam against someone with ranks in Sense Motive. And it would be much more exciting to try such a scam if you have a decent chance of failure. If there's no chance of failure, the game is boring.

Starbuck_II

2011-02-21, 07:42 PM

Because it only has so many skill points, and thus can't spend them on every little thing that it wants.

But it is a Int based caster...

Fox Box Socks

2011-02-21, 07:42 PM

Why Wouldn't a Duskblade have ranks in Sense Motive? :smallconfused:
He's spread too thin on account of him having to spring cross-class for Profession: Farming.

What with him being a farmer.

dsmiles

2011-02-21, 07:44 PM

He's spread too thin on account of him having to spring cross-class for Profession: Farming.

What with him being a farmer.But he's not the farmer, the warblade is. I think the duskblade was the shopkeeper. :smallwink:

Darklady2831

2011-02-21, 07:49 PM

With the games I DM, I just say that 75% of the population, in most cases, are 1st to 3rd level commoners, with 5% being warriors, 2% are Adepts, 3% are Aristocrats, and the remaining 15% have PC classes (usually members of guilds or schools that teach that sort of thing. Monks don't just pop up, most of them are members of their monastery, same with wizards. Most of the NPCs with PC classes are just exceptional people.

Coidzor

2011-02-21, 07:49 PM

Having PC levels is an STD that one can pass onto one's children unless one has access to quality healthcare.

And so, given the proclivities of adventurers and the BOEF... :smallamused:

dsmiles

2011-02-21, 07:52 PM

And so, given the proclivities of adventurers and the BOEF... :smallamused::smalleek:

Coidzor

2011-02-21, 08:00 PM

Then again, that also raises questions about why there's not more half-fiends/celestials running around... ...Probably natural selection.

dsmiles

2011-02-21, 08:05 PM

Then again, that also raises questions about why there's not more half-fiends/celestials running around... ...Probably natural selection.Look at all the other half's though. Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, Helf-Fey...Centaurs...:smalleek:

Tavar

2011-02-21, 08:09 PM

But it is a Int based caster...

So? It only gets....2+Int skills per level. Assuming max int, which isn't likely, that's 6 maxed skills per level. There are quire a few skills that they could use, and Sense motive might not be on everyone's to do list.

true_shinken

2011-02-21, 08:17 PM

Because it only has so many skill points, and thus can't spend them on every little thing that it wants.
Duskblade is an Int primary class. Sense Motive is a very good skill for everyone. I don't see your point.

true_shinken, here's a problem. Show where it's clear that the Npc's are more powerful than the PC's. Right now it just seems that they're more common, and seemingly less powerful. Where's the problem there?
It's in the OP, with the wizards 'making things silly'.

You've got a couple of assumptions here, yourself. 1) OP's group is low level. 2) OP's group contains lower tier characters than the NPCs they're meeting. 3) The farmer and daughter are unimportant background characters (yes, the OP describes them as "random", but we don't know if the DM considers them to be random farmers). 4) OP is playing a heroic fantasy game. Unless the OP comes back to confirm them, your assumptions are no more valid than any of mine.
I'm sorry, but I think they are. D&D is designed as a heroic fantasy game, so you'd assume it is one unless you're told otherwise. Beginning at level one is the default unless you're told otherwise and the OP's game is new. The OP himself said the farmers were random, so I won't arrume he is wrong, for he is the only information we have.

Furthermore, it is a perfectly valid game where the PCs start out as not terribly special characters, in terms of power level, and then gradually become heroes of the land.
It is. I never said it wasn't. It's not what one expects out of D&D, what with it being a heroic fantasy game and all. Like I said many times, there is no problem in doing whatever you want your game world, if you tell the players beforehand. If you call people to play D&D, don't tell them anything and suddenly they see a Star Destroyer and are kidnapped by Stormtroopers, people will be at least confuse. If you mess with the expectations (that most people can't fight, for example) expect your players to be frustrated and post in the playground about it, like fortesama did.
The main problem here is this. If you want to run a game different than the norm, tell your players so beforehand or you risk them not liking it.
DMs don't like when players go against their expectations ('I know this is an action heavy dungeon crawl game, but I made a human Noble. He knows nothing about fighting. Just give me time for my internal monologues.'), why should it be different for players?

