PDA

View Full Version : What does it mean to be 1st level



Yora
2014-05-05, 02:01 PM
I just started another campaign and all characters are 1st level. And while planning the first few adventures, that got me thinking. It's better than a 0th level character/NPC class, but how much better should the PCs feel?
Are they already exceptional or just above all the common farmers and servants?

My next adventure will probably have a group of about six 1st level PCs first destroying a band of eight highwaymen forcing some gnomes and an ogre to dig for a hidden treasure in an abandoned mine, then going after the raiders who supplied the slaves to get the rest of the gnomes back, and if they take too long infiltrating a village of swamp barbarian and confront the witch who rules over them.
With the whole village at the end, a direct assault would surely be suicide. But when taking on the highwaymen and the slavers, would you think they should be a competing party of comparable stength to the PCs, should the PCs clearly be superior, or maybe even be so much over their head that they will have to be stealthy and pick them off one by one to have a chance?

Average conscript soldiers are usually described as level 0/1st level warriors. But what about "professional troublemakers", who make a living by violence? How should 1st level PCs compare to them?
In the end, it's a matter of personal taste, but how do you tend to see it?

Airk
2014-05-05, 02:05 PM
I think the question is too broad and cannot be answered usefully.

"How good should first level characters be?" is pretty much EXACTLY the same question as "How good should starting characters be?" and well, every game has its own answer to that.

So MY answer is "it depends on what feel I am going for with that particular game."; In general, I lean towards games that make PCs remarkable, but those games also don't tend to have a lot of overlap with "Games in which the PCs start at 'level 1'."

I definitely don't have an answer to "Should the PCs be better than the other murderhoboes in the world." :P

Rhynn
2014-05-05, 02:19 PM
Depends on the game.

In 3E/4E, level is mostly irrelevant and an abstract measure of what kind of monsters you can take on (but also a strict measure of what kind of spells you can cast, unless you multiclassed).

Adventurer Conqueror King does a great job of giving you several frames of reference for what levels mean, from frequency (1 in 20 people is 1st level, 1 in 50 is 2nd, etc.) to position/status (a manor-knight would usually be 2nd or 3rd level, a baron 5th or 6th, etc.).

AD&D 1E and 2E... it's a horrible mess, with giant differences. 2E laid down the 3E foundation, with modules featuring encounters with dozens of 9th-level nameless grunts "because they have to be that level to be a challenge" (ARGH!), and while 1E avoided that, it didn't really give you a frame of reference (unless you count level titles).

Calen
2014-05-05, 02:29 PM
Well 4e says that an average ability score is 10, racial traits account for racial norms. So if a typical adventurer has 3-4 stats that are above average, then I would expect that a level 1 has something about them that stands out. They are the cream of the crop and can be expected to perform deeds that normal people might not. But I agree that depending on the game you are certainly allowed to alter that.

The Insanity
2014-05-05, 02:34 PM
In my games 1st and 2nd level is reserved for kids and teens. Average adults generally have at least 3 levels.

Red Fel
2014-05-05, 02:47 PM
The difference between first level and no-level, in my mind, is the difference between a white belt and someone who has never taken a martial art. I will explain.

Your experience may vary, but where I studied, there was a saying, "A white belt is for keeping your pants up." The white belt did not signify any level of skill beyond having earned the right to study. Nonetheless, it was a step above the average person, who had not even earned that privilege.

That's level 1, in my mind. The ordinary NPC, the average, non-major, non-story NPC, gets to stand outside of the dojo on the street and do what he does. The first-level character gets to step inside the dojo. There may not be substantial difference between their abilities - an all likelihood, there isn't - but the first-level PC has the chance to become second-level, and third-level, and so forth. He's in the dojo, and it's all up from here. The NPC isn't getting inside the gate.

That's just my five yen.

Thrudd
2014-05-05, 03:05 PM
I just started another campaign and all characters are 1st level. And while planning the first few adventures, that got me thinking. It's better than a 0th level character/NPC class, but how much better should the PCs feel?
Are they already exceptional or just above all the common farmers and servants?

My next adventure will probably have a group of about six 1st level PCs first destroying a band of eight highwaymen forcing some gnomes and an ogre to dig for a hidden treasure in an abandoned mine, then going after the raiders who supplied the slaves to get the rest of the gnomes back, and if they take too long infiltrating a village of swamp barbarian and confront the witch who rules over them.
With the whole village at the end, a direct assault would surely be suicide. But when taking on the highwaymen and the slavers, would you think they should be a competing party of comparable stength to the PCs, should the PCs clearly be superior, or maybe even be so much over their head that they will have to be stealthy and pick them off one by one to have a chance?

Average conscript soldiers are usually described as level 0/1st level warriors. But what about "professional troublemakers", who make a living by violence? How should 1st level PCs compare to them?
In the end, it's a matter of personal taste, but how do you tend to see it?

How much better is a 1st level character than a 0 level in the rules you are using? How strong do you want the troublemaker to be in relation to your PC's? That's the only way to answer.
The rules give you a framework to work with. You can either change the rules (or pick a different game) to fit what you think 1st level ought to mean, or you can change the character's level to fit how powerful you think they should be within the game.

For me, the game tells us how good someone is. If your game is close to AD&D in rules, level 1 characters are only slightly better than level 0, and have a few skills. They are exceptional in their potential, which has not yet been realized. A level 0 enemy with a weapon and the intent to kill can be dangerous to a 1st level character.

Whether you want their enemies to be weaker, equal, or more powerful than them is really up to you. I would say a small gang should be mostly level 0, with a couple leaders of level 1 or 2.

Look at the type of people available as hirelings and followers and use their organization as a basis for most mercenaries or bandit gangs. They are mostly level 0 men-at-arms with 4-7 hp. Leveled hirelings include sergeants which are level 1 fighters who command ten men-at-arms. A lieutenant is level 2 or 3 and will command 20 or 30 men. A captain is level 4-8 and commands 80+ men.

Bandit gangs likely will have a thief or two among them in addition to the level 0 thugs and soldiers. For example, a small gang might be a level 2 fighter, a level 1 thief, and ten or so level 0 thugs. A party of 4-6 level 1 PC's would probably have a hard time taking this group on in an open fight, depending on what their classes are and how they rolled for HP. But environmental factors and surprise conditions could possibly tip the advantage to the PC's allowing them to beat this group in one go, depending on morale rolls. Once they take down five or six thugs, or if they manage to take out the leaders early on, morale could easily break the gang.

ddude987
2014-05-05, 03:43 PM
I suppose it really depends on the setting of the 1st levelers. In a modern setting, I would say almost everyone in society is at the least a level 1 expert. In a fantasy classic dnd setting, people in large cities are probably also experts at the least, while farmers in the outlands are commoners. Even though expert is an npc class, I certainly consider level 1 expert to be level 1, not level 0, as from what I've heard the PC fighter class is worse than expert.

I think overall I see level 1 as below average. Surviving to adulthood is probably level 2 at the least. In modern society I'd say the average college student is at the least level 2 as well.

hamishspence
2014-05-05, 03:56 PM
In a fantasy classic dnd setting, people in large cities are probably also experts at the least, while farmers in the outlands are commoners.

The random DMG tables have plenty of people within a city be commoners.

ddude987
2014-05-05, 04:07 PM
The random DMG tables have plenty of people within a city be commoners.

Yeah but I wasen't speaking RAW. By classic fantasy dnd setting, I meant middle-age castles knights and dragons... oh my! Sorry for the confusion. I thought op was more about what do you imagine 1st level to be. I imagine most people in cities to be experts or similar, heck I imagine almost everyone in a world to be not commoner.

Rhynn
2014-05-06, 12:08 AM
I imagine almost everyone in a world to be not commoner.

I think you might be missing the point of the word "commoner" ...

Garimeth
2014-05-06, 07:58 AM
I think you all are missing the point of the OP in your focus on on mechanics and rules and systems - though these no doubt play a part.


But when taking on the highwaymen and the slavers, would you think they should be a competing party of comparable stength to the PCs, should the PCs clearly be superior, or maybe even be so much over their head that they will have to be stealthy and pick them off one by one to have a chance?

Average conscript soldiers are usually described as level 0/1st level warriors. But what about "professional troublemakers", who make a living by violence? How should 1st level PCs compare to them?
In the end, it's a matter of personal taste, but how do you tend to see it?

I think it depends on the campaign. What is the average power level in the game? I currently am playing 13th Age, but I'll reference 3.5 as a common reference point. If the assumption, for example, is that only a handful of clerics in the world can return the dead to life, then that has ramification on either A.) the average power level, or B.) the prevalence of clerics. This is one example.

I tend to have two different ways I treat level 1 characters:

1. You are a boot. Much like Red Fel's example of the white belt (though I'll say yellow belt or green belt for my explanation) you know a little, but not a lot. You are like a new Marine fresh out of the school of infantry (level 1 fighter). You know how to shoot, move, and communicate - but at the entry level of a basic rifleman. You are not a steely-eyed killer, but you are still better trained and prepared than the average joe off the street for sure, you are a professional and this is your day job.

2. You have a little experience under your belt. For me this depends on the system a little, in 13th Age you can be this as a level 1 because of the background system. I feel like in 3.5 these characters should be level 3 or so. You have accomplished something, maybe it was surviving a seige, maybe it was a war you were conscripted in. There is some world event or experience you have had that other peopplin the world, at least in your "field" will recognize. Studied under the Archmage, survived the Battle of Iron Wood, served for 3 years in the Wood Elf Ranger Corps, pulled off the heist of the Duchess of Grynis' Crown. Whatever it is, it earns you street cred. You can do this as level 1's in 3.5, but you have to make sure you choose the encounters appropriately, and have the NPCs react accordingly.


