Pathfinder Lifetime Experience (NPCs gain levels over time) [Archive]

View Full Version : Pathfinder Lifetime Experience (NPCs gain levels over time)

Stellar_Magic

2014-07-18, 03:00 PM

This is just a general discussion thread really, but I was wondering how many people have an XP for life experience system in their games. What I mean is, do you have a rule for NPCs to level over the passage of time?

I personally go with a rough rule of 1,000 xp per year of independent living (so a child or young adult doesn't gain xp per year unless they have to fend for themselves).

This gives an average human commoner 76,000 xp when they're on their death bed as a 91 year old, making him a 9th level character at his death. At the same time it gives the average elf commoner around 442,000 xp at the time of their natural death, making them a 13th level character (at medium progression rate).

This is to represent experience gained from the challenges of everyday living, so someone that spends time adventuring naturally will have higher XP totals due to the higher level challenges they face. I'm tempted to use it to give NPCs with PC levels a couple basic levels in an NPC class to represent the time they spent learning to be a fighter, bard, wizard, or so forth... (using the Intuitive, Self-Taught, and Trained adjustments to starting ages to generate xp in their NPC class).

Using this I'm getting NPC archetypes that could be pretty useful (your average human wizard at middle-age?) and so forth.

So I guess I'm just wondering if you guys have ever used a system like this for your games?

Dyhmas

2014-07-18, 03:24 PM

Well, I've been doing something similar for a while now, tho not so refined as your method. In fact, I can barely call it a system.

Regardless, I always thought reasonable to give older NPCs more levels in NPC classes (as in commoner, for example).
Also, I have a tendency to create campaigns with a long time span and, mostly, recurring NPCs. Due to that, it has happened often that the level of said NPCs, during the campaign, would improve, making them a lot more usefull. (hunters would catch better prey, artisans would have better products, and so on...)

Perhaps you'd like to add the idea of the PCs training commoners to fight to your system. I've had at least one campaign where the training the village people went through was essential to success (they basically held the Boss while the PCs performed a ritual and so on...).

Not sure if that's what you were going for tho.

-Dyhmas

Stellar_Magic

2014-07-18, 03:36 PM

While that wasn't what I was going for (instead I was going with a focus on general development of NPCs) there actually are rules for retraining (taking those NPC commoners and turning them into fighters in the srd.)

If you are retraining a level in an NPC class (adept, aristocrat, commoner, or expert) to a level in any other class, the training takes only 3 days. This allows an NPC soldier to begin her career as a warrior and eventually become an officer who is a single-classed fighter, and for a younger character to start out with one commoner or expert level and become a 1st-level adventurer with a PC class when he reaches adulthood (see Young Characters).

Using that, your story of a training a village to hold down a baddie could mechanically work fairly easily, as retraining them only would take 3 days per class level. Especially when combined with the xp per

Take a middle-aged human commoner (5th level commoner) and you could turn him into a 5th level fighter after 15 days of constant training.

This seems a bit too fast to me, especially as the rules make no difference between pc classes... I personally would increase the training time for classes that are considered self-taught and trained classes (4 days for self-taught, 7 days for trained). I'd also restrict some classes from being gained this way, as it makes no sense for commoner to suddenly gain a sorcery bloodline through training.

Dyhmas

2014-07-18, 03:55 PM

Stellar_Magic

2014-07-20, 04:53 PM

Well, I was not aware of said rule but it seems way too fast, indeed.

In my example, almost 40 commoners gained only 3 Fighter levels after roughly 4 months of training, wich felt a lot more believable.

I also use a de-leveling "system", so to speak. These same commoners had pretty much lost those levels when the PCs revisited that village 2 years later. Adventurers are constantly putting their skills to the test, honing them while a commoner may spend his whole life without ever facing a life or death situation. Because of that, I ruled that they would forget or unlearn what they were thaught due to lack of practice.

It's like those people that practiced some form of martial art when young but, after stopping and reaching maturity, can't reproduce any of their teachings. (my case, in fact)

-Dyhmas

You might think of that as retraining the opposite direction (fighter or warrior to commoner), since as a bunch of villagers they had no use for those additional skills. Even so, I doubt they'd loose it completely (maybe if it was multiple levels it'd drop to just 1), so they'd know enough to be able to pull the armor out of the closet and wear it properly, but have to take a couple days or weeks practicing drills to get back in real combat ready form.

Anyway, I've been toying around with this and seeing what happens when you apply it to various character archetypes, one thing I have noticed is it tends to make it so on average Elves and other long-lived races much more likely to be more dangerous in general, which to me seems fitting.

Here are a pair of sample character archetypes I've been toying with, influenced by this system. These would be the sort I'd use for say... an ambush the part stumbles into while starting to explore the underdark. You can create a wide variety of characters this way, and really deepen what a npc or archetype foe means. Was their upbringing that of a warrior, a commoner, an aristocrat? Suddenly it matters since that gives them npc levels and the benefits of those levels (no matter how small they may be).

For older foes, I'd suggest retraining one of the levels in their NPC class to their PC class or classes per age category.
Drow, Cavern Sniper CR 4
A dark skinned elf stares at you through the simple sights of his crossbow, his fingers tense over the trigger.
XP 1,200
Male drow warrior 4/fighter (cavern sniper) 1
CE medium humanoid (elf)
Init +4; Senses darkvision 120 ft.; Perception +10

DEFENSE

AC 19, 14 touch, 15 flat footed (+5 armor, +4 dex)
hp 38 (5d10+10)
Fort +8, Ref +5, Will +1
Immune sleep; +2 vs Enchantments; SR 11;
Weaknesses: light blindness

OFFENSE

Speed 30 ft.
Melee masterwork rapier +6 (1d6, 18-20/x2)
Ranged masterwork crossbow +15 (1d10 plus poison, 19-20/x2)
Special Attacks deadly aim
Drow Spell-Like Abilities (CL 5th; concentration +5)

1/day – Dancing Lights, Darkness, Faerie Fire

TACTICS

Before Combat if aware of a foe that has not detected him yet, this character will attempt to coordinate his attack with others via drow sign language. Against surface dwellers, he will also poisoned his crossbow bolts and imbued the first shot with darkness. During Combat the Cavern Sniper will attempt to fight from concealment or total concealment from darkness for as long as possible, shooting poisoned crossbow bolts until empty. Only when he has expended all his crossbow bolts will he move in to close combat. If reduced to half his hitpoint total he will attempt to flee.

STATISTICS

Str 11, Dex 18, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 10
Base Atk +5; CMB +5; CMD 19
Feats Deadly Aim, Rapid Reload, Weapon Focus (heavy crossbow)
Skills Climb +8, Perception +10, Stealth +12
Languages Drow Sign Language, Elven, Undercommon
SQ imbued shot, poison use
Combat Gearmasterwork heavy crossbow, masterwork rapier, 10 poisoned crossbow bolts, 3 vials of drow poison; Other Gear masterwork hide armor with armored kilt

Drow Poison—injury; save Fort DC 13; frequency 1/minute for 2 minutes; initial effect unconsciousness for 1 minute; secondary effect unconsciousness for 2d4 hours; cure 1 save.