Because not every single person in the D&D world is identical to every other member of their class? I'm not terribly familiar with duskblades, but in what I believe to be a similar example, you could make a perfectly playable rogue with no ranks in Disable Device or Open Lock. Just because they're class skills (and you have class features related to them) doesn't mean they're absolutely necessary to every member of the class.
I agree. It's just that for a Duskblade I think this is really hard to justify not having ranks in Sense Motive. Their skill list is very small.

And, incidentally, having ranks in Sense Motive is not a guarantee that you can't pull one over on the NPC. If the player has a higher Bluff, or if the duskblade rolls badly on their Sense Motive check, or if the player rolls well on their Bluff check, they could very well pull off a scam against someone with ranks in Sense Motive. And it would be much more exciting to try such a scam if you have a decent chance of failure. If there's no chance of failure, the game is boring.
Having a chance of failure is the whole point of having dice and statistics. The point is that in a game where, for example, most people are Wizards as someone mentioned before there is no chance of success. It gets frustrating. We hear that a lot about sandbox games here in the playground - players always seem to feel the world around them is 'too strong'. It's the same feeling. I particularly don't like sandbox games; I like a story with at least a bit of structure.
Really, having all NPCs have class levels brings a lot of trouble. It makes the world feel weird; because everyone knows how to fight and/or cast spells, so the PCs probably won't be needed unless on corner cases. It hurts verossimilitude, because there should be people who wouldn't want to learn how to fight/cast spells and people who never got the chance to learn how to fight/cast spells. It gives the DM more work to do, because NPCs with levels in NPC classes are a lot easier to stat up than those with levels in PC classes.

Tavar

2011-02-21, 08:35 PM

Duskblade is an Int primary class. Sense Motive is a very good skill for everyone. I don't see your point.
So? It's a limited resource. They only ave so many, and there are other things that they could want. Especially if they aren't planning on being a social character.

It's in the OP, with the wizards 'making things silly'.

One out of four examples does not a pattern make. Nevermind that 'making things silly' doesn't really describe what's happening.

dsmiles

2011-02-21, 08:39 PM

Nevermind that 'making things silly' doesn't really describe what's happening.Oh, but it does. Let us not forget that a first level wizard can "make things silly" if the other characters are non-full-casters.

Savannah

2011-02-21, 08:52 PM

I'm sorry, but I think they are. D&D is designed as a heroic fantasy game, so you'd assume it is one unless you're told otherwise. Beginning at level one is the default unless you're told otherwise and the OP's game is new. The OP himself said the farmers were random, so I won't arrume he is wrong, for he is the only information we have.

While D&D is designed as a heroic fantasy it doesn't have to be, and a good proportion of games are not. So I don't assume I know what kind of game it is. Especially since the OP mentioned that this world was far more dangerous than you'd expect from a so-called "normal" D&D game.

It is. I never said it wasn't. It's not what one expects out of D&D, what with it being a heroic fantasy game and all.

I dunno, most heroic fantasy I read starts with the protagonist being nobody special and then becoming a hero. So I'd expect the PCs to start as nobody special in a heroic fantasy game.

Like I said many times, there is no problem in doing whatever you want your game world, if you tell the players beforehand.

And we know that the DM in the OP's game has said it's a really dangerous world. We don't know that he said it only after he was asked about the NPCs' classes. (Nor do we have a reason why the players know the NPCs' classes. To be honest, I think there's something funky about the game, but it's that the players somehow know for sure that farmer x is a warblade and so on, not so much the fact that farmer x is a warblade).

If you mess with the expectations (that most people can't fight, for example) expect your players to be frustrated and post in the playground about it, like fortesama did.
The main problem here is this. If you want to run a game different than the norm, tell your players so beforehand or you risk them not liking it.
DMs don't like when players go against their expectations ('I know this is an action heavy dungeon crawl game, but I made a human Noble. He knows nothing about fighting. Just give me time for my internal monologues.'), why should it be different for players?

Sure, but I don't see that giving everyone PC class levels instead of NPC class levels is such a huge change that the players need to be warned about it. If you're doing it to make the world more dangerous, then you'd want to say that this will be a dangerous campaign and the players should be careful. If you're doing it to start the PCs off as nobodies, then you should say that they'll have to work for a while to become special. But you don't need to say that every NPC will have PC levels.

Having a chance of failure is the whole point of having dice and statistics. The point is that in a game where, for example, most people are Wizards as someone mentioned before there is no chance of success. It gets frustrating.

No, having most people be wizards is not a magic "you can't succeed" button. It makes it harder, but it is not a death sentence.