LONG EXAMPLE:
So here is an example. In my 13th Age campaign there was a big battle about 7 years prior to the start of the game. It was called the Siege of Forge, and was this particular war's Tet offensive, or Fallujah, or Ramadi, or Sangin. Most of the PCs were present for this battle, but in different areas. They met during the seige, which lasted all winter. When the winter broke the battle was one etc, etc. Well three of the party were running a merc band later and they recruited the others to help them. So now when in the game world they say "yeah I was in the siege of Forge". That means something. Just like saying "I was in the invasion of Fallujah" means something. Now *WHAT* it means varies from person to person, and that's up to you as the DM to decide. This is, to me, all part of making the world more believable.

SO, to annswer the OP's question directly about how I think they should fare... I would assume that the "average" bandits are really just guys down on their luck that have turned to banditry to make ends meet. They are level 1 or 0. The average level 1 fighter should be able to handle two of them (with some difficulty and assuming the dice don't hate him) maybe even three. You're professional trouble makers, those guys are level 3. They have a background, they've been doing this for a while, they know what they are doing. The PC's can still win, but if they charge into their camp they should expect that the look out saw them, the camp is aware, and the ensuing barrage of arrows from the forest should not be a surprise.

TL;DR: Levels come from EXP, if the characters have no life/trade experiences then their level should reflect that. If they DO then their level should reflect those experiences. What makes higher level bandits more dangerous is not just how tough they are, but how smart/organized they are.

LibraryOgre
2014-05-06, 10:31 AM
Highly dependent upon the system. For 3e, I assume that 1st level means "between 13 and 20" for most people, with 2nd level coming around 21, 3rd around 31, 4th around 41, etc. (for humans; elves are notoriously slow learners, and don't hit adulthood and levels until their early 100s).

For AD&D, I tend to assume that 1st level means "Of exceptional potential." A 1st level fighter isn't that much different than a 0th level warrior... he might have a couple more hit points, might be a bit better trained with his weapon but, ceteris paribus, the warrior is going to have a slightly less than equal chance to take out the fighter. 2nd level and higher is where people start to realize their potential and become more.

Morty
2014-05-06, 10:45 AM
The fact that there's never been a single good answer to this question is really visible in D&D material. Level 5 might mean "expert and/or elite" or "a reasonably competent person, but nothing exceptional", depending on the writer.

Garimeth
2014-05-06, 11:17 AM
Highly dependent upon the system. For 3e, I assume that 1st level means "between 13 and 20" for most people, with 2nd level coming around 21, 3rd around 31, 4th around 41, etc. (for humans; elves are notoriously slow learners, and don't hit adulthood and levels until their early 100s).

For AD&D, I tend to assume that 1st level means "Of exceptional potential." A 1st level fighter isn't that much different than a 0th level warrior... he might have a couple more hit points, might be a bit better trained with his weapon but, ceteris paribus, the warrior is going to have a slightly less than equal chance to take out the fighter. 2nd level and higher is where people start to realize their potential and become more.

See I feel like we are kind of pigeon-holed into this (para 1 IRT 3e) because of lack of definition by the system. I know plenty of young people who are "higher level" IRL because of their "experience". In this term I am using life experience to mean , work experience, hobbies, education, etc. Level I am using to mean, skill sets, decision making, time management, knowledge level, critical thinking, ability to handle stress, social skills, etc.

So, not to offend anybody, a guy who was a Navy SEAL, gets out and gets his MBA, becomes CEO of an outdoors company, and then moves on to be a congressman. Well he is higher level than a guy of the exact same age who stays in his mom's basement, but now give that guy who stays in his mom's basement a degree, skill set, or significant work experience wel now he's higher level than the guy who just sits around. My wife and I jokingly refer to education and work experience or learning a new skill as "real life grinding". Its not to disparage anyone or imply that one person has more value, but experience points are an abstract way of representing personal growth and levels a way of representing the ability to overcome challenge. What that looks like varies from person to person.

My 2 cents. I try and take your 2nd paragraph's approach to every system I run. It works for some better than others lol.

LibraryOgre
2014-05-06, 11:31 AM
See I feel like we are kind of pigeon-holed into this (para 1 IRT 3e) because of lack of definition by the system. I know plenty of young people who are "higher level" IRL because of their "experience". In this term I am using life experience to mean , work experience, hobbies, education, etc. Level I am using to mean, skill sets, decision making, time management, knowledge level, critical thinking, ability to handle stress, social skills, etc.

For clarity, my numbers are for average people, not necessarily everyone. You've got 30 year old idiots who've failed to advance past level 1, and younger folks who've seen a lot and are thus higher level. It's "If you take a group of 35 year olds and throw a dart, chances are you'll hit someone level 3", not "every person who is 35 is level 3".

After all, you can start at 18 and be a demi-god by 19 if you push hard enough. ;-)

Garimeth
2014-05-06, 11:49 AM
For clarity, my numbers are for average people, not necessarily everyone. You've got 30 year old idiots who've failed to advance past level 1, and younger folks who've seen a lot and are thus higher level. It's "If you take a group of 35 year olds and throw a dart, chances are you'll hit someone level 3", not "every person who is 35 is level 3".

After all, you can start at 18 and be a demi-god by 19 if you push hard enough. ;-)

LOL. Yeah I get you. The world belongs to those who hustle. I was more belaboring that the system is how it is, but then...that's part of why my group doesn't use 3rd edition anymore, among many other resson. Alas though, it was my first true love. That fling with AD&D was pretty fun though.

Pex
2014-05-06, 12:35 PM
Cynicism alert (D&D centric)

What it does not mean is PCs being incompetent pathetic wimps. Thankfully this is no longer prevalent thinking, but it used to be. DMs were aghast a 1st level character had the audacity of having an 18 in an ability score, even with no 8 in another. Munchkin! they cried. Warriors doing more than 10 damage in one attack were an abomination. A cleric who casts Command and stops a foe were heretics for not casting Cure Light Wounds or Bless. Color Spray is to be banned! Cast Magic Missile instead like a proper wizard should!

On the roleplay side all NPCs of authority or influence were hostile. Merchants were mistrustful, tavern owners uncooperative unless you gave them nearly all the money you had. You were ignored by the Wizards' Guild. Constabulary would arrest first ask questions never. The DM would glare his eyes at you if you did not properly roleplay humility when the Noble shows up.

Not all of this is from personal experience of long ago, playing and witnessing conversations. It was also the chatter on early internet boards. I'm glad those days are gone.

Garimeth
2014-05-06, 12:49 PM
Cynicism alert (D&D centric)

What it does not mean is PCs being incompetent pathetic wimps. Thankfully this is no longer prevalent thinking, but it used to be. DMs were aghast a 1st level character had the audacity of having an 18 in an ability score, even with no 8 in another. Munchkin! they cried. Warriors doing more than 10 damage in one attack were an abomination. A cleric who casts Command and stops a foe were heretics for not casting Cure Light Wounds or Bless. Color Spray is to be banned! Cast Magic Missile instead like a proper wizard should!

On the roleplay side all NPCs of authority or influence were hostile. Merchants were mistrustful, tavern owners uncooperative unless you gave them nearly all the money you had. You were ignored by the Wizards' Guild. Constabulary would arrest first ask questions never. The DM would glare his eyes at you if you did not properly roleplay humility when the Noble shows up.

Not all of this is from personal experience of long ago, playing and witnessing conversations. It was also the chatter on early internet boards. I'm glad those days are gone.

One of my players was very much in that camp. I am more of an RP'er at heart, but I min-max the **** out of my characters. First game he DM'ed for our group was in the Next playtest. I rolled a dwarven heavy armor and shield using wizard who could disarm traps and took mason as a background, lol.

Incanur
2014-05-06, 01:48 PM
In 3.x D&D, the vast majority of people are level-1 commoners who live their lives in fear of being ambushed by a house cat. If you've got a PC class at level 1, you're a step above that. According to the DMG, anyone would a PC classes is extraordinary.

For my own peace of mind, I've decided on 2nd level as the human standard when I run 3.PF D&D. (I do this once a year.) A commoner 2 at least has a bit more buffer against animal attacks, and PF warriors at level 2 have a solid 11-13hp.

JusticeZero
2014-05-06, 02:04 PM
I do E8/E6 for a reason here. The fact of the matter is that if "Most adults are level 3+", the meme of the villagers asking for help makes no sense - you are rapidly approaching the meme of "Can you take care of slaughtering everything in the __ Lair for us, because we can't be bothered to lower ourselves to that task." That isn't very heroic.

I generally have PC levels a dime a dozen for 1st levels - that's anyone with a bit of training. The newbie on the police force going into the bad side of town to deal with the level 1 mugger is still heroic, rather than hazing. Both Cop 1 and Mugger 1 are competent. The lady with the purse is still a 0 - no training in adventuring, like most people you encounter.

But level 2? You have to have had some interesting and out of the ordinary stuff happen to earn that. In the course of that, you generally pick up a bit of rank. So 2's are no longer a dime a dozen, but you can find them pretty easily. 3's are like 2's but more so. You're seeing officers and command types now.
4's are starting to get impressive. 1-3 you're just getting good. 4 is when people in your field start noticing you. By the time you get up to 6, people who aren't even in your field are noticing you. 7-8 is stepping into the legendary range.