This drow has spent his first 21 years of adulthood learning his trade as a cavern sniper, while learning those skills he served as a simple warrior, hence his 4 levels in that class.

Drow, Rogue (Sniper) CR 3
A dark skinned elf stares at you through the simple sights of his crossbow, his fingers tense over the trigger.
XP 800
Male drow commoner 3/rogue (sniper) 1
CE medium humanoid (elf)
Init +4; Senses darkvision 120 ft.; Perception +9

DEFENSE

AC 18, 14 touch, 14 flat footed (+4 armor, +4 dex)
hp 23 (3d6+1d8+8)
Fort +3, Ref +7, Will +1
Immune sleep; +2 vs Enchantments; SR 11;
Weaknesses: light blindness

OFFENSE

Speed 30 ft.
Melee masterwork rapier +2 (1d6, 18-20/x2)
Ranged masterwork crossbow +6 (1d10 plus poison, 19-20/x2)
Special Attacks deadly aim, sneak attack +1d6
Drow Spell-Like Abilities (CL 4th; concentration +4)

1/day – Dancing Lights, Darkness, Faerie Fire

TACTICS

Before Combat if aware of a foe that has not detected him yet, this character will attempt to coordinate his attack with others via drow sign language. Against surface dwellers, he will also poisoned his crossbow bolts or engulf them in darkness. During Combat the sniper will attempt to fight from concealment or total concealment from darkness for as long as possible, shooting poisoned crossbow bolts until empty. Only when he has expended all his crossbow bolts will he move in to close combat. If reduced to half his hitpoint total he will attempt to flee.

STATISTICS

Str 11, Dex 18, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 10
Base Atk +1; CMB +1; CMD 15
Feats Deadly Aim, Rapid Reload
Skills Bluff +7, Climb +7, Perception +9, Sense Motive +5, Stealth +11
Languages Drow Sign Language, Elven, Undercommon
SQ accuracy, poison use
Combat Gearmasterwork heavy crossbow, masterwork rapier, 10 poisoned crossbow bolts, 3 vials of drow poison; Other Gear masterwork chain shirt

Drow Poison—injury; save Fort DC 13; frequency 1/minute for 2 minutes; initial effect unconsciousness for 1 minute; secondary effect unconsciousness for 2d4 hours; cure 1 save.

This drow has spent his first 14 years of adulthood learning his trade as a rogue (sniper), while learning those skills he lived as a simple commoner, hence his three levels of commoner.

Teapot Salty

2014-07-20, 06:36 PM

Personally I think that experience through aging is represented by having more opportunity's to gain xp. The 40 year old has fought 500 goblins, the 18 year old 50. Same as how the adult isn't inherently stronger than the kid, but they should be.

Dyhmas

2014-07-20, 07:43 PM

Just realized that I wasn't clear (at all) on the whole lvl-loss-over-time thing (still learning english, really)...I meant that they would lose levels, as if targeted by a level drain effect. As in, they do take penalties to HD and BBA but don't lose feats (and proficiencies). So, if we take your example of being able to pick up and use an equipment, they would indeed be able to, since they didn't lose their proficiencies (unless level drain can remove those as well...in wich case my whole idea is flawed :smallredface:).

Also, this way I think it's easier for the DM to keep track of their original levels. I had notes of the NPCs from when they first fought alongside the PCs and, when they revisited the village, I just pulled those notes and lowered their levels accordingly.

I'm not sure if this all makes any sense. To me, it just seems more believable, in terms of rules, really.

Anyway, I agree with you that making them outright lose the levels is too much, but "supressing" them seems about right for me. Maybe, with some more training, they can remember their old teachings and "regain" those levels quicker? :smalltongue:

@Teapot
If I'm not mistaken, Stellar's idea is to make said opportunity to gain xp more clear, trough rules, making the creation of NPCs easier, when taking in account how more prepared they should be in comparison with other NPCs.

-Dyhmas

Stellar_Magic

2014-07-20, 08:56 PM

1,000 XP per year is the equivalent of ten 1/4 CR encounters. Now in most campaigns XP is awarded by defeating opponents and challenges, not necessarily killing them (though in 90% of cases, XP is awarded for defeating them in combat). If you factor in non-combat XP, you could easily have a character gaining XP at this rate... from participating in drunken brawls, hunting parties, bargaining with merchants, or perhaps managing to convince a member of the opposite sext to go out on a date.

For most NPCs I start awarding this XP from the point of adulthood (15 years for humans, 110 for elves and drow, and so forth...) Since the game suggests starting ages which are older then mere adulthood for player classes, and outright states that young characters must have NPC classes instead of PC classes, I've been awarding NPC class levels for the XP up until they've supposedly reached the average age of a character which has learned that player class.

In cases where the character had to struggle as a child... perhaps had to fight for food scraps on the streets, or so forth. I start awarding XP from the age at which a character is half-way to adulthood (8 years for a human, 55 for an elf, and so forth...). This may also be a good way to create characters that have been trained from childhood for specific roles like noblemen and knights.

For example... say you have two human nobles, each of which has just become a level one paladin. According to Pathfinder the average age of a 1st level Human Paladin is 15+1d6=18.5... so 19 years old.

One started training when he turned 15... So he has 4,000 XP, which with medium character advancement adds up to the character's build being: Human Aristocrat 1/Paladin 1

The second started training at the age of 8 and has spent all the time since then working to become a Paladin. Such a character has 11,000 XP and therefore has this build: Aristocrat 3/Paladin 1.

When they reach middle age, the difference between the two begins to drop. The paladin that started training at 15 has reached 20,000 XP from his everyday life and now is level 5. He has retrained his 1 level of Aristocrat to Paladin, so his build is now Paladin 5.

The paladin that started training at 8 has reached 27,000 XP from his everyday life and now is level 6. He has retrained 1 level of Aristocrat to Paladin, so his current build is now Aristocrat 2/Paladin 4.

At old age their experience has continued to build. The Paladin that started training at age 15 now has 38,000 XP from his everyday life and now is level 7. His build is now Paladin 7.

The paladin that started at the age of 8 has now reached 45,000 XP from his everyday living, and he to is level 7. He has retrained another level of Aristocrat to Paladin, so his current build is now Aristocrat 1/Paladin 6.

Nearing the end of their life (venerable age) the Paladins are now mechanically identical and now level 8. The Paladin that started training at 8 has more XP, but not enough to have an additional level.

jqavins

2014-07-21, 06:20 PM

The 1000 xp/year rule seems pretty good as a guideline or for making up random NPCs. But I would avoid being bound by it; if you want a certain shopkeeper (for instance) to be a 6th level commoner even though he's only 30, remember that you're the GM and it's your call.

The retraining rule seems too fast to me for non-casters, and outrageous for casters except in the case of exrtaordinary natural ability. What I'd do, for non casters, is lengthen the time somewhat and, more importantly, limit it to once only. After the NPC has gained one PC class level, he is that class, no longer just a common scrub, and no longer eligible for retraining. In other words, there's a shortcut to first level, but not second.