We hear that a lot about sandbox games here in the playground - players always seem to feel the world around them is 'too strong'. It's the same feeling. I particularly don't like sandbox games; I like a story with at least a bit of structure.

Fine. You don't have to like them. Doesn't mean that they're a bad thing. Also, we do not hear about every sandbox game out there. For all we know, there are 100 people enjoying their sandbox game for each 1 on here complaining. Also, I see more people complaining about being railroaded or their DM controlling them too much than feeling that a sandbox world is too strong for them.

Really, having all NPCs have class levels brings a lot of trouble. It makes the world feel weird; because everyone knows how to fight and/or cast spells, so the PCs probably won't be needed unless on corner cases. It hurts verossimilitude, because there should be people who wouldn't want to learn how to fight/cast spells and people who never got the chance to learn how to fight/cast spells. It gives the DM more work to do, because NPCs with levels in NPC classes are a lot easier to stat up than those with levels in PC classes.

In your games and your opinion, yes. But it is not true in everyone's game. And holding your game up as the standard without any evidence that your game is, in fact, the standard is not reasonable. I personally do not feel that giving everyone PC classes hurts versmilitude (it can even help, in some games). Based on the comments in this thread, some people agree with me, some people agree with you. So my attitude is that either way can work, depending on your game. And I have no problem with disagreeing on how we do it in our games. However, I'm getting a definate "this is the way to play D&D and anything else is a major change" tone from most of your posts. That's what I'm argueing against.

Fox Box Socks

2011-02-21, 08:56 PM

true_shinken

2011-02-21, 09:13 PM

However, I'm getting a definate "this is the way to play D&D and anything else is a major change" tone from most of your posts. That's what I'm argueing against.
I cut the rest of the post as I find this to be the key issue at this debate. I'm not saying this is 'how to play D&D', I'm saying this is the standard way to play D&D. My games are very different from the norm, for starters.
I have been playing for a long time, though, and during this I met lots of DMs who never told the players they changed key aspects of the game (I once played a Rogue and discovered mid-combat that I couldn't use Tumble to avoid attacks of opportunity because 'it made no sense'. Dying because of a stupid houserule only invoked when it would kill me, oh the joy). Or worse - DMs who never knew how some aspects were supposed to work at first and changed them without worrying about the ripple effect (I think the OP's DM sadly belongs in this category). I have a lot of anecdotal evidence on this second part. I played in a 4e game where the DM built NPCs using PC rules to fight against us, resulting in everyone but the defenders dying very fast as we were hit by striker's dailies. Charming. It didn't happen just once. In a Werewolf game, I once had a Storyteller tell me Fury (or is it Rage? I played it in portuguese) was 'too much trouble' and removing it entirely from the game. Nevermind it downplayed the key aspect of the beast within, it also meant a vampire with Celerity could beat werewolves in battle easily... in a campaign where we were hunting vampires. Charming as well. More D&D examples - I had a DM who decided during play his elves weren't immune to sleep (and my ex-girlfriend's character died of deep slumber+coup de grace a few minutes later), another who nerfed spiked chains after my friend already built his character around it (the worst part was not allowing him to rebuild or to play another character - he was forced to play a heavily gimped fighter for 2 sessions, then he quit the game) and my favourite is the guy who decided the DM that leather armor shouldn't protect against an arrow 'because it's more realistic' just so he could kill my Ranger.
When I played AD&D, the DMG was mostly filled with crap. It had a ton of optional rules I never cared about and it's only purpose was as a magic item compendium of sorts. In 3.0, we got a very good DMG with tips on how to make a fantasy world. We even got DMGII, one of the best RPG books I ever saw. But then you get one guy who becomes a DM without ever reading the DMG.
TL;DR The core rules build up expectations. It's my belief that if you're going to go against this expectations in your game, it's just fair to tell the players.

Also, just a little point about the 'more dangerous world'. If you everyone has PC class levels, you have a less dangerous world, because you don't have to worry as much about monsters.

I'm still confused.

A Duskblade has ranks in Sense Motive.

A Commoner spends his first feat on Skill Focus: Sense Motive and springs for cross-class.

Both are more or less the same at sensing when someone is lying to them, seeing as how the Commoner is going to have high Wisdom (to make him better at his Profession) and the Duskblade probably isn't.