9, however, is the point where things start to get downright surreal and you need to start quietly sneaking those people off of the world map before they start turning things into a tippy-esque wuxia superhero comic. If your game runs high levels, you can't, so you suddenly start having to figure out what those people can do raging across the continent.

The answer? A lot of freaking bizarre and insane things that make anything your characters might have been doing 1-5 into a complete joke. Any enemies they have to go fight are cosmic horror to the common people, and any inflation to make that less of a strain feeds back into "We feel sorry for you guys. Go beat the rats up for me, I can't get any XP for it because they keel over if I look at them funny and it's a waste of time, but you might level off of them."

DigoDragon
2014-05-06, 02:54 PM
In the end, it's a matter of personal taste, but how do you tend to see it?

Abstractly, this is how (http://justkickthecan.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/cool-link-zelda-comic-gif.gif) I like to view 1st level PCs. They are simple folk who have been blessed/cursed by fate with the potential to become the protagonists to an adventure of unfathomable depth.

In D&D 3.5 terms, most commoners will remain in NPC type classes and though they can gain levels with study and experience, they don't venture very far outside that little comfort zone of their lives. Those that are given the potential are the ones that gain PC class levels. Most will not use this potential and thus will remain low level while others will meet quick ends against the dangerous out there. The players are those with the potential and (hopefully) the will to use it to the fullest and become the high-level legends for the next generation. :smallsmile:

Garimeth
2014-05-06, 02:57 PM
But level 2? You have to have had some interesting and out of the ordinary stuff happen to earn that. In the course of that, you generally pick up a bit of rank. So 2's are no longer a dime a dozen, but you can find them pretty easily. 3's are like 2's but more so. You're seeing officers and command types now.
4's are starting to get impressive. 1-3 you're just getting good. 4 is when people in your field start noticing you. By the time you get up to 6, people who aren't even in your field are noticing you. 7-8 is stepping into the legendary range.


I agree with you for the most part, but being an officer or command type is a function, not level. So you could very well have a squad leader that is higher level than his platoon commander, or a beat cop that is higher level than his captain.

I agree the power creep in 3.5 is for me sometimes too much for believable storytelling - it can be done, but its not right for some games.

Jay R
2014-05-06, 06:16 PM
It is with a satisfaction bordering on glee that I point out that the best intuitive understanding of what 1st level means comes from original Dungeons and Dragons.

A 1st level Fighting-Man* was called a Veteran.

Assume therefore that he is well-trained in the arts of war, and knows more, and can stay alive better, than recruits. But his powers are merely those of a normal, although well-trained, person with some experience.

By fourth level he was a Hero, and by eighth level he was a Super Hero

*Yes, that was the name of the class, and yes, the assumption was that PCs were male.

kyoryu
2014-05-06, 08:12 PM
Much like the "Veteran" distinction, I look at a 1st level PC as someone who's got some level of training, or some level of experience, but probably not both.

The fact that they're a "PC class" (in an edition that makes a distinction) indicates that they have the potential for greatness. That doesn't mean it will be realized, of course.

Fiery Diamond
2014-05-06, 09:46 PM
As everyone has said, this varies by game, by GM, and by many other things. My personal thing as DM (3.5):

-Commoner class doesn't exist. Everyone has PC classes, expert, or aristocrat.

Level 1: Complete Novice. Their class, stats, and optimization choices reflect whether they have actual skill or potential in an area. Fighter 1 is trainee.

Level 2: Just out of training, or has a little experience under their belt. Fighter 2 is new recruit out of training.

Level 3: Most people who have actual careers rather than just being farmers, day-laborers, or similar are this level. Fighter 3 is rank & file.

Level 4: As level 3, but only those with greater potential have moved up to this level. Similar commonality to level 3, but not quite as prolific. Fighter 4 is experienced soldier.

Level 5: Seasoned professional. Within a community (town or small city), these people are going to be known for whatever their profession is. In a small community, this might be the highest level. Fighter 5 is a veteran, and if good at managing people likely to be a captain (my settings tend to be heavy on the "authority = ***-kicking").

Level 6: As level 5, but more notable. These people are especially notable, but not the top of their field. Within a community, even people who haven't ever had cause to interact with them probably know who they are (unless they deliberately avoid the spotlight, of course). Fighter 6 is on his way to being hand-picked for something greater.

Level 7-8: Elites and Experts. In a small city, this is the highest level you'll find, and there's probably only one in each area of expertise. These people are going to be known beyond the community they live or operate in, but depending on what they do and their personality, their renown might not spread too far. Fighter 7-8 are elite special forces, the king's own hand-picked special squad.

Level 9-10: Widely renowned experts and elites. In a large city, the highest level. They are likely known throughout the entire country, and possibly beyond. People travel long distances to seek their aid, for they can do things others cannot. Fighter 9-10 is the captain of the special forces, or the king's bodyguard.

Level 11-12: Champion-class. There are only a handful (not a handful of each specialty, mind you, a handful total) in a given country. (Note that my settings tend to have no more than 5 countries at most.) They are spoken of in tones of awe, and everyone knows who the champions of their home country are, and probably a few of the ones from other countries, too.

Level 13+: Legendary. There might be a few of these in the whole setting. If there are, they are PLOT, in all caps.

PCs tend to run from 3-8, with the potential to level further in a long campaign.

Mr Beer
2014-05-06, 11:12 PM
I simply view L1 as the fledgeling hero. They are not capable of taking on a dozen commoners but they are likely noticeably superior in one or more areas: strong build, firey intellect, a certain steely determination that speaks of great potential. One day they might be a mighty hero or maybe they'll be gutted by orcs in a dismal underground cave. Only the gods know, and they aren't telling.

Seerow
2014-05-06, 11:45 PM
For 3e (which is what most of the thread seems to be focused on anyway), the way I see it is:

The average adult has around 3 hit dice, almost always in an NPC class. Progression beyond this point is fairly rare. What happens is the average person starts as Commoner 3. From there they "level up" past commoner 3 by trading out those commoner levels for levels in other NPC classes. So a commoner 6 is actually an Adept 3, or Aristocrat 3, Expert 3, or Warrior 3. From there, they level up by trading out NPC classes for PC classes, but actually gaining a level every other level.

So you go something like:
Warrior 3
Warrior 3/Fighter 1
Warrior 2/Fighter 2
Warrior 2/Fighter 3
Warrior 1/Fighter 4
Warrior 1/Fighter 5
Fighter 6.

So by the time a Commoner has hit level 12, or another NPC class has hit level 9, they are fully converted to some form of PC class.

I've toyed with slowing this down further by adding in extra bonus feats in between. Making it so you get 1 feat between each level up after 3 conveniently makes it so a level 20 commoner gets converted into a level 6 Player Character class, with 8 bonus feats (an EL8 character by E6 guidelines).



I dunno, mostly it's a useless bunch of fiddly mechanics, but it appeals to me because it provides a constant sense of progression that can span an entire game's worth of power, without ever having the total uselessness of a 1 hit die commoner being terrified of a house cat. This is generally how I build my NPCs who aren't major plot points (read: Random person in town will fall somewhere in the power curve listed above, as will random bandits. BBEGs will be as powerful as needed), and makes a halfway decent set of rules for running a campaign starting at "level 0" for those times when everyone wants to play a bunch of useless nobody schmucks or whatever reason. For normal games, I typically just start the players at level 6 (though I have once or twice started with fewer PC class levels and let them have NPC class levels to pad hit dice so they're a bit more survivable, it didn't work out too badly).

Rhynn
2014-05-06, 11:46 PM
My general AD&D and older (ACKS in practice) frame of reference:

0-level: 90% of people. Watchmen, men-at-arms, tradesmen, sages, et cetera - anyone who doesn't have some kind of special skills, even if they have long years of experience and training.

1st level: Professional thieves, veteran warriors (including cultural warrior elites, like Viking huscarls, etc.), apprentice mages, clerics who can perform miracles (most priests are 0-level), etc. People with potential and experience, as well as training in or talent at some uncommon skillset. These people often lead small groups of 0-levels.

2nd through 4th level: Knights, journeyman mages, temple priests, abbots, skilled thieves, etc. These are top professionals. These people often lead large groups.

5th through 8th level: Barons and dukes, bishops, established mages, etc. Important people at the top of their game. These people lead companies and more.

9th: Kings and princes, border counts, master mages, high priests/patriarchs, thieves' guild masters, etc.

10th and above: Great heroes and rulers.

Obviously, some kings - especially young - will be lower level, and some will be higher (Edward, the Black Prince); the same goes all across.

1st-level PCs have a slight advantage over 0-level men, individually, and parties can expect to defeat groups of 0-level opponents of about equal size. (Easily if they have a sleep spell.) Once they level up, the gap grows, and pretty soon (3rd/4th level) fighters can wade into groups of 0-level enemies, taking on more than two at a time. A 10th-level fighter can pretty much take on a company of men-at-arms and win, and a wizard just needs a spell or two to do it.


In other games, assumptions about PC:NPC power relations vary widely.

In games like HârnMaster and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, PC start out no better than most people (and worse than many, unless they start with extra experience), and never exceed human (or dwarven, or elven...) capabilities; they can become elite and expert at what they do, but they'll never be able to take on 10 men-at-arms with impunity or anything like that.