I once ran an adventure as guest DM in a friend's long running AD&D campaign. This gave him a chance to play a character in the world he'd created. For his character, I took his favorite NPC, a middle-aged elven merchant who'd been in the same location in the mostly human city for decades. (I promise I'm going somewhere with this.) I gave him a backstory as a thief on a quest for a family heirloom who'd decided that the best way to find it was to stay in one place and let the whole world pass before his door. When he got a fresh lead, he asked his friends, the party, for help. I had all his thieving and combat abilities be very rusty, so he had all his thief levels but was rather ineffective. Then throughout the adventure, each time he managed to succeed at something, the ability he'd just used would improve a little as he "shook off the rust." By the end of the adventure, some of his abilities were still pretty rusty and some were back up to full.

Genth

2014-07-21, 06:44 PM

Stellar_Magic

2014-07-21, 07:34 PM

Okay, lets take your example... A baker who has spent 40 years working as a baker.

How many times do you think he's been robbed? How many times do you think he got into a brawl at the tavern? How many times did he end up having to hunt down and kill rats that infested his storeroom? How many rolls of diplomacy do you think it takes to get married?

40 years of experience = 40,000 XP = 7th level, but seven levels of what? Most likely commoner, commoner/expert, or pure expert depending on the size of the town and if he's just baking bread or running the bakery. But lets be nice and say he's just a normal everyday baker, ergo Commoner 7.

Assuming 10 for all scores (just for simplicity's sake) we end up with a man with 24 hitpoints, a +3 BAB, and +2 to all saves... and 14 skill points mostly in Profession (baker). With 40 years experience he'd be Old age category so... hitpoints reduced to 17, AC reduced to 9, attacks reduced to +2, and... Oh yeah 7 more skill points. Oh, and he's only proficient with a dagger and deals 1d4-1 damage.

Lets just pit him against a CR 1/3 Common Orcs from the SRD document. The orc has a +5 to hit with their falchion, so they have a 75% chance of hitting with each attack. Their AC is 13 so the old baker has a mere 30% hit chance with his dagger.

Average Damage per hit...
Orc: 9 damage from the Falchion
Baker: 2 damage from the Dagger.

Effective DPR (Damage per Round)
1 Orc * 9 damage * 0.75 = 6.75
1 Baker * 4 damage * 0.3 = 0.6

At these values it would take the old 7th level baker an average of 10 rounds to incapacitate just one of the 1st level orc warriors (6 hp). By contrast it would only take 3 rounds for an orc to kill the baker.

Now, all this assumed that the 'monsters' are not getting lifetime experience as well... Which would be rather stupid. Think about it, those orcs are almost certainly going to be having a hard life... so they'll probably have to start taking care of themselves while in childhood. Half of an orc's childhood is 6 years, so that's 6,000 lifetime XP before they reach adulthood. So a 12 year old orc warrior (just reached adulthood) would already be a 3rd level warrior.

An orc barbarian would probably have 9,000 lifetime XP (average starting age of 15), so he'd almost certainly be a warrior 3/barbarian 1... When he's only 15 years old.

Considering this... the average level of an orc raider would probably be around 4th level and many of the seasoned middle-aged types would be around 5th level (effectively working like the 3rd level sergeants), and raids would be led by an old war horse (around 6th level). CR would be spread between CR 2 and CR 5. All this works quite well when I've run campaigns, at least thus far.

Dyhmas

2014-07-21, 07:36 PM

1000xp/year seems quite a lot to me. 'XP' as it's handled in the game is not the same as worldly experience, it is very specific 'field experience' that commonly places a life in danger. Otherwise someone who has been a baker for 40 years is suddenly going to be able to defeat CR 1/2 orcs on their own?

Altough your point is quite valid...have you ever seen the arm of a baker who has been kneading hundreds of pounds of bread dough regularly for 40 years? They're huge, seriously.

Now, on the rules: I've always got by pretty well trough DM fiat alone, to the point where I'm not sure if such an in depth system is even needed...is there some specific goal you have with this thread Stellar? Perhaps a specific campaign with constant timelapses, where the evolution of NPCs trough time is important? Perhaps time-travel?

Stellar_Magic

2014-07-21, 08:02 PM

It's more to make building NPC archetypes easier and more sensible then just arbitrary GM fiat. That and it gives a mechanic reason most NPCs aren't level 1, sneeze and die commoners that can regularly be killed by their housecats. It also provides a good point of reference when you're designing a character or making NPC stat blocks. I always prefer to have consistent rules for such things, and while it may not be something most players will see or notice, it does help me as a GM.

That, and when combined with how I handle youth and children (yes, sometimes I even have stats for the 10 year old squire or adoptive child of the temple), it helps me build the world. Especially when I think... Okay, the average venerable drow cleric of Lolth should be what level? (12th level cleric according to this).

jqavins

2014-07-21, 08:28 PM

Effective DPR (Damage per Round)
1 Orc * 9 damage * 0.75 = 27
Um, 9*.75 = 6.75. Edit your post to increase the baker's damage by 2 for his massive kneading arms and fix ths math error, then I'll delete this post.:smallwink:

Stellar_Magic

2014-07-21, 08:56 PM

Um, 9*.75 = 6.75. Edit your post to increase the baker's damage by 2 for his massive kneading arms and fix ths math error, then I'll delete this post.:smallwink:

lol... oops, originally I had a gang of 4 orcs, but realized just 1 was enough. Then forgot to change the amount.

What the hell... lets stat this nameless baker, perhaps even optimized slightly.

1.) Standard Array (Str 13, Dex 10, Con 11, Int 12, Wis 8, Cha 9)
2.) +2 to Strength from Human
3.) 40,000 XP = 7th level commoner, +1 to an ability score, ability score modified due to old age.

Baker, Old CR 5
XP 1,600
Male human commoner 7
N medium humanoid (human)
Init -2; Senses Perception +10

DEFENSE

AC 8, 8 touch, 8 flat footed (-2 dex)
hp 17 (7d6-7)
Fort +3, Ref +0, Will +2

OFFENSE

Speed 30 ft.
Melee dagger +4 (1d4+1, 18-20/x2) or
Melee unarmed strike +4 (1d3+1)

STATISTICS

Str 13, Dex 7, Con 8, Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 11
Base Atk +3; CMB +4; CMD 12
Feats Endurance, Great Fortitude, Improved Great Fortitude, Improved Unarmed Strike, Skill Focus (Profession )
[B]Skills Bluff +7, Diplomacy +7, Perception +10, Profession (baker) +13, Sense Motive +7
Languages Common, Dwarven, Elven
Combat Gear dagger; Other Gear baker's outfit, bakery

Nessa Ellenesse

2014-07-21, 10:18 PM

Stellar_Magic

2014-07-22, 03:08 PM

I generally run with a couple types of NPCs when I'm GMing...

GMPCs - They're essentially a Player Character that I'm playing as, cause I want to play too, damn it. They're built just like any other PC in the game, and I keep them the Party's level or maybe a level or two lower. Normally PCs don't receive XP from lifetime experience... as that will rapidly lead to a variety of character levels in a typical party (I don't want to give the munchkin playing an old-age category elven wizard a multi-level lead over the rest of the party).