Why, exactly, is the Duskblade supposed to be better at it?
I wasn't going to dwell on this since it was just an example and I picked up Duskblade at random, but a Duskblade gets a few divination spells as well. Anyway, it was just a randomly picked example. Even if a Duskblade gets duped, once he finds out he'll be able to find out and kill you because of it.

Tavar

2011-02-21, 09:22 PM

How? His Divination spells are all like true strike, just giving bonuses to hit. And he lacks gather information, so he can't find it. Any more than, say, a fighter automatically can.

RandomAction

2011-02-21, 09:23 PM

Why, exactly, is the Duskblade supposed to be better at it?

She/he is not really better at it. Duskblades, how I have played one or two, are more prone to be a bodyguard like character who would need the ability to tell if someone/thing is trying to BS thier way past them.

As for the whole NPC's with PC classes, I have ran into some games where they do and some where they donot have PC classes. It's all a matter of flavor for the DM in question.
Maybe the innkeeper is a retired scout for the cities watch/militia and has level(s) in a class that grants trapfinding. As for the farmer, he could have gained some tutoring from a passing warblade to help him defend his farm from raiding goblins or some such.

The only time I am really worried about NPC's with PC classes is when I run into a kobold named Pun-pun who has levels in an arcane casting class.

dsmiles

2011-02-21, 09:31 PM

However, you need to keep in mind that the 'core rules' are truly just guidelines. As it has always been, as it always will be. The DM does not need to reveal his world-building guidelines, because it's not necessarily beneficial to the players to know that much meta-game information.

Rules that affect how combat works? Yeah, the players need to know.

Rules that affect how abilities work? Yeah, the players need to know.

Rules that affect who in the world has PC class levels? To what point or purpose would that be useful to the players? The DM, in this particular instance, should never have revealed the levels that the NPCs have.

Classes and levels are a meta-game concept that have no purpose being revealed like that. Who really cares what the 'random farmer' did in the past? Who really cares that his daughter is a sorceress? (Granted, the multiclassed ranger/reporter is kind of weird.)

Revealing the methods used to build the world is like a magician showing you how his every trick is performed. Revealing how the world works is necessary, but not how it was built.

Yahzi

2011-02-21, 09:34 PM

Beyond level 8 or so, it would often take me an hour or more to create interesting NPCs.
This is, indeed, one of the worst parts of 3.0/3.5. It takes forever to build NPCs. I have pages and pages of them, and it's not enough.

On the other hand, the problem with your approach is that it assumes the PCs will win. As long as they kill the bad guys, they don't care how the bad guys are built. But once they lose, they want to know why, and they want to be able to emulate that power that made them lose. Which means now you have to release that power in a way that doesn't break your PCs. Which leads to building NPCs just like PCs.

The problem with arbitrarium is that it makes victory and defeat arbitrary.

In my world, the players know exactly how the NPCs are built - right down to where they get their XP and how much they get. If they walk into a big castle and start trouble, it's not my fault if they get ganked by the high-level lord. And their entire goal is to become like the NPCs - to get those sources of XP. In other words, they want to become lords themselves. Which is good for world-building.

But then, I run a sandbox world. I present the world and the players pick whatever level of challenge/risk/reward they want.

This is a very 1E mindset (PCs becoming lords and part of the world-building), even if 1E did a truly terrible job of implementing it. From what you're saying, 4E has moved away from that approach entirely. Which might explain why it feels like such a different game to many people. And why I have no interest in it at all (indeed, when I played 1E I was morally outraged at how all the NPCs were 0th level nobodies and thus merely scenery).

Rules that affect who in the world has PC class levels? To what point or purpose would that be useful to the players?
To the purpose of allowing PCs to engage in world-building.

My PCs hire henchmen, raise armies, make friends, marry the locals. They want to affect the political landscape of the world, not just the dungeon population, and to do that they have to know where power comes from. They have to understand the source of the most important resource in the entire D&D world - XP.

Savannah

2011-02-21, 09:48 PM

I cut the rest of the post as I find this to be the key issue at this debate. I'm not saying this is 'how to play D&D', I'm saying this is the standard way to play D&D.

But based on my experience it is not the standard. Until we do a properly-conducted survey of D&D games, I prefer the safer assumption: there is no "standard" way. There may be a way that the system is designed for, but D&D is a very adaptable game, and what is being played commonly may be different from what was originally intended. Or it may not. But we don't know, and so can't say what is standard.