In Artesia: Adventures in the Known World, PCs start out as regular people - although competent in their field, maybe even masters in some area - but they can eventually become Heroes (Ancient Greek style), able to defeat a score of opponents, overcome a dragon, and perform impossible tasks. However, the world also contains such Heroes already, often in positions of great power.

Mr Beer
2014-05-07, 12:05 AM
I'm not a huge fan of the D&D trope that higher noble rank = higher level fighter, with kings routinely being level 14+. I think it works for the guy that literally won his kingdom via the sword i.e. Conan and crusading kings a la Richard the Lionheart, but there's no reason for the average one to be vastly superior to any reasonably competent man at arms.

They should of course have powerful magical items and a retinue of high level bodyguards.

Kol Korran
2014-05-07, 12:11 AM
I agree that this question is probably better phrased as "What should a starting character feel like?". There are several things that come to mind regarding that, but it mostly boils down to what the GM and the group decides a starting character means. Note that some players have very wide ideas about that- one will write their 1st level warrior as a veteran soldier, another as a guy who started training in the village militia. You should come to an understanding with the party about this.

As to power level within the game, that is what the GM prepares. I don't think a sole adventure should give a single feel, but rather varied experiences- against some obstacles the party excels easily, against some they struggle a bit. Some nearly kill them, some WILL kill them unless if they engage. By setting the difficulty level you're basically giving them a sense of their power and place in the world. It's quite important since this gives the players a reference, in a way.

Some things that I found to affect the party's relative "power level/ experience":
1) System: This have been mentioned allready. D&D 3.5 doesn't describe this well. In the original D&D you were supposed to be veterans, In Shadow run you start out as highly skilled experts. In Fate you start a cut above the normal folk and so on.

2) Setting: In D&Ds settings for example- In FR you start as nothing special. In Eberron you're assumed to be special and more competent from the start, as it is in Dark Sun.

3) How you deal with the basic stats compared to the normal population: How higher (If at all) do you set the starting conditions above the common folk? Above the better cut of society? Against the truly exceptional? When you face challenges against the PCs, which opponents are below, equal, or surpass the PCs in their basic stats?

4) Class (For classes levels)/ Access to better resources: In D&D you have PC classes and NPC classes. The PC classes are obviously superior, and most classed monsters are assumed to take levels in warrior, an NPC class. What fraction of the challenges equal the PCs? What does class (Or similar choices) mean in your game? Is a fighter a highly skileld combatant, or just someone who knows a few more tricks?

5) Rate of gaining power: This comes later, but should be considered when starting. in D&D characters gain power meteorically, leveling up much faster than 99% of the world, This usually marks them as exceptional already (Though this may be contributed to undertaking life and death challenges). in FATE and Shadowrun progression is much, much more slowed, and often more constrained.

6) Extra Karma/ Edge/ Fate/ Luck/ Action points/ Hero points: Some systems or settings give the PC characters an additional reosurce, usually one that can affect the dice in more dramatic ways, but of a highly limited number, presenting some great ability when push comes to shove. This usually marks the party as heroes of a sort or "special inidviduals".

By altering all of the above, and coming to an agreement with your party you come to the level of competence you feel is right for your game.

My own preference (And a tendency I see in most settings and systyems) Is to consider the PCs as more powerful than most, even initially. I'm running a pathfinder AP (Due to lack of time) which starts with the PCs having a series of encounters fighting cocroaches, maggots, giant flies and spiders. I wanted the, to feel more epic, so I scrapped that and started with a big battle with deons, cultists and the like. With the same XP allotment. Worked much better, and gave them a great feel of tension, distress, fighting against greater odds.

My main point i think (Sorry for the length so far) is that with all of the tools of the games, there isn't a "right" feel the party should experience. You can make anything you want feel whatever you like. It's all up to you and your group.

JusticeZero
2014-05-07, 12:19 AM
I agree with you for the most part, but being an officer or command type is a function, not level. So you could very well have a squad leader that is higher level than his platoon commander, or a beat cop that is higher level than his captain.
It is a function, however, it is a function that one often earns by doing things which also earn fairly substantial blocks of XP. As such, there will be a strong, but not absolute, correlation between the two.

Also, systemwise, I work it that level 0 is 4HP(+con bonus), 2+int skill points, no class skills, no good saves, no weapon or armor proficiencies. Everything gets upgraded when you take a class level.

Ashtagon
2014-05-07, 12:47 AM
For me, L1 means you have a few months experience in your chosen career path - just left high school, junior thug in a gang, or just recently started an apprenticeship or undergraduate course. Age 15-18.

L2 means a year or so of your field. Still an undergraduate at university, or a journeyman in a traditional apprenticeship.

L3 - 5 years. You've recently graduated and are in the early stages of your career, or are a "made man" in the mob.

L4 - 10 years. Age 25 or so for humans.

L5 - 20 years. Age 35 or so for humans.

L6 - 40 years. Age 55 or so for humans. Most humans likely won't get beyond this.

L7 - 80 years. Age 95 or so for humans.

+1 level - x2 years.

This formula is for unremarkable NPCs only. I fully expect any special NPCs (and certainly PCs) to break this pattern. The pattern also explains why demi-humans have a reputation for being really powerful compared humans - they are simply more experienced. Note that the levels refer to number of years spent in adulthood. Elves won't start levelling in this pattern till they're 80 or so.

Rhynn
2014-05-07, 04:32 AM
I'm not a huge fan of the D&D trope that higher noble rank = higher level fighter, with kings routinely being level 14+.

In the real world, nobility had access to better food, better training, and plenty of opportunities to gain experience (actual Medieval tourneys weren't held at the lists; they were held in a field where two sides or several teams fought each other, with weapons, taking enemies captive; at one noble youth's "play" tourney, fought with wooden swords in padded armor, several participants received permanent injuries). They generally made superior warriors.

In a fantasy game world, the nobility have all those advantages, plus they have to fend off monsters and challengers to their position. When they lead armies to war (a pretty essential function of nobility, given that's how the European social class started), they are far more likely to be personally attacked (flying and invisible enemies, etc.).

In a fantasy world, incompetent rulers would be even less likely to remain rulers long than in the real world. If one of your dukes can personally slay a dragon in combat and take on 50 armsmen at once, he's going to look mighty attractive to your other subjects if he starts fomenting rebellion... basically, rulers who aren't of "appropriate" level get replaced by those who are. Vassals are notoriously fickle and ambitious.

Anyway, in ACKS it's also a function of the rules. A man who holds a knight's fee of land is going to end up level 2 or 3. A man who holds a barony is going to end up level 5-6 or so.

Also, I'd love to hear how Richard I won his kingdom by the sword. He was on the losing side of his older brother's revolt and all...

Garimeth
2014-05-07, 08:01 AM
*STUFF*

This is my preferred way to run a 3.5 game with the mav level usually going to 12 or 15. Right now we are using 13th Age, which is a blast, but one day I want to check out Savage Worlds as people seem to think very highly of it.

Garimeth
2014-05-07, 08:07 AM
I'm not a huge fan of the D&D trope that higher noble rank = higher level fighter, with kings routinely being level 14+. I think it works for the guy that literally won his kingdom via the sword i.e. Conan and crusading kings a la Richard the Lionheart, but there's no reason for the average one to be vastly superior to any reasonably competent man at arms.

They should of course have powerful magical items and a retinue of high level bodyguards.

I couldn't agree more. That's why I pointed out above that command is a function, not an indication of experience.

Admittedly, as an enlisted member of the US military I have a bias towards this - but I've seen plenty of Seargents in the Marine Corps that are infinitely more squared away and on the ball than their platoon or company commander. I make a point to avoid this trope.

Yora
2014-05-07, 08:08 AM
What do you personally consider good examples of 1st level characters in fiction?

Garimeth
2014-05-07, 08:29 AM
It is a function, however, it is a function that one often earns by doing things which also earn fairly substantial blocks of XP. As such, there will be a strong, but not absolute, correlation between the two.

No doubt, I'm not suggesting that the officer be level 1. Not to belabor the point but a good example would be

E5 squad leader with 3-4 combat deployments.
O3 Company commander who transferred to some garrison unit managing property before transferring to the fleet as an O3.

Nobody in their right mind would suggest that the Captain is "higher level" than the Sgt. Now, is he level one? Absolutely not. College, OCS, TBS, IOC (if he's a ground guy), and then a 3-4 year tour managing people. Yeah he is definitely not level 1. But the Sgt has Boot Camp, SOI, corporal's course, seargent's course, squadleader's course, and then 4 years of work-ups, training, and deployments into combat. The Captain may even be the same level as him, but D&D modules tend to this assumption that higher rank = higher level. Not only would it not be true today, but it would be even LESS true in a medieval setting where nobility alone buys you commision. Anyway, I am admittedly biased and drifting off-topic.

EDIT: An even more stark example would be an E8 getting ready to retire who has to report to an O3. Same level? Not even close. Is the Capt still in charge? You bet your ass.

Garimeth
2014-05-07, 08:37 AM
In the real world, nobility had access to better food, better training, and plenty of opportunities to gain experience (actual Medieval tourneys weren't held at the lists; they were held in a field where two sides or several teams fought each other, with weapons, taking enemies captive; at one noble youth's "play" tourney, fought with wooden swords in padded armor, several participants received permanent injuries). They generally made superior warriors.