Now, I may give extra levels at the start since I've found that I tend to have most adult 'evil' warriors like Orcs will start off with a couple levels of warrior since they have a rough upbringing. I have on occasion given players an additional couple levels in an npc class based off their stated background to give them a cushion of hitpoints at 1st level and small bonuses, and treating a aristocrat 1/paladin 1 as a 1st level character.

I also have been working on a system to create a unified set of rules for designing animal stats and started applying them (with HD based off an animal's adult weight). This has made it so some 2HD animals like horses have been buffed to 6 or 7 HD, because a typical light horse is a quite heavy animal and easily weigh 1/2 a ton, while a draft or heavy horse can weigh as much as a full ton. I'll be posting more about that system in another thread sometime, as well as some example results.

Major NPCs - AKA named NPCs. The Town Major that asks the party to investigate a mine accident, the Guard Captain that begs the party to help clear the sewers of some hideous beast, the Barkeeper, Inn Owner, or the old Centurion looking to hire some mercenaries in a time of war. They have names, personalities, and occasionally have made the jump from Major NPC to GMPC. As an example I had a half-elf character named Raina Caellum who started out as a named courier that got caught in a kobold trap. She ultimately ended up being a major part of the party by the end of the campaign and reached 19th level before the end of the campaign.

These I apply experience from age as a base line, and if the character's are supposed to be extraordinary or gifted I give them additional levels. This is done on a case by case basis, so some may be no different from Minor NPCs except get a name. If they are in positions of wealth or authority I may also give them equipment in line with a PC of their level.

Minor NPCs - AKA unnamed NPCs, mobs, mooks, minions, and cannon fodder. The everyday unnamed tenants of towns, villages, cities, farms, and so forth. These are archetypes, and I will occasionally build variants at different age categories. They're generally archetypes, and I often will apply experience from age to the archetype builds. They may serve as opposition for the party or just everyday background that they will probably ignore.

The issue of whether to choose different rates of character advancement (slow, medium, fast) is one I tend to see as a world building issue. If you want to have it so a 130 year old elf is the same level as a 20 year old human, that's totally up to you as the GM. In that case I can easily see deciding that elves and dwarves advance at slow, humans at medium, and kobolds, goblins, and other short lived races at fast.

However, I personally prefer to have more divergence in the average abilities of the races from their age... so I usually just go with medium rate of advancement for lifetime experience for all races. As a result, yes the elves, dwarves, drow, and duergar all tend to be more dangerous on average then human fighters or their orcish foes. However... because of the way XP requirements to level scale, that difference isn't nearly as extreme as one would think. At its most extreme this can result in 5 or 6 more levels for the oldest members of a long lived race like elves and dwarves (550 year old elf will be between 13th and 14th level depending on upbringing while a 90 year old human will be 9th level), and only a seasoned adventurer will surpass them thanks to the trials of being an adventurer.

A low-class Drow who has survived by theft and cunning might have fifty-five years of experience sneaking around, pickpocketing for her food in some slum of the Underdark before she reached adulthood. When she ultimately becomes a rogue working for some high class Drow noble family as a thief, sneak, or some other form of rogue, she'll have what would be an entire lifetime's worth of experience of living out on the streets.

By the flip side, a Goblin that has reached the age of his natural life has had less time to hone his skills as that Drow did in her childhood and therefore would only have reached 7th level by the time he rolls over and dies.

An elf may be the sheltered son of a noble family and never had to fend for himself or train until adulthood, and suddenly those 110 years of living grant him nothing. Everything is dependent on the circumstances of a typical example when you're making an archetype.

And I do mean 'typical' example... as essentially this is like building stats for most RPGs... You're making a typical version which you can apply over and over again. A typical elf is going to have the more lifetime experience then a human, and therefore be that much better on average then a normal human.

Of course, adventurers aren't typical, but that's kind of the definition of adventurers.

Here are some example archetypes for friends and foes that I just made up off the top of my head.

DROW ARCHETYPES
Drow, Child of the Temple CR 1/3
young drow adept 1

Drow, Street Thief CR 1/3
young drow expert 1

Drow, Young Thief CR 6
adult drow expert 7/rogue 1

Drow, Young Warrior CR 6
adult drow warrior 8

Drow, Young Witch CR 6
adult drow adept 7/witch 1

Drow, Sergeant CR 8
middle-age drow warrior 10

Drow, Witch CR 8
middle-age drow adept 6/witch 4

Drow, Theurge CR 9
old drow adept 5/witch 5/mystic theurge 1

HUMAN ARCHETYPES
Human, Noble Son CR 1/3
young human aristocrat 1

Human, Young Paladin CR 2
adult human aristocrat 3/paladin 1

Human, Paladin CR 4
middle-age human aristocrat 2/paladin 4

Human, Seasoned Paladin CR 5
old human aristocrat 1/paladin 6

Human, Retired Paladin CR 6
venerable human paladin 8

ORC ARCHETYPES
Orc, Warrior's Son CR 1/3
young orc warrior 1

Orc, Young Warrior CR 1
adult orc warrior 3

Orc, Young Berserker CR 2
adult orc warrior 3/barbarian 1

Orc, Sergeant CR 3
middle-age orc warrior 5

Orc, Raid Leader CR 4
old orc warrior 6

EDIT: I should also point out this system gives us immediate points of reference for things like a 1,000 year old lich or vampire as they advance by class levels like everybody else. A 1,000 year old lich or vampire would be 16th level from lifetime experience alone.

Genth

2014-07-22, 05:41 PM

Stellar_Magic

2014-07-22, 07:37 PM

Pathfinder did away with that... I know the 3rd Edition Dungeon Master's guide has rules that say something like 98% of remaining population are first level commoners, but look at the NPC gallery from Pathfinder's Game Mastery Guide.

A Town Drunkard is Commoner 1/Warrior 2... A Farmer is Commoner 1/Expert 1... A Town Beggar is Commoner 1/Rogue 1. In fact, only 5 of the archetypes in the Game Mastery guide are level 1 (Foot Soldier, Squire, Village Idiot, Acolyte, and Pickpocket). There are 80+ separate pregenerated archetypal NPCs in the Game Mastery guide.

A typical highwayman is a fighter 4/rogue 3 character according to Paizo. Hell the typical town guard is warrior 3 according to Paizo, not Warrior 1.

5 out of 80+, or about 6% of the selected archetypes. As a result, I'm pretty sure Paizo doesn't subscribe to the 98% of all settlements are 1st level commoners rule, especially as there's no mention at all of generating highest-level locals for their settlement generation rules. Yes, the bestiary lists most humanoids as 1st level warriors, but eh... it also lists that there should be 3rd level sergeants and doesn't give them stat blocks...

jqavins

2014-07-22, 07:54 PM

I'm just gonna link this again;

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2

In short - the vast majority of the population ARE level 1 commoners/experts who die if you sneeze at them.
Wow, that's an eye-opening essay. I still like the idea of lifetime experience for unnamed and some named NPCs, but I've been shown that 1000 xp/year is much too much (contrary to my previous statements here.) 100 xp/year is more like it.