I have been playing for a long time, though, and during this I met lots of DMs who never told the players they changed key aspects of the game

This (and the stories after it) confirmed something I'd been suspecting from what you'd been saying. You've played with a bunch of bad DMs. I tend to trust my DM not to change things unfairly because I've played with mostly decent DMs, so I don't think that I need to be told of changes that don't really affect character creation (like that NPCs have PC class levels). You're coming at it with the experience of bad houserules being sprung on you without warning, so I can see why you'd want to be sure to know any changes.

TL;DR The core rules build up expectations. It's my belief that if you're going to go against this expectations in your game, it's just fair to tell the players.

Sure. I agree, if the change is significant enough to matter. I don't see demographics as being terribly significant. For example, I'm playing in an awesome game where magic users of all sorts are hated, most non-human races are hated (a couple of them are tolerated, but I forget the specifics), and we're facing things we have no hope of beating in a straight fight. The DM told us those facts before the game, but I have no idea if the racial and class breakdowns in the world are different from the norm. I'd assume so, but I have no clue. If that's the level of "tell the players what you're changing" that you're advocating, then I agree. But I got the impression that you think the players should be told more. I have no idea if all NPCs in that world have PC class levels. They certainly could, and I wouldn't mind a bit that I didn't know.

true_shinken

2011-02-21, 09:57 PM

If that's the level of "tell the players what you're changing" that you're advocating, then I agree. But I got the impression that you think the players should be told more. I have no idea if all NPCs in that world have PC class levels. They certainly could, and I wouldn't mind a bit that I didn't know.
No, that's exactly what I mean. If the DM said 'in this game, most people know how to fight and/or cast spells, guys' that would have been enough for me.

dsmiles

2011-02-21, 10:07 PM

To the purpose of allowing PCs to engage in world-building.

My PCs hire henchmen, raise armies, make friends, marry the locals. They want to affect the political landscape of the world, not just the dungeon population, and to do that they have to know where power comes from. They have to understand the source of the most important resource in the entire D&D world - XP.Changing the political landscape and world-changing (I don't like the term 'world building' because ostensibly the world is already built) honestly has nothing to do with who has what levels. Perhaps the local magistrate is just an Expert. Maybe he's an Aristocrat. Maybe he's a Rogue or Bard. Does it really make a difference? If you want to hire a warrior (not the class, the general profession) do you ask for a Warblade? I doubt it. Classes are, again, a meta-game concept that characters have no business knowing. Jobs or professions, on the other hand, are IC concepts that characters should know about. Was that farmer a soldier in the past? That may be important information later on.

My PCs do those same things, but they never know specific classes, they know whether they're hiring a competent arcanist or a fresh-faced student. Either one could be a wizard, or a sorcerer, or a beguiler, or whatever class they happen to be. They know if they're hiring a valorous knight, or a scurvy dog of a pirate, or a superb second-story man (or woman, I'm not sexist). They know the difference between the competence of hirelings, but classes are not a vital in-character bit of knowledge.

It really doesn't make a difference what class an NPC is, are they competent at their job?

Savannah

2011-02-21, 10:23 PM

No, that's exactly what I mean. If the DM said 'in this game, most people know how to fight and/or cast spells, guys' that would have been enough for me.

In which case we've been passionately arguing the same side for a while now :smallsigh::smallamused: (Although that's perhaps a little more specific than I'd be, it's close enough that we've got the same idea.)

But we still don't know that the OP's DM didn't say that at the beginning....

Roderick_BR

2011-02-21, 10:24 PM

Why wouldn't them? A scenario where everyone (or at least all adults) gain some sort of training in a PC class (fighter and rogue would be the most common, rich cities could have several 1st level wizards, some towns may have people specialized in divine magic, most primitive villages will have most adults be barbarians, rangers, and druids) would be rather interesting. I think 4E did it, by removing "npc classes". Only real adventurers would go out through the world to train and enhance their abilities (gaining experience and levels).

true_shinken

2011-02-21, 10:33 PM

I think 4E did it, by removing "npc classes". Only real adventurers would go out through the world to train and enhance their abilities (gaining experience and levels).

It didn't, actually. You still have 'classes for monsters' for the roles they fit (brute, lurk, whatever).

Yahzi

2011-02-21, 10:50 PM

Changing the political landscape and world-changing honestly has nothing to do with who has what levels.
But it does. Mostly due to magic; but magic is pervasive in D&D.