In a fantasy game world, the nobility have all those advantages, plus they have to fend off monsters and challengers to their position. When they lead armies to war (a pretty essential function of nobility, given that's how the European social class started), they are far more likely to be personally attacked (flying and invisible enemies, etc.).

In a fantasy world, incompetent rulers would be even less likely to remain rulers long than in the real world. If one of your dukes can personally slay a dragon in combat and take on 50 armsmen at once, he's going to look mighty attractive to your other subjects if he starts fomenting rebellion... basically, rulers who aren't of "appropriate" level get replaced by those who are. Vassals are notoriously fickle and ambitious.

Anyway, in ACKS it's also a function of the rules. A man who holds a knight's fee of land is going to end up level 2 or 3. A man who holds a barony is going to end up level 5-6 or so.

Also, I'd love to hear how Richard I won his kingdom by the sword. He was on the losing side of his older brother's revolt and all...

See my post above. The point about the advantages of nobility are a good one, but the idea that rank = level, does not bear fruit. It was started as a convenience, and has persisted. Case in point, (I hate to use GoT, but it is convenient) is Jeoffrey Baratheon higher level than the Hound? In D&D he is the king so he must be higher level. Nevermind that the hound is a badass veteran of several campaigns. Now I think it is safe to say that the nobility is going to be higher level than a blacksmith's apprentice. The same way its safe to say that 4 years in the Peace Corps, to transition off the military, earns you more "experience" than 4 years in your mom's basement.

Garimeth
2014-05-07, 08:57 AM
What do you personally consider good examples of 1st level characters in fiction?

In Wheel of Time: Rand, Mat, Perrin, and Egwene when they leave Rwo Rivers are level 1 or 2. I'd say Nynaeve was 2 or 3.

In The Sword Of Shanarra: Shea Ohmsford was level 1 or 2. Menion Leah was level 2 or 3.

In The Hobbit or LoTR: All of the hobbits are level 1.

In Star Wars Luke is level 1 or 2.

I'm a pretty big fan of Joseph Campbell's Hero With A Thousand Faces model to the narrative approach. In his model the "Hero" when first starting is level 1. Now plenty of fiction takes us past that initial starting and somewhere else in the cycle by giving us a backstory etc, those heroes (if using his model) are further along on wheel. There usually is a "mentor" of higher level (Obi-Wan, Gandalf, Allanon, Moiraine and Lan) and sometimes a companion who is more capable than them, but is more of a friend than a mentor (Han Solo, Menion, Nynaeve - not sure who would fit this bill in LoTR). EDIT: It should be stated I have not read anything of his, just overviews of his model.

There are also alot of fiction where the characters are "never" level 1. Glenn Cook's books The Chronicles of The Black Company and Branden Sanderson's books Mystborn Trilogy and The Way of Kings come to mind. All of these books start with the story in progress and we get bits of exposition about the past here and there.

I think narratively, and somebody else mentioned this also, the group has to kind of be on the same page with their character's backstories. If everybody is playing some grizzled vet from the orc wars, and one dude is playing the brand new militiaman it doesn't REALLY make sense for them to be the same level. Now you can pull it off, and some groups will never even notice or care. I think a good example is Rand from WoT. By Jordan did a good job of showing how he fumbles his way to success by the conspiring of fate, imo, but he becomes a blademaster in FAR less time than it took anybody else in the story, to include Lan. So the ende result is "ok yeah he is the Dragon Reborn" but you got to make sure that the other PCs feel special too. In the case of WoT I think its safe to say that Lan would be an NPC, and the "core" PCs are the Two Rivers crew. And they do all get their own special stuff.

Jay R
2014-05-07, 09:26 AM
I'm not a huge fan of the D&D trope that higher noble rank = higher level fighter, with kings routinely being level 14+.

That's because you've over-simplified the trope. Not "higher noble rank = higher level fighter," but rather "higher level fighter PC can earn higher noble rank"

They aren't equivalent, but a high-level fighter is capable of attracting a body of men-at-arms, going out into the wild, taming it, and establishing a fiefdom. Also, in original D&D, Gygax and Arneson assumed that was the goal for high-level fighter PCs, and the game would move on into large battles.

Of course a current lord, who inherited his lands, might be a sickly, personally weak person. But his great-grandfather, who established the fief, probably was a high-level fighter.

Rhynn
2014-05-07, 09:54 AM
Case in point, (I hate to use GoT, but it is convenient) is Jeoffrey Baratheon higher level than the Hound?

I think you're pretending to be stupid now. You don't get levels by having rank; you obtain or keep rank if you have levels.

To use ASOIAF: Robert Baratheon, Eddard Stark, Rhaegar, Oberyn, and Khal Drogo are obviously high-level fighters (Eddard being one of the top swordsmen in Westeros, apparently). Joffrey is too young to have any levels; of course, being Joffrey, he never would have, and would have been deposed by someone.

You had to pick the D&D-based fantasy novels where most rulers are awesome fighters, huh?

There are higher-level fighters (Kingsguard, etc.) than their kings, obviously - that's why they're chosen for those positions.


What do you personally consider good examples of 1st level characters in fiction?

The Hobbits in LOTR by the time they reach Rivendell. (Definitely 0-levels on the trip there.) Similarly, Bilbo in The Hobbit by the time they reach Rivendell. Hey, the rules say you get the XP for the treasure when you reach civilization with it. :smallwink:

Robb Stark and Jon Snow at the start of A Game of Thrones (Jon is a match for 0-level Night's Watch men-at-arms, Robb can hold his own in battle). Theon, too, for that matter.

Felix Jaeger (of Gotrek & Felix) when he first meets up with Gotrek (or shortly thereafter).

Paul Atreides at the start of Dune.

Paksenarrion Dorthansdottir (of The Deed of Paksenarrion) by the end of her training in Duke Phelan's company (before they see any action). Represents her being slightly more gifted at fighting than most.

Marid Audran at the start (and probably the end) of When Gravity Fails. He's been around, but he's not that tough - in fact, he's not much at all until he gets Papa's gift.

Zbyszko of Bogdaniec at the start of The Knights of the Cross. He's been to war, and he's no ordinary man-at-arms, but he's not that special yet.

D'artagnan at the start of The Three Musketeers. He knows his way around a sword, but he's definitely lacking in experience.

Carrot at the beginning of Guards! Guards!.

Both Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser/Mouse in their "origin stories." (Tall tales?)

Frank Grimes in issue #1 of The Walking Dead.

Garimeth
2014-05-07, 11:03 AM
I think you're pretending to be stupid now. You don't get levels by having rank; you obtain or keep rank if you have levels.

To use ASOIAF: Robert Baratheon, Eddard Stark, Rhaegar, Oberyn, and Khal Drogo are obviously high-level fighters (Eddard being one of the top swordsmen in Westeros, apparently). Joffrey is too young to have any levels; of course, being Joffrey, he never would have, and would have been deposed by someone.

You had to pick the D&D-based fantasy novels where most rulers are awesome fighters, huh?

There are higher-level fighters (Kingsguard, etc.) than their kings, obviously - that's why they're chosen for those positions.

Not sure why you think I'm pretending to be stupid? I chose Joffrey because he is a great example of someone who has "high rank" that has no/few levels. There are definitely tons of high level fighters that are rulers in GoT, sure but that doesn't disprove my point in the slightest, which is that there is NOT ALWAYS a link between rank and leve, I am not saying a definitive NEVER statement either for or against.. Also, you say that Joffrey is too young to have levels? Arya Stark definitely has levels.

Also as far as picking D&D based fantasy novel... not sure why you said that - because I chose GoT, or because of my reading list I gave below that? If for the first, I'm not cherry picking my examples based off of the series, I used Joffrey as a convenient example, and Eddard Stark is a GREAT counter example, but since there exists a character with rank who has no levels it shows the flaw of the trope. Not saying it has no merit, but in my experience it has been used as a blanket thing with no discretion, not saying everybody uses it that way, or that it was intended that way, but it has been my experience.

If for the second reason, I chose them because those are novels I have read and enjoy? Outside of Dragonlance I have never gotten into D&D novels.

Your example of the Kingsguard just goes to show my point, and even makes it sound like you agree with me.


I like the fictional examples you listed, especially D'Artagnon! Don't really agree with the Hobbits being level 0, as they would probably be PCs, but if we assume them as NPCs then you are spot on.

EDIT: Being irritated about the "pretending to be stupid" comment I went and reread part of the thread. I think you and I may be talking about similar but different things. Your statements are mostly centered around "rank" as a social status, I am mostly referring to it as the ability and authority to command, as specifically relates to the military. Rereading my post above the post you quoted may clarify. It is incidental in this case that being a noble pretty much automatically means being an officer if you are in the field. Lastly, you mention that being high level means they can obtain and keep that rank - and while this is definitely true, there are clear exceptions. If the ruler is popular or discerning (charismatic and wise) then people may just not want to depose him because its good to have him in charge. If he is neither of those things, but crafty or smart (intelligence) he will pay other people to be those things for him, and pay more powerful people to protect him.

Rhynn
2014-05-07, 12:19 PM
Also as far as picking D&D based fantasy novel... not sure why you said that

I was referring to ASOIAF. It's D&D fantasy without the label, just like The Deed of Paksenarrion (which is much more blatant, of course, down to parts of the second and third volumes taking place in a renamed Hommlet!). Longswords, ring mail, GRRM is a DM (there was a fun interview piece in a Dragon maybe 10-12 years ago).


Not sure why you think I'm pretending to be stupid?