Stellar_Magic

2014-07-22, 09:04 PM

As accurate as the description of the skill performance is to real world conditions, the more important question here comes from combat capabilities then skills themselves as that's the heart of Pathfinder and DnD's gameplay. In fact, I would modify skill DCs upwards and tweak the rules thusly instead of making it so a 5th level character is the World's Best. The Paizo people agree when you consider the average adult noble in their rules is level 10!

Level 10, that's twice the supposed best in the world, and most decent size towns have at least one of them!

Secondly, while the rules are spot on for skill performance (at level 1) the combat capabilities of the supposed average person isn't - ergo the ability for a house cat to kill a 1st level commoner. Moreover skills can be tweaked by an arbitrary increase to check DCs... Up it by 5 and suddenly the average character isn't a level 1 commoner for check results, but a level 5 commoner with 5d6 hitpoints. ~20 hitpoints seems to be a lot closer to actual capacity to withstand damage in my mind... (I'll explain why later).

I'm not going to start in on the whole nature of HPs and so forth... since everyone agrees that Hit Points are an arbitrary construction for gameplay, but on the repercussions of the idea that 95% of the population is 1st level commoners in terms of survival rates in an everyday environment.

Say you walk two miles a day to the coffee shop (I do), and on the way you find yourself being yapped at by 3 very aggressive dogs (as I do). Lets say there isn't a fence and they pounce you.

So... 3 Common Dogs, each with 6 hit points, and a +1 bite attack which deals 1d4+1 damage. As an average every day 1st level commoner, you work out a bit so you have 4 hit points (1d6+1), maybe you're fairly strong, so you have a +1 unarmed strike that deals 1d3+1 damage and incures an Attack of Opportunity.

Three Everyday dogs vs. One commoner.

Joe commoner is down in less than six seconds, in fact... the commoner is incapacitated by the second dog's attack on average, and is chewed upon by the third dog as he bleeds out.

Did I mention these three dogs I'm talking about are Chiwawas and really shouldn't be any threat to an adult human being? Okay, so I used 'Common Dog' stats... so maybe I'm being a bit over the top. Lets say they were Beagles.

I'm still not seeing the average adult person dying within six seconds to an attack by Beagles. Rottweilers, Great Dames, Pit Bulls, sure... but not 'Common Dogs'. You'd need a riding dog or wolf to really hurt a person (1d6+3 bite attack for those breeds, so instant death for a 1st level commoner).

Your average hiker will last more then six seconds when attacked by a Grizzly Bear, maybe not 10 rounds but more then six seconds, and lets not even open the can of worms that is the attack of a house cat. Hell, given three rounds even a raven or rat can kill a commoner.

What many people do not understand is that average every day people can survive an absolutely enormous amount of punishment. 1d6 hitpoints per level means a 10 ft. fall (something I did as a 10 year old boy without so much as skinning a knee) is potentially lethal to a 1st level npc. I've been bitten and scratched by dogs, cats, and other critters... raised a puppy, written multiple novel length works, hiked nearly a hundred miles across the Big Horn mountains, and flown a plane.

I am not a level 1 commoner, the last time I was level 1 - I was less than six years old, a size category smaller, and regularly picked my nose. My younger sister is in High School and is getting paid for art she makes online... She's no 1st level commoner either.

We may be above the average, but the average should not be so low as 3 hit points and a +0 unarmed strike with 1d3 damage. As much as movies may make you think people drop dead to one bullet or sword strike, reality is far different.

People regularly survive multiple gunshot wounds, stabbings, and slashes from various weapons. I've heard accounts of people being stabbed as many as 16 times and still recovering. 16 hits with a dagger, that's like 40 hit points worth of damage in DnD... and lets not even mention Lizzie Borden hitting her sister 19 times in the head with a hatchet before she died.

Overall, aside for the skill rules a much more realistic portrayal of life, death, and survival in DnD requires the average person to have more then 3 hit points. I'd argue the only one with so few hit-points would have to be a child. Generally I think the average person has at least 20 hit points or so considering how many wounds people take and are able to still function in combat.

Genth

2014-07-22, 10:59 PM

jqavins

2014-07-23, 11:40 AM

As accurate as the description of the skill performance is to real world conditions, the more important question here comes from combat capabilities then skills themselves as that's the heart of Pathfinder and DnD's gameplay.
Part of the beauty of D&D 3.x (including Pathfinder) is that the mechanic for combat hits is the same as for skills, with BAB replacing ranks and DC equal to the opponent's AC. So, let's look at the numbers in that light.

The average person has probably never been in a real fight. If we assume 1st level commoner, his BAB is 0. He may have a strength modifier, as likely negative as positive, but more likely still it is 0. He does not wear armor and his dex modifier follows the same rule as his strength modifier, so his AC is most likely 10.

Commoner vs. commoner, an attack requires a roll of 10 or better on 1d20+0. There's a 55% chance of landing a solid blow or scoring a good hit with a weapon, doing well enough to do damage. That does not seem wrong; if anything it seems high even at 1st level.

The Paizo people agree when you consider the average adult noble in their rules is level 10!
Well, now, there you have me. High level "normal folks" may well be appropriate for inclusion is Pathfinder as written. (My experience is not with Pathfinder, but rather with 3.5.) But I would suggest, thanks to The Alexandrian, that this is a flaw in Paizo's design.

Secondly, while the rules are spot on for skill performance (at level 1) the combat capabilities of the supposed average person isn't - ergo the ability for a house cat to kill a 1st level commoner... I'm not going to start in on the whole nature of HPs and so forth, since everyone agrees that Hit Points are an arbitrary construction for gameplay... [deleted discussion of various attack and damage scenarios]
It looks like you're using hit points, damage dealt and damage withstood, as the sole measure of "combat capabilities." I don't agree with that, as my chance to hit calculation above shows. What all this says to me, combined with the skill and attack roll analysis, is that hit points are out of scale. Give everybody including "normal folks" max hit points at first level, then drop all damage inflicted - whether by weapons, falls, animals - to a quarter of the official numbers. But that would present problems with playability. There are other possible fixes to HP, which would be a long topic; for now I'll just say that it looks like that's where a fix is needed. And if we go without such a fix, what the hell? The system works well enough for adventurers and monsters, so who cares if it fails for scrubs and kitties?

Did I mention these three dogs I'm talking about are Chiwawas and really shouldn't be any threat to an adult human being? Okay, so I used 'Common Dog' stats... so maybe I'm being a bit over the top. Lets say they were Beagles.
The example you gave - of 'common dogs' - does not mean beagles. A common dog in Pathfinder, i.e. a fantasy/medieval setting means a pretty damn big dog by our standards, a great dame or Rottweiler.
I'd say more german shepherd or lab size, but why split hairs?

Stellar_Magic

2014-07-23, 03:28 PM

I don't know if I agree with that - the example I take is with a longsword Coup de Grace. Even with someone of average strength, walking up to a helpless person and stabbing them in the weakest area should kill them, and the damage there would be 1d8 so average 4.5 *2 = 9 hit points total damage. Your 20 point 'average' person isn't even down by half their hit points at that stage.