Perhaps the local magistrate is just an Expert. Maybe he's an Aristocrat. Maybe he's a Rogue or Bard. Does it really make a difference?
Yes, it makes a huge difference. If he's not a Cleric with access to Zone of Truth, he's a chump.

If your doctors can't cast Cure Minor Wounds to auto-stabilize patients, they're butchers.

If your town doesn't have a priest who can Remove Disease 2x a day, every day, then you deserve to die of the plague. (A fate which destroyed many, many empires.)

If you want to hire a warrior (not the class, the general profession) do you ask for a Warblade?
Can't you have a recruitment test? The range difference between an archer and an archer with Far Shot is 50%. That's a big enough difference to be able to reliably measure.

The ability to damage non-corporeal creatures is also relatively straight-forward to test. Can't Warblades do something like that?

Classes are, again, a meta-game concept that characters have no business knowing.
Actually, in my world, they're not. They are tangible and discrete. However, even in the standard D&D world, which makes it clear that class is a meta-game concept, there are still zillions and zillions of ways in which class cannot be merely meta-game. Priests don't have an increased chance at healing Mummy-Rot; they can do it infallibly, and no one else can do it at all. (Same with climbing walls and Rogues. :D)

It really doesn't make a difference what class an NPC is, are they competent at their job?
The entire point of classes was to designate what job people were competent at! If guy is good at fighting, by definition he's suppose to be a Fighter. You've gone and turned the entire point of a class-based system on its head. If you want to play a game where class doesn't matter, play GURPS. (I mean that seriously - GURPS is great game.)

But for D&D, it makes sense for the players to speak of classes and levels even if they are meta-game; just as it makes sense in our world to speak of the differences between a Yellow Belt in Karate and a Black Belt in Judo.

And power in D&D comes from class levels. So to affect the political situation, one has to manage the resource that creates class levels. You can make up whatever system you want, but your players will attempt to manipulate it. If you say NPCs gain levels through years of study, then your players will build Academies and Colleges. If you say NPCs gain levels through combat, then your players will build Colosseums and start wars. If you say NPCs gain levels through eating the souls of peasants (like in my world), then your players will build huge feudal estates of down-trodden peasants, protected by castles staffed by small but high-level, well-equipped armies.

Ravens_cry

2011-02-21, 11:11 PM

I'm still confused.

A Duskblade has ranks in Sense Motive.

A Commoner spends his first feat on Skill Focus: Sense Motive and springs for cross-class.

Both are more or less the same at sensing when someone is lying to them, seeing as how the Commoner is going to have high Wisdom (to make him better at his Profession) and the Duskblade probably isn't.

Why, exactly, is the Duskblade supposed to be better at it?
Because the Duskblade didn't need to 'spend' those resources to get as good.
It could take the skill points that the Commoner put into cross rank skills into other skills, making it good at MORE THINGS. Same with the feat, the Duskblade can get good at something else, AS WELL as Sense Motive. That is why a Duskblade is considered better at sense motive, been equally good is CHEAPER for it then for the Commoner.

dsmiles

2011-02-21, 11:16 PM

But it does. Mostly due to magic; but magic is pervasive in D&D.

Yes, it makes a huge difference. If he's not a Cleric with access to Zone of Truth, he's a chump.

If your doctors can't cast Cure Minor Wounds to auto-stabilize patients, they're butchers.

If your town doesn't have a priest who can Remove Disease 2x a day, every day, then you deserve to die of the plague. (A fate which destroyed many, many empires.)

Can't you have a recruitment test? The range difference between an archer and an archer with Far Shot is 50%. That's a big enough difference to be able to reliably measure.

The ability to damage non-corporeal creatures is also relatively straight-forward to test. Can't Warblades do something like that?

Actually, in my world, they're not. They are tangible and discrete. However, even in the standard D&D world, which makes it clear that class is a meta-game concept, there are still zillions and zillions of ways in which class cannot be merely meta-game. Priests don't have an increased chance at healing Mummy-Rot; they can do it infallibly, and no one else can do it at all. (Same with climbing walls and Rogues. :D)

The entire point of classes was to designate what job people were competent at! If guy is good at fighting, by definition he's suppose to be a Fighter. You've gone and turned the entire point of a class-based system on its head. If you want to play a game where class doesn't matter, play GURPS. (I mean that seriously - GURPS is great game.)