Because you're pretending it's some kind of iron-clad rule with minimum levels for titles. Are you serious? No one can be that bad at reading.


it shows the flaw of the trope.

It's a trend and a guideline, amply explained by now. There is no flaw when it's not a rule. You'd have to be a blithering idiot to pretend that "privilege means you're likely higher level," "higher level helps you achieve power," and "higher level helps you keep your position" add up to "kings are automatically high level."


Also, you say that Joffrey is too young to have levels? Arya Stark definitely has levels.

Here comes the semantical arguments. You win: the word "many" should have been there. (Hey, let's get even more semantical: he has one at most, so a level, not levels. Isn't this useful?)

Aedilred
2014-05-07, 01:16 PM
To be fair, Joffrey could be Level 10 for all we know, it's just that he doesn't have any stats higher than about 8.

Garimeth
2014-05-07, 01:21 PM
I was referring to ASOIAF. It's D&D fantasy without the label, just like The Deed of Paksenarrion (which is much more blatant, of course, down to parts of the second and third volumes taking place in a renamed Hommlet!). Longswords, ring mail, GRRM is a DM (there was a fun interview piece in a Dragon maybe 10-12 years ago).



Because you're pretending it's some kind of iron-clad rule with minimum levels for titles. Are you serious? No one can be that bad at reading.



It's a trend and a guideline, amply explained by now. There is no flaw when it's not a rule. You'd have to be a blithering idiot to pretend that "privilege means you're likely higher level," "higher level helps you achieve power," and "higher level helps you keep your position" add up to "kings are automatically high level."



Here comes the semantical arguments. You win: the word "many" should have been there. (Hey, let's get even more semantical: he has one at most, so a level, not levels. Isn't this useful?)

OK, you obviously just want to argue with me. I am not talking about any rule, I am talking about a tendency of the system and many DMs and players who run it. To quote myself again:

"since there exists a character with rank who has no levels it shows the flaw of the trope. Not saying it has no merit, but in my experience it has been used as a blanket thing with no discretion, not saying everybody uses it that way, or that it was intended that way, but it has been my experience."

You are talking about something totally different than me, I have never even read the document that you are quoting that you say that I must be bad at reading. I'm not talking about semantics I am saying, amply explained by now, that there is a tendency of the system to view it this way, BECAUSE of the trend and guideline - which is what I am saying I disagree with, I've made that very clear. So you are either trolling, looking to argue, or have the poor reading comprehension you are accusing me of. Either way this conversation is fruitless, and I'm done dealing with you. Have a good day.

I said good day, sir!

Garimeth
2014-05-07, 01:22 PM
To be fair, Joffrey could be Level 10 for all we know, it's just that he doesn't have any stats higher than about 8.

Not a fighter if his Fortitude save is any indication....

Zing!

Jay R
2014-05-07, 02:52 PM
None of this changes the fact that no D&D rules of any edition ever suggested that all nobles would be high-level fighters. They showed how a high-level fighter could become a noble, by putting together an army and conquering.

Not the same thing at all.

Anybody who interprets this as saying that all nobles were high-level fighters, and nobody ever inherited such a title, or got it politically, is simply trying to find what isn't there. That's like taking the statement "If you invent something new everybody wants, you could get rich," and turning it into "All rich people are inventors." The first is true; the second is nonsense.

Joffrey is king because his father (or rather, his mother's husband) was a great fighter who put together an army and conquered. Joffrey didn't have to because it was already done.

Garimeth
2014-05-07, 02:56 PM
None of this changes the fact that no D&D rules of any edition ever suggested that all nobles would be high-level fighters. They showed how a high-level fighter could become a noble, by putting together an army and conquering.

Not the same thing at all.

Anybody who interprets this as saying that all nobles were high-level fighters, and nobody ever inherited such a title, or got it politically, is simply trying to find what isn't there. That's like taking the statement "If you invent something new everybody wants, you could get rich," and turning it into "All rich people are inventors." The first is true; the second is nonsense.

Joffrey is king because his father (or rather, his mother's husband) was a great fighter who put together an army and conquered. Joffrey didn't have to because it was already done.

Yeah, I get that. What I, and I believe MrBeer, were talking about was how that general guideline - which I agree with and think is relevant - gets misused by lazy/bad DMs and players to say "this guy is the duke so he is high level". Which I disagree with. My real issue here is copy and paste NPCs, this trope just happens to be a source of justification for some of those poorly thought out NPCs.

Aedilred
2014-05-07, 03:52 PM
There is a bit of truth to it, of course. In the sort of setting D&D has traditionally aimed to present (Early-High Middle Ages, with an admitted lot of anachronism) the noble class was also the fighting class. They'll have spent their time training, fighting in tournaments, actually fighting, and so on, no matter how they actually acquired their title. If you want to clear up that bandit infestation just out of town, the lord would often be expected to go and take care of it personally. Not every lord will do this, but if you get too many feckless lords not prepared to fight, either a better fighter will take their land from them or the king will sack them and appoint someone else. And depending how settled a society you're in, the higher up the food chain you get, the more badass the guy occupying the position is likely to be, because he has to keep all the other violent murderers reporting to him in line (although the top guys will likely have sidekicks to do most of the day-to-day work - but that doesn't mean they're not capable themselves).

It's largely a matter of applying common sense. Obviously not every lord will be high level, but it's perfectly plausible that many of them will be, even if many of those levels are in NPC classes.

Metahuman1
2014-05-07, 05:31 PM
The difference between first level and no-level, in my mind, is the difference between a white belt and someone who has never taken a martial art. I will explain.

Your experience may vary, but where I studied, there was a saying, "A white belt is for keeping your pants up." The white belt did not signify any level of skill beyond having earned the right to study. Nonetheless, it was a step above the average person, who had not even earned that privilege.

That's level 1, in my mind. The ordinary NPC, the average, non-major, non-story NPC, gets to stand outside of the dojo on the street and do what he does. The first-level character gets to step inside the dojo. There may not be substantial difference between their abilities - an all likelihood, there isn't - but the first-level PC has the chance to become second-level, and third-level, and so forth. He's in the dojo, and it's all up from here. The NPC isn't getting inside the gate.

That's just my five yen.

Ok, it probably shouldn't have, but the last line in that post begs me to ask the question, did you actually study in Japan at some point?

Mr Beer
2014-05-07, 05:42 PM
In the real world, nobility had access to better food, better training, and plenty of opportunities to gain experience (actual Medieval tourneys weren't held at the lists; they were held in a field where two sides or several teams fought each other, with weapons, taking enemies captive; at one noble youth's "play" tourney, fought with wooden swords in padded armor, several participants received permanent injuries). They generally made superior warriors.

In a fantasy game world, the nobility have all those advantages, plus they have to fend off monsters and challengers to their position. When they lead armies to war (a pretty essential function of nobility, given that's how the European social class started), they are far more likely to be personally attacked (flying and invisible enemies, etc.).

In a fantasy world, incompetent rulers would be even less likely to remain rulers long than in the real world. If one of your dukes can personally slay a dragon in combat and take on 50 armsmen at once, he's going to look mighty attractive to your other subjects if he starts fomenting rebellion... basically, rulers who aren't of "appropriate" level get replaced by those who are. Vassals are notoriously fickle and ambitious.

Anyway, in ACKS it's also a function of the rules. A man who holds a knight's fee of land is going to end up level 2 or 3. A man who holds a barony is going to end up level 5-6 or so.

Also, I'd love to hear how Richard I won his kingdom by the sword. He was on the losing side of his older brother's revolt and all...

I have no problem with a noble being able to fight, that is logical after all. It just doesn't make sense that they should mostly be orders of magnitude better at fighting than an averagely competent warrior. Given their focus would generally be on running a kingdom rather than adventuring.

If the only way someone is competent is lots of character class levels, fine. I'm comfortable with the notion that a ruler might be easy to defeat in any kind of equal fight by a couple of moderately skilled swordsmen but still run a kingdom. YMMV.

Re. Richard Lionheart, I'm saying he might have a load of levels from crusading, not winning a kingdom via. swordsmanship. Poor sentence construction on my part.

Mr Beer
2014-05-07, 05:49 PM
Yeah, I get that. What I, and I believe MrBeer, were talking about was how that general guideline - which I agree with and think is relevant - gets misused by lazy/bad DMs and players to say "this guy is the duke so he is high level". Which I disagree with. My real issue here is copy and paste NPCs, this trope just happens to be a source of justification for some of those poorly thought out NPCs.

Yep, I dislike the "Baron = L:4 fighter, so a Duke is L:8 and therefore a King is L:12" sort of approach. I mean it kind of works if the country in question is some kind of brutally Darwinian arena of death (i.e. Chaotic Evil) but even think I think the cunning manipulative guy with some ruthless high level henchmen is more likely to win out than Lord Maximum Killer.

Jay R
2014-05-08, 07:42 AM
Yeah, I get that. What I, and I believe MrBeer, were talking about was how that general guideline - which I agree with and think is relevant - gets misused by lazy/bad DMs and players to say "this guy is the duke so he is high level". Which I disagree with. My real issue here is copy and paste NPCs, this trope just happens to be a source of justification for some of those poorly thought out NPCs.

Oh. I've never played with a DM that foolish, so I've never seen the difficulty you're addressing.

Carry on.

Yora
2014-05-08, 08:02 AM
It's just more of classic Gygax nonsense. In old editions, it's a class feature to become a lord and gain followers at certain levels. Reach a certain level and *ding* a few hundred followers pop up.