Coup De Grace in Pathfinder incures a Fort Save or die with a DC equal to 10 + damage dealt. A Commoner at 3rd or 4th level only has a +1 Fort Save, therefore they would need to roll an 18 or higher against an 'Average' Coup De Grace attack, therefore giving them an average of an 85% chance of dying instantly.

So yes, you can kill that man pretty easily with Coup De Grace even if they have multiple levels, and at the same time they will withstand multiple sword strikes in combat before going down. This seems fairly realistic to me (albeit combat performance begins to drop after the first sword strike in the real world).

The example you gave - of 'common dogs' - does not mean beagles. A common dog in Pathfinder, i.e. a fantasy/medieval setting means a pretty damn big dog by our standards, a great dame or Rottweiler. The 'Apollo Dogs' or the specifically trained dogs are closer to wolfhounds.

From the bestiary entry for a common dog:

The normal dog statistics presented here describe any small dog of about 20–50 pounds in weight. They can also be used for small wild canines such as coyotes, jackals, and feral dogs.

A Rottweiler weighs ~110 lbs on average, an Irish Wolfhound weighs ~120 lbs on average, and a great dame weighs ~140 lbs on average. All of these dogs are not stated as 'Common Dogs' in Pathfinder... As the description for Riding Dogs makes clear:

Larger dogs (known to Small races like halflings and gnomes as riding dogs) include hardier breeds such as huskies, mastiffs, and wolfhounds.

Mastiff is another name for the Great Dane, and the Rottweiler is almost certainly in this category alongside Huskies, Wolfhounds, and Wolf-Dog hybrids. Ergo the 20 lb. Beagle is represented by those stats in Pathfinder, and yes... Joe commoner just died to a trio of beagles and small foxhounds.

I do think NPCs should get max hitpoints at first level though.

While one possible solution to this problem, a commoner with 6 hit points is still going to die to those dogs within one round. Other solutions I've considered at times include things like a flat HP increase based on character size category, adding constitution scores to HP at level 1, or even a total overhaul of the damage system. Nothing really is as simple as simple as adding class levels, and I often include kids and youth in my NPC archetypes and foes... so making a kid level 1 or 2 and an adult level 3 or 4 seems to work out best.

A 10ft fall (sorry for going through these out of order) could be TOTALLY lethal, if you say, fall onto your head onto a hard surface (which would be a max damage output of a 1d6 roll), it's just that thanks to physics, that kind of fall is more usually a low damage roll of say, 1.

Actually, I heavily houserule collision and falling damage... A medium character deals 3d6 damage +1d6 damage per 10 ft. up to 20d6 to themselves and any object they land upon when falling. Acrobatics check negates the 3d6 base damage plus the normal results of Acrobatics to reduce falling damage. This is because of Newtonian physics, and has the hilarious ability to allow for smashed buildings and so forth when you managed to kill a flying monster in the air.

(Potential 30d6 damage from a Colossal Dragon being killed 200 ft. overhead and crashing atop you).

If you look at the Pathfinder modules that deal with 'average villages', feast of Ravenmoor is a good example, 85% of all the NPCs are level one experts or commoners. The NPCs in the codex ARE special, none of them just have a 'day to day' job that doesn't involve violence and adventure-like tasks. Sure, the idea that level 5 is the 'absolute maximum' is a little off, IMO, and I think it's more accurate to look at it more asymptotically, where while 90% of the population are level 2 or below, a good 3% of the population are above say level 7 or eight.

Wait so a traveling merchant, pilgrim, beggar, dunkard, or bar maid are exceptional people? Really? Moreover, I'm sure you'll find a mix of different approaches depending on the scenario being run and so forth. For example, I like Saga Edition and in that the average stormtrooper had four levels of non-heroic classes and the skills tended to have even higher average results then in Pathfinder (+10 at level one without attribute modifier?).

Essentially, what we're debating is something I like to call a 'calibration point'. The level at which an average person is best represented, and basically we're having a difference of opinion on that because we're looking at basing it off two different stats, one being the combat statistics, and another being the skill abilities. Mutants and Masterminds may have an average soldier be the equivalent of level 7. The question of whether it's right or not becomes a matter of world building and trying to define what average is in the world so I can honestly say both of our approaches are equally viable and sensible. We may disagree, but that's because we're coming at the rules from two highly divergent viewpoints.

However, the problem is that your examples take place on the outskirts of what D&D is supposed to simulate. Since most reasons for rolling dice and checking hitpoints in the game is to do with swords, not cats, it makes more sense to build it to fit the swords.

Okay, well sword wounds aren't something that's easy to find reliable statistics on... Lets compare Pathfinder's stats to some real world examples. The Revolver in Pathfinder (1d8, x4) has about the same average damage as the longsword (slightly more due to the effects of a x4 crit, but most people ignore that factor).

In the real world, you're shot by a .45 caliber pistol... how far do you think you can get before succumbing due to bleeding from the wound? Are you instantly put down? Are you able to keep fighting for a time?

Real records from police reports take the idea that getting shot will incapacitate someone and throw them out the window. The average suspect that has been shot will be able to keep fighting or running for an average of 2 minutes before falling unconscious due to blood loss. At a modest -1 hp bleed rate this means that the average police suspect has to have an average of 20+4.5 hit points, assuming the lowest possible bleed out rate. It gets worse if you have higher bleed out rates like the 2d6 bleed rate from say Bleeding Critical, and so forth.

Of course, most weapons in Pathfinder don't do bleed damage at all, but that's a gameplay mechanic more then anything.

But Pathfinder and DnD is about fighting monsters... epic fantasy... really big and violent creatures. Okay, lets look at the biggest thing to regularly attack a human being in the real world.

The Great White Shark.

What do you think the fatality rate of being bitten by a Great White Shark is? I mean it's a monster with a bite force of 18,000 newtons and a jaw that's absolutely enormous... and most attacks are only a single bite.

Guess what, only 10-15% of all Great White Shark attacks are fatal.

How much damage does a Great White Shark bite do in Pathfinder?

2d8+10 plus 1d6 bleed...

Wow, surfers as a class must be totally OP... XD

I mean, they're out surfing and they get bit trying to get a wave at least 30 ft. from shore. That's 19 average damage from the bite, and then 3 average bleed damage. He takes 6 more bleed damage before getting out of the water and then has to pray someone there has the heal skill to stop from bleeding out... By which time he's lost 28 hitpoints.

And they only die 10-15% of the time.

There is no way the average surfer can possibly be a mere 1st level commoner or expert with a survival rate like that against the Great White Shark.

But at the end of the day, I just think it's silly that I could stab a 60yo baker who is helpless with a longsword, and not even send him into unconsciousness.

As I said, Fort Save or die mechanic in pathfinder for Coup De Grace attacks. DC 19 save and the old baker has only a +3 Fort Save... Ergo, 75% chance of instantaneous death.

If he makes the save, he'd wake up rather pissed off and with very little health left. Makes perfect sense to me.

Stellar_Magic

2014-07-23, 04:21 PM

Part of the beauty of D&D 3.x (including Pathfinder) is that the mechanic for combat hits is the same as for skills, with BAB replacing ranks and DC equal to the opponent's AC. So, let's look at the numbers in that light.