But for D&D, it makes sense for the players to speak of classes and levels even if they are meta-game; just as it makes sense in our world to speak of the differences between a Yellow Belt in Karate and a Black Belt in Judo.

And power in D&D comes from class levels. So to affect the political situation, one has to manage the resource that creates class levels. You can make up whatever system you want, but your players will attempt to manipulate it. If you say NPCs gain levels through years of study, then your players will build Academies and Colleges. If you say NPCs gain levels through combat, then your players will build Colosseum and start wars. If you say NPCs gain levels through eating the souls of peasants (like in my world), then your players will build huge feudal estates of down-trodden peasants, protected by castles staffed by small but high-level, well-equipped armies.
Tell me, then, what class would you define some of these "Class A 1/Class B 2/Class C 2/PrC A 3/PrC B 2/Class D 3/PrC C 2" characters? They are not playing a class, they're playing a job. (Granted, I don't like that style of character building, but it does exist.) Your example of the archers falls kind of short, too. They may both be 1st level human characters. One with Point Blank Shot and Far Shot, one with Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot (or Rapid Shot). Is it really a test of competence at that point?

Ninjas and Martial Adepts both have the means to attack non-corporeal creatures. So does somebody with a Ghost Touch weapon. So do most spellcasters. So might somebody with a multi-multi-multi-class build. Classes are not as much of a power base as you seem to think. Especially when everyone (and I mean, quite literally, EVERYONE) has the ability to multiclass. No dual-classing, just multiclassing. And they can take whatever class they want, as long as they can find a trainer for it. Theoretically, a 20th level character can have 20 different classes, but what's their job? 3e changed all the rules. Classes are no longer important, jobs are.

Magic isn't really all that pervasive in DnD. Everybody assumes a high-magic campaign setting. It's not a universal truth. DnD does not have to be high magic. Not all towns have magic users (be they Wizards or Sorcerers or whatever). Towns may have priests, but not Clerics. The local doctor may be an Expert. The local alchemist may be an Expert, too. (Especially if you follow the demographics in the DMG. You may end up with a town full of nothing but Commoners and Experts). I don't personally agree with the demographics guidelines in the DMG, but I also don't agree with classes being an in-character concept.

true_shinken

2011-02-21, 11:19 PM

Especially if you follow the demographics in the DMG. You may end up with a town full of nothing but Commoners and Experts
No you can't.

Yahzi

2011-02-21, 11:30 PM

Tell me, then, what class would you define some of these "Class A 1/Class B 2/Class C 2/PrC A 3/PrC B 2/Class D 3/PrC C 2" characters?
That argument is in a different thread. :smallbiggrin: Suffice to say, that kind of class mixing defeats the point of classes, too. If your point is that WotC sabotaged its own game, well, no arguments there. :smallbiggrin:

But classes are still crucial, because not all classes can perform all jobs. If you spend 3 years as a fighter, and then want to become a doctor, it's actually harder for you than if you start out with no experience at all. (Contrast this to GURPS, which doesn't really have this problem.)

Classes are supposed to indicate competence. But then, the only measure of competence in D&D is ability to kill things, so it gets pretty muddled.

Magic isn't really all that pervasive in DnD. Everybody assumes a high-magic campaign setting.
The spells that completely change the world - the ones I mentioned, in fact - are available at 5th character level or less. In world with 5th level commoners, 5th level priests are not going to be rare.

I also don't agree with classes being an in-character concept.
It actually makes the gameworld much more sensible and believable, and makes the game more fun. Counter-intuitive, I know, but in my experience it's true.

fortesama

2011-02-22, 01:36 AM

:smalleek: Dang... i didn't think that my DM's style would cause this much of a ruckus.

Anyway, to clarify a few things, the DM has a habit of announcing whatever exact class features or abilities a character ends up using except for those that explicitly require a check to identify. With everyone rolling in the open, and a few clues mostly the DM announcing the bonus to attack, sneak attack ability and such, we can make a few safe deductions on what classes those NPCs we've met are. Never announces ac, remaining hp or save bonuses though but the dice results let us deduce the average value.

The setting was homebrew, initially started at level 1 though we're around 6 now.

After a bit of exploring the setting, it has a final fantasy tactics a2 feel to it what with warring factions fighting for control over the land while having to contend with the insane monsters that somehow breed like rabbits as well. We haven't tried travelling through the neglected routes yet though and don't plan to for a while. All in all, the setting's a bit hectic.