Rhynn
2014-05-08, 09:44 AM
It's just more of classic Gygax nonsense. In old editions, it's a class feature to become a lord and gain followers at certain levels. Reach a certain level and *ding* a few hundred followers pop up.

You know that (in Gygax's AD&D 1E rules) a fighter has to establish a freehold by clearing land and building a stronghold on it before any followers show up, right?

You should maybe even vaguely know what you're talking about before dissing it.

Garimeth
2014-05-08, 10:02 AM
Oh. I've never played with a DM that foolish, so I've never seen the difficulty you're addressing.

Carry on.

Well, I will definitely say I have never PLAYED a good D&D game, because I always end up being the DM. So it could just be that I have been cursed with a string of poor DMs when I was younger, and now I almost exclusively DM.

EDIT: Probably should also be stated that I started with 2e (never played any edition prior to that) in the mid 90s, and my DM literally ran 3 games, the final of which ended when he sent our level 5 characters on a mission involving the tarrasque.... So my perception of how it gets utilized could be skewed, but just citing what has been my experience.

Amaril
2014-05-08, 10:59 AM
Here's my personal scale; I tend to design my settings as more-or-less E8.

1st level: Novice
As a 1st-level adventurer, you're still untested, just beginning to advance in your chosen class. A fighter might be fresh out of basic military training; a rogue might be embarking on their first heist after living as a common pickpocket for years; a wizard is just beginning to move beyond theoretical study and start experimenting with real, practical magic.

3rd level: Professional
At 3rd level, you're generally considered to be a "real" member of your class--this is the level of most adventurers you'll meet. A fighter can take down two, maybe three ordinary bandits in open combat at the same time, and will be able to hold their own against another trained warrior. A wizard has fully graduated from their apprentice status and can be taken seriously by their colleagues as a practitioner, eligible to join most wizard orders as a full member.

5th level: Veteran
5th-level characters are experts in their chosen profession, respected for their experience and skill. Common criminals will think twice about crossing the 5th-level rogue who leads the local gang. A 5th-level fighter might be a sergeant or captain in their local lord's army, with command of their own unit. Apprentices will seek out 5th-level wizards to train them in the arts of magic.

8th level: Master
As an 8th-level character, you're considered to be among the very best, and your reputation will most likely precede you. Knights across the kingdom will tell stories about the 8th-level fighter's prowess in battle. When people need a priceless relic stolen or a high-profile target taken out with full deniability, they call the 8th-level rogue. An 8th-level wizard will be the archmage of their order, commanding the admiration and respect of their colleagues far and wide.

10th level: Hero
10th-level characters have passed beyond the pinnacle of normal mortal achievement--they are the sort of special people who only come about once in a generation, and the stories of their deeds will be sung for decades after they are gone. You're the one people call when they need something done that would be impossible for anyone else. The 10th-level fighter can slay the ancient dragon that terrorizes the kingdom; the 10th-level rogue can slip past the emperor's finest soldiers and cut his throat while he sleeps without anyone seeing so much as a shadow.

11th+ level: Legend
In all of recorded history, no mortal has ever managed to achieve this level of prowess. This is the realm of terrible monsters and immortal beings that live only in the ancient stories, those who can topple kingdoms and challenge gods.

russdm
2014-05-08, 06:03 PM
To be fair, Joffrey could be Level 10 for all we know, it's just that he doesn't have any stats higher than about 8.

Joffrey has no levels, he happens to a be kid and his highest stat is a 4 or maybe a 6 with a bloody charisma of 16 or higher. Remember the fact that Sansa and the other stupid girls were smitten over how good looking he was.

Joffrey and Elan are nearly twins except for: Elan is likable and not thoroughly stupidly insane nor does have no sense. And the fact that Elan has actual levels where as Joffrey rules solely because of his family, which translates into no levels of any kind and so he could die to a house cat. Should die to a house cat forever.

Aedilred
2014-05-08, 08:13 PM
Joffrey has no levels, he happens to a be kid and his highest stat is a 4 or maybe a 6 with a bloody charisma of 16 or higher. Remember the fact that Sansa and the other stupid girls were smitten over how good looking he was.

He could be a mid-level Aristocrat with awful stats. It wouldn't make much of a difference I don't think even his Charisma is that high. It's probably his highest stat - although his Strength might be higher - but anyone who spends any time around him thinks he's an appalling little maggot with the only apparent exceptions being Pycelle (who has a disastrous Wisdom as it is and is a terrible judge of character) and his own mother - and even she doesn't really like him very much.

Mr Beer
2014-05-08, 10:22 PM
The girls thought he was hot because he's not a potato-faced mutant and is of very high rank with excellent prospects. He's mediaeval rock star status, positionally acquired CHA if you like rather than innate CHA.

Knaight
2014-05-08, 10:38 PM
The girls thought he was hot because he's not a potato-faced mutant and is of very high rank with excellent prospects. He's mediaeval rock star status, positionally acquired CHA if you like rather than innate CHA.

In the books he is also perfectly capable of being charming. It's a tool he employs to get what he wants, and it's a tool he largely drops when he already has what he wants, but it's a tool he has. There's a case to be made for high charisma. In the TV adaptation, less so.

Jay R
2014-05-09, 08:40 AM
In the books he is also perfectly capable of being charming. It's a tool he employs to get what he wants, and it's a tool he largely drops when he already has what he wants, but it's a tool he has. There's a case to be made for high charisma. In the TV adaptation, less so.

If it's a tool that he can drop, then it isn't raw charisma, but ranks in a skill.

BootStrapTommy
2014-05-09, 09:04 AM
How do you level up in D&D? With experience points. How few experience points do you have to have to be lvl 1. 0. A big fat zero. You know why? Because a 1st lvl character starts without experience, thus no experience points. The first level fighter is proficient with a ton of weapon types and armor. He's been trained. But when life comes to limb, he's never seen combat experience. If he ever had he'd have experience points.

So first level characters should be seen as noobs. The peasants look up to them as the future, as prospective defenders, guards, and warriors. Functionally a bit like our society views the newly graduated.

Nonfirst level NPCs are gunna view them as the noobs they are. Distaste, disdain, and maybe a bit of hope. Acceptance would grow as their level grows.

Pex
2014-05-09, 12:29 PM
How do you level up in D&D? With experience points. How few experience points do you have to have to be lvl 1. 0. A big fat zero. You know why? Because a 1st lvl character starts without experience, thus no experience points. The first level fighter is proficient with a ton of weapon types and armor. He's been trained. But when life comes to limb, he's never seen combat experience. If he ever had he'd have experience points.

So first level characters should be seen as noobs. The peasants look up to them as the future, as prospective defenders, guards, and warriors. Functionally a bit like our society views the newly graduated.

None first level NPCs are gunna view them as the noobs they are. Distaste, disdain, and maybe a bit of hope. Acceptance would grow as their level grows.

How does an NPC know the level of the PC with whom he's speaking? What kind of world is it where the default for associating with someone is with distaste and disdain? Why would a party bother to save a village who hates them?

Garimeth
2014-05-09, 12:34 PM
How does an NPC know the level of the PC with whom he's speaking? What kind of world is it where the default for associating with someone is with distaste and disdain? Why would a party bother to save a village who hates them?

Not to mention that depending on the system those NPCs are level one themselves.

kyoryu
2014-05-09, 04:49 PM
To be fair, Joffrey could be Level 10 for all we know, it's just that he doesn't have any stats higher than about 8.

Joffrey's level 20, actually.

But his class is Puling Brat, not Fighter.

BootStrapTommy
2014-05-09, 08:51 PM
How does an NPC know the level of the PC with whom he's speaking? What kind of world is it where the default for associating with someone is with distaste and disdain? Why would a party bother to save a village who hates them? Generally speaking someone who doesn't know exactly what they're doing is gunna be obvious. In a society where "adventuring" is a thing, gungho noobs are going to be as much a detriment to society as they are likely to be a benefit. They're likely to be viewed in certain circles as a nuisance as much as they are to be view in others as a blessing.

Not to mention that depending on the system those NPCs are level one themselves. Not all NPCs are level one...

Thrudd
2014-05-09, 10:07 PM
I think the part some folks are missing is how people get experience points. In 3e, which most people seem to be talking about here, experience is awarded for fighting and overcoming traps and potentially for doing impressive things related to the story, accomplishing a mission, and for roleplaying well.
How many people other than the PC's could have gained any XP in the world described by these rules? Combat veterans, NPC adventurers, and special story-relevant NPC's (DM discretion/story XP).

When and where has the average farmer, merchant, servant, bureaucrat or aristocrat done any of these things? Mostly never. You don't gain XP for getting older or performing normal everyday tasks like going to school, making dinner, attending alderman meetings, or plowing the field.
It makes sense for some soldiers and rulers to be higher level, and you can always have the occasional commoner or aristocrat who has seen a lot of excitement in their life gain a level or two (would be very rare in most cases). But almost everyone in such a world would necessarily be level 1 in an NPC class. Level 1 adventurers would be seen by common folk as mostly normal people with some training. Level 1 is a normal person who has not seen much excitement in their lives (which is almost everyone in the world).
You start out the game as a normal person with some training and some ambition. Successful adventures will gain you experience, which increases your power and your renown in the world around you. Eventually you might be rubbing shoulders with the greatest of heroes and become rulers in your own right. Very few people in a world can be said to have achieved such a level.