The average person has probably never been in a real fight. If we assume 1st level commoner, his BAB is 0. He may have a strength modifier, as likely negative as positive, but more likely still it is 0. He does not wear armor and his dex modifier follows the same rule as his strength modifier, so his AC is most likely 10.

Commoner vs. commoner, an attack requires a roll of 10 or better on 1d20+0. There's a 55% chance of landing a solid blow or scoring a good hit with a weapon, doing well enough to do damage. That does not seem wrong; if anything it seems high even at 1st level.

You know what I call a 'solid blow' in a fist fight? A crit. While I do not advocate fighting, I was bullied a bit in elementary school and got into the occasional squabble and fight on the playground. I'd say the average hit rate for a bunch of punches connecting between two everyday opponents is not 50-55%. No, the actual hit rate tends to be more around 75-80% of the time. Ergo around +4 to +5 to attack assuming no dodge or dex bonus for the target.

When we look at actual combat hit probabilities this becomes even more obvious. Lets take a look at an ranged example, since this is one I know about off the top of my head. From the official studies done by the German Army...

A Huge target (AC 8) is fired on by the average crew of a Tiger Tank, in combat they have an average hit probability of...
100% hit rate at 100 meters.
100% hit rate at 500 meters.
93% hit rate at 1,000 meters.
74% hit rate at 1,500 meters.
50% hit rate at 2,000 meters.
31% hit rate at 2,500 meters.
19% hit rate at 3,000 meters.

From this information we can say that the range increment is probably around 600 meters (~2,000 ft), and that the crew has to have the equivalent of a +7 to hit with the gun (even a natural 1 would hit if not for automatic misses). Assuming that 4 of the 5 man crew are assisting the gunner this grants only an average of +2 bonus to hit from their assistance, leaving the average tank gunner with a +5 BAB.

Right in line with Warrior 5.

Well, now, there you have me. High level "normal folks" may well be appropriate for inclusion is Pathfinder as written. (My experience is not with Pathfinder, but rather with 3.5.) But I would suggest, thanks to The Alexandrian, that this is a flaw in Paizo's design.

Maybe as a simulation, maybe in the skill system, but not in overall combat capabilities of characters. It does make higher level characters less 'extra-ordinary' but then I've never been that big a fan of 'demi-god' type characters.

It looks like you're using hit points, damage dealt and damage withstood, as the sole measure of "combat capabilities." I don't agree with that, as my chance to hit calculation above shows. What all this says to me, combined with the skill and attack roll analysis, is that hit points are out of scale. Give everybody including "normal folks" max hit points at first level, then drop all damage inflicted - whether by weapons, falls, animals - to a quarter of the official numbers. But that would present problems with playability. There are other possible fixes to HP, which would be a long topic; for now I'll just say that it looks like that's where a fix is needed. And if we go without such a fix, what the hell? The system works well enough for adventurers and monsters, so who cares if it fails for scrubs and kitties?

So Dungeons and Dragons only works for dungeon crawls? You can't challenge a high level character with anything less than an undead lich, Dragon, or Demi-god like themselves? No armies, no intrigue, no assassin in the night? Maybe if we had halfway decent rules for squads of low level enemies or large groups that could work...

As my example with the Great White Shark points out, it drastically overstates the lethality of 'monsters' to the point I see the probability of the races surviving for any significant amount of time dropping to just about nil. Moreover, how many exceptional people do you think there are in a fantasy world? Our world of 6 billion plus only produces 1 person with the equivalent of Int 20 (IQ of 200) in a generation, and I'd eat my books before I'd make a fantasy world with a total population topping a billion people.

If you think of DnD as a simulation of a medieval world plus fantastic elements, then the 90% commoner 1 rules would doom all the playable races to extermination from the various mythical creatures that roam the countryside.

If you ignore those mechanics and instead decide to say that people advance a bit over time, make the average captain of the guard a grizzled old 7th or 8th level warrior that can stand before a Dragon attacking his town with a 5th or 6th level lieutenant, and a dozen 3rd or 4th level warriors at his back, you end up with a much more internally consistent and sensible world, albeit one where the average person can jump a bit further then our world, and the average smith can make a bit better gear then our world.

I'd say more german shepherd or lab size, but why split hairs?

Beagle is on the low end and the German Shepard at the extreme high end for a 'Common Dogs'. The rules say 20-50 lbs, and a Beagle is around 25 lbs while a German Shepard is around 70 lbs on average.

jqavins

2014-07-23, 07:23 PM

You know what I call a 'solid blow' in a fist fight? A crit.
Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree about that one, as I think you're dead wrong. A solid blow, I believe, is any that is good enough to do noticable damage, i.e. at least one point. A swing that makes contact but doesn't really do anything is, functionally, a miss. A crit is an extraordinarily solid blow that does more damage than one can reasonably expect, but only hope for.

While I do not advocate fighting, I was bullied a bit in elementary school and got into the occasional squabble and fight on the playground. I'd say the average hit rate for a bunch of punches connecting between two everyday opponents is not 50-55%. No, the actual hit rate tends to be more around 75-80% of the time.
I suspect the difference here lies in our different notions of what a hit is.

A Huge target (AC 8) is fired on by the average crew of a Tiger Tank, in combat they have an average hit probability of...
100% hit rate at 100 meters.
100% hit rate at 500 meters.
93% hit rate at 1,000 meters.
74% hit rate at 1,500 meters.
50% hit rate at 2,000 meters.
31% hit rate at 2,500 meters.
19% hit rate at 3,000 meters.

From this information we can say that the range increment is probably around 600 meters (~2,000 ft), and that the crew has to have the equivalent of a +7 to hit with the gun (even a natural 1 would hit if not for automatic misses). Assuming that 4 of the 5 man crew are assisting the gunner this grants only an average of +2 bonus to hit from their assistance, leaving the average tank gunner with a +5 BAB.
Not a valid exmple. Firing a tank's gun is not like firing a bow or throwing a rock; it doesn't (OK, shouldn't; I don't actually know the rule) go on BAB, but rather on a gunnery skill. You've shown that the tank gunner needs to have a +5 in that skill, which is very reasonable for a level 1 or 2 warrior.

So Dungeons and Dragons only works for dungeon crawls?
Huh? I don't know how to respond to that, because I don't know how it follows from anything I wrote.

As my example with the Great White Shark points out, it drastically overstates the lethality of 'monsters' to the point I see the probability of the races surviving for any significant amount of time dropping to just about nil.
On this, we very nearly agree. It seems to me that the damage listed for the great white is way too high. And low level characters should probably have more hit points.

If you think of DnD as a simulation of a medieval world plus fantastic elements, then the 90% commoner 1 rules would doom all the playable races to extermination from the various mythical creatures that roam the countryside. If you ignore those mechanics and instead decide to say that people advance a bit over time, make the average captain of the guard a grizzled old 7th or 8th level warrior that can stand before a Dragon attacking his town with a 5th or 6th level lieutenant, and a dozen 3rd or 4th level warriors at his back, you end up with a much more internally consistent and sensible world, albeit one where the average person can jump a bit further then our world, and the average smith can make a bit better gear then our world.
I think of D&D as more or less a simulation of a medieval world plus a little bit of of the fantastic elements. The low power monsters like goblins may be somewhat common, but the mythical creatures are really rare. Sure, adventurers see them all the time, but that's because adventurers are foolish enough to go looking for them. Most people will never see one and virtually all who encounter malevolent ones simply die. Grizzled old guard captains (be they 7th to 8th level or 4th to 5th) who face a dragon with a liutenent (5th to 6th level or 3rd) and a dozen guardsmen (3rd to 4th or 1st or 2nd) are supposed to die, along with most of his town. That's why the people who slay dragons are epic heroes. If you evaluae the whole world by what adventurers experience you'll end up with a highly distorted view.

I started out my participation in this thread agreeing with you. The essay changed my mind on the matter of scale, but I still agree that people should advance a little over time. The grizzled guard captain got to be grizzled by the sorts of activities that gain one experience fast; I'd probably make him a fighter of appropriate level, though maybe warrior is good enough; I'd certainly give hime more experience points and therefore higher level than his age alone would indicate. I've only changed in my opinion of the rate of advancement for people with no experience other than what age indicates, and that is the ony thing I'd judge by what I learned from that essay. I suggested 100 xp/year rather than 1000. That way, a person 20 years into a thoroughly ordinary adulthood is 2nd level, and at 50 years in, an age many humans will reach, makes 3rd. Someone who is a non-adventurer but has lived another sort of extraordinary life, like the guard captain for instance, would have more experience and be higher level, though 5th is probably enough for almost anyone.

Coidzor

2014-07-23, 09:36 PM

I did something similar though I didn't bother thinking about the actual XP involved when I was giving rough expected levels by ages for NPCs in an E6>E8/E10/E12>E20 world.

I need to recreate the actual crunchery and thoughts since the doc got lost, but it roughly amounted to a quarter of growth being handled by young, unestablished adulthood; mature, established adulthood; middle-age, and elder status, with those of a higher level cap advancing faster due to their increased inherent potential/stats/resources.

So it was unlikely to meet a living 50-60 year old peasant who wasn't 5-6th level if not into gaining their E6 feats.

Stellar_Magic

2014-07-23, 10:56 PM

Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree about that one, as I think you're dead wrong. A solid blow, I believe, is any that is good enough to do noticable damage, i.e. at least one point. A swing that makes contact but doesn't really do anything is, functionally, a miss. A crit is an extraordinarily solid blow that does more damage than one can reasonably expect, but only hope for.

I suspect the difference here lies in our different notions of what a hit is.

I understand the confusion, as the way AC works muddles the issue of hits and non-hits since armor works mechanically by decreasing the probability of hits in DnD instead of reducing damage. Technically real armor of the period did work mostly by deflecting a blow away from damaging the body since penetrations were relatively rare with medieval armor (though I doubt 'natural' armor would function that way).

In my mind a hit deals 'damage'. For fists and bludgeoning weapons, you might think of this as bruising... For blades you can think of this as drawing blood... For piercing, well puncture wounds or in some cases a clean 'through and through' hit with an arrow or bullet (missed vital organs).

A crit deals 'major damage'. For fists and bludgeoning weapons I think of that as broken bones, internal bleeding, and so forth. For slashing I'd say that would be wounds which damage musculature, I.E. penetrate more then an inch or so into the skin. For piercing I'd say they were puncture wounds that reached deep enough to damage musculature and internal organs.

Now... that's just a general rule of thumb, I tend to figure that rolling a crit with minimum damage is roughly the equivalent of breaking someone's nose... painful yes, but not a big deal.

Not a valid exmple. Firing a tank's gun is not like firing a bow or throwing a rock; it doesn't (OK, shouldn't; I don't actually know the rule) go on BAB, but rather on a gunnery skill. You've shown that the tank gunner needs to have a +5 in that skill, which is very reasonable for a level 1 or 2 warrior.

Sadly, I was using an example that actually lowered the gunner's BAB by including assistance from the rest of the crew. So you want a personal hit probability chart?

Here's one courtesy of the US Army training manuals. Weapon is the M16, targets are human silhouette pop-up targets on a track that move so... AC 10 (the military use undersized targets that wobble on the track) assumed proficient and training complete.

100% Hit Probability @ 50 meters (~160 feet)
100% Hit Probability @ 100 meters (~325 feet)
100% Hit Probability @ 150 meters (~490 feet)
99% Hit Probability @ 200 meters (~650 feet)
95% Hit Probability @ 250 meters (~815 feet)
90% Hit Probability @ 300 meters (~975 feet)

Yes, I know what you're thinking... How the hell does that work when ammunition consumption per casualty inflicted is around one million rounds per enemy casualty (recent studies in Iraq).

Well besides area fire and suppression, there is something no wargame, no RPG, and very few people even acknowledge about combat. This is that 98% of combatants do not aim at their targets, the 2% or so that do aim are responsible for 98% of combat casualties (How Infantry Fight, an American Study during World War II went into detail on it).

Most people simply do not have the mentality to intentionally aim to kill their fellow man, they will in fact often times only fire blindly or even intentionally miss. This is why classical and medieval battles were waged for hours. Roughly 2 of the legionaries in every century were the ones doing the killing. Everyone else is fighting defensively, effectively acting as body guards and decoys for those killers.

Weirdly the same study found that the 'aimed fire rate' went up to 98% when the weapon was a 'crew served' weapon like a tank, cannon, or ballista. This is because the shared responsibility of manning the weapon makes it psychologically easier for them to aim and fire it. This is also why ships, tanks, and two-man fighter aircraft are so effective.

Quite simply this is something that is not, and can not be modeled very well in a game like DnD or Pathfinder. It's a part of the real world that is simply so unbelievable that people don't even tend to consider it.

On the flip side, it's really a lot easier psychologically to shoot something that isn't a human being... so all that information and an effective -20 to all attack roles against members of your own race (unless you're a born killer) can be thrown out as being far to complex for an RPG, especially since we often face monsters and wild beasts instead of people and don't have that psychological burden on our minds.

So what do we do? What is the average to hit for a human being with an M16? Well, lets just ignore the psychological thing for now and assume the training numbers are within 5-10% of actual combat results. To have a 90% hit chance for a human target within one range increment means that a roll as low as a 2 should hit the target. That means around a +8 or +9 to attack, assuming weapon focus and maybe a 14 dex score, that cuts it down to a +5 or +6 BAB.

A fully trained modern soldier is once again at least a 5th level warrior, and if you really want to... you can give all sapient creatures a -20 circumstance penalty to lethal attacks on their own race, unless they've got PC levels or something. I wouldn't because it would confuse everyone at the table, but eh... such is life.

Also, that psychological barrier can be broken with sufficient training. Consider the Battle of Mogadishu, 160 men with a nominal ammo load of 210 rounds inflicted 1,500 to 3,000 casualties on the Somali (including civilian casualties). This adds up to 11.2 rounds of ammo per Somali casualty... against targets in buildings, on rooftops, behind every type of cover imaginable. Add in suppressing fire, concealment penalties, and all that and it's pretty clear a very well trained Ranger or Delta Force operative is extremely accurate.

Oh, and one less thing... If you're wondering why a lot of hunters