If someone decides that 3e level 1 is too weak, and they want all NPCs and PCs in their world to start at level 3, or any other level, that's fine. In this case, level 3 is now the new level 1, as the baseline for all people in your world.

Coidzor
2014-05-09, 10:14 PM
I'm still working that one out for myself, especially as far as determining what feels right for middle-aged and older starting characters.

Thrudd
2014-05-09, 10:18 PM
I'm still working that one out for myself, especially as far as determining what feels right for middle-aged and older starting characters.

It's totally reasonable to say that a middle-aged character just has not done anything significant in regards to combat and adventuring before the start of the game. Therefore, they are still level 1. Most people in the world will not do any adventuring and none or very little fighting, for their entire lives.

Trunamer
2014-05-09, 10:30 PM
It is with a satisfaction bordering on glee that I point out that the best intuitive understanding of what 1st level means comes from original Dungeons and Dragons.

A 1st level Fighting-Man* was called a Veteran.
Yup, every edition presents 1st level PCs as some degree of competent, as far as I know. But there's only edition where I feel confident in agreeing that, yes, 1st level heroes are inarguably a cut above the rest:

1st level 2e PCs are kind of a joke. Even a warrior's thac0 starts at 20, and he has an average of 1 more hp than any given 1HD NPC/monster -- but even that minor difference is unreliable, what with random 1st level hit points. Rogues can't reliably use any of their skills yet, and MUs get a single measly spell per day. I don't know about OD&D, but 1st level 2e PCs are really apprentices by the crunch.

1st level 3.x PCs are closer to competent, but there are too many quirks holding them back. PCs start with max hp, but low level combat is swingy enough that it results in a kind of grim comedy. Warrior-types have a bit of actual skill (+1 BAB), but rogues and other Dex-types are hacking away with their rapiers overhand-axe style. Casters have orisons and bonus spells from high stats, but their spells still meekly mumble 'apprentice.' So by the crunch, 1st level 3.x PCs are...somewhere from 'apprentice' to 'semi-competent.'

1st level 4e PCs can reliably survive a few goblins, and look good doing it. They have the raw numbers and the lack of odd handicaps (silly rogue, no Weapon Finesse until 3rd for you!) to make me comfortable in saying "Yes, these PCs are already pretty darned skilled and/or experienced!"

Amaril
2014-05-09, 11:06 PM
I think the part some folks are missing is how people get experience points. In 3e, which most people seem to be talking about here, experience is awarded for fighting and overcoming traps and potentially for doing impressive things related to the story, accomplishing a mission, and for roleplaying well.
How many people other than the PC's could have gained any XP in the world described by these rules? Combat veterans, NPC adventurers, and special story-relevant NPC's (DM discretion/story XP).

See, I don't hold with this. I think the intent behind XP is that it comes from overcoming challenges, regardless of what kind; the greater the challenge, and the more opportunity for growth it provides, the more XP is gained. The reason the rules only provide systems for awarding XP for fighting monsters and completing quests is because that's what they assume PCs will spend their time doing, and that's what they'll need to know the systems for. Were I running a game focused on political intrigue, I'd award XP for making connections and amassing power, not for killing things. What this means is that NPCs do gain experience and level up from going about their day-to-day lives, just generally more slowly than adventurers do, and that difference may not be present depending on how much they accomplish. A wizard who makes some grand discovery that revolutionizes magical study forever will probably gain as much XP for that as one who helps save the world. That's my take, anyway.

ReaderAt2046
2014-05-11, 09:43 PM
The way I would think about it: a level 1 PC generally represents something on the level of a medieval squire. He has some level of training, some innate aptitude for combat or magic or whatever, but he is only slightly better than the average.

I've also done a couple of worlds where there's an actual IC difference between PCs and NPCs. In these worlds, all PC classes are supernatural, they just are supernatural in different ways. The wizard uses supernatural power to summon fireballs or teleport, the fighter uses supernatural power to hit like a battering ram and take crossbow bolts to the face without flinching, the rogue uses supernatural to pick impossible locks and dodge dragon breath. So even a first-level PC is quantitatively different than an NPC, though they can only draw on a trickle of that supernal power.

Aedilred
2014-05-11, 11:44 PM
I think the part some folks are missing is how people get experience points. In 3e, which most people seem to be talking about here, experience is awarded for fighting and overcoming traps and potentially for doing impressive things related to the story, accomplishing a mission, and for roleplaying well.
There's no reason NPCs couldn't do this, even/especially those in non-combat classes.

But XP distribution is a minefield anyway, I think. Rewarding PCs for combat is just the most convenient way to do it and removes the problems of the GM eyeballing it based on his own preferences*, but it does lead to the assumption (supported by the D&D rules, albeit probably only for that reason) that XP is gained through combat first and foremost and everything else is an afterthought. But PCs playing in a relatively low-combat game should probably get a higher proportion of their reward for non-combat related challenges, successes and solving plot points. Which is also where the NPCs - who have effectively been "playing" in a low-combat game - would get their XP from. I mean, it's nonsensical as it is that bashing an enemy over the head can directly lead to an increase in your Int-based skills, and taking the view that combat is the principal or only way to do so doesn't seem terribly satisfactory from a verisimilitude perspective.

*Although I don't think I've ever played a game where we didn't end up with the GM basically just eyeballing it anyway, either because that's what the XP system supported or because he couldn't be bothered with the maths, and everyone was perfectly happy.

Jay R
2014-05-12, 08:16 AM
If a character gets experience points for surviving a dangerous encounter, and if being with somebody who wants to kill you counts as a dangerous encounter, then we have to consider the possibility that Joffrey gets xps any time he sees anybody besides his mother.

Amaril
2014-05-12, 10:09 AM
I mean, it's nonsensical as it is that bashing an enemy over the head can directly lead to an increase in your Int-based skills, and taking the view that combat is the principal or only way to do so doesn't seem terribly satisfactory from a verisimilitude perspective.

Here's an idea I had for solving this problem. Whenever you make a character, collaborate with your DM to figure out two or three general things your character is designed to do in the game--for a fighter, it might be "feats of strength" and "slaying monsters", while for a cleric it might be "converting nonbelievers" and "smiting enemies of the faith", or whatever. Then the DM awards all your character's XP for doing those things. That would allow characters to actually get better at their main skills by using them, rather than everyone getting better at everything through combat. It would require a fair amount of eyeballing the XP awards, but like you said, that's rarely a problem in practice, and can actually make things simpler by cutting out the more complex math. It would also allow people to tailor their XP award conditions to the type of game they're in, so someone could play a warrior character in a political intrigue game and still gain XP by having their goals be things like "building a fearsome reputation" and "winning duels of honor". Just a thought.

Coidzor
2014-05-12, 02:56 PM
Here's an idea I had for solving this problem. Whenever you make a character, collaborate with your DM to figure out two or three general things your character is designed to do in the game--for a fighter, it might be "feats of strength" and "slaying monsters", while for a cleric it might be "converting nonbelievers" and "smiting enemies of the faith", or whatever. Then the DM awards all your character's XP for doing those things. That would allow characters to actually get better at their main skills by using them, rather than everyone getting better at everything through combat. It would require a fair amount of eyeballing the XP awards, but like you said, that's rarely a problem in practice, and can actually make things simpler by cutting out the more complex math. It would also allow people to tailor their XP award conditions to the type of game they're in, so someone could play a warrior character in a political intrigue game and still gain XP by having their goals be things like "building a fearsome reputation" and "winning duels of honor". Just a thought.

The problem there is you either need really broad categories to the point where the exercise would be better served by just broadening all methods of XP acquisition rather than tailoring it to individual PCs or you'd run into the problem of disparate levels with no method by which to catch up.

Amaril
2014-05-12, 05:38 PM
The problem there is you either need really broad categories to the point where the exercise would be better served by just broadening all methods of XP acquisition rather than tailoring it to individual PCs or you'd run into the problem of disparate levels with no method by which to catch up.

I think broadening methods of acquisition in general would be a lot better than rigidly sticking to the system presented in the rules, definitely. However, it still sort of presents the problem where a character whose skillset is in no way connected to fighting, for example, can still get better at their stuff by hitting things. This idea would require the DM to communicate with the players a lot more about the kinds of things they're going to be doing in the campaign, so they can pick XP goals they can actually do and that allow them to progress effectively, but I don't think that's such a bad thing.

Jay R
2014-05-13, 12:16 AM
Here's an idea I had for solving this problem. Whenever you make a character, collaborate with your DM to figure out two or three general things your character is designed to do in the game--for a fighter, it might be "feats of strength" and "slaying monsters", while for a cleric it might be "converting nonbelievers" and "smiting enemies of the faith", or whatever. Then the DM awards all your character's XP for doing those things.

This sounds like the methods in Chivalry and Sorcery, in which (for instance) a knight got triple points for deeds he did carrying a lady's favor, thieves got full points for stolen items, but 1/10 points for combat, and alchemists got points for completing their alchemical experiments.

That game was the most lush, detailed, beautiful, immersive unplayable mess ever written.

Mr Beer
2014-05-13, 01:54 AM
If a character gets experience points for surviving a dangerous encounter, and if being with somebody who wants to kill you counts as a dangerous encounter, then we have to consider the possibility that Joffrey gets xps any time he sees anybody besides his mother.

On that basis, he defeats the Hound nearly every day and that guy must be like level 7 at least.

"Another 300xp for me! Thanks dog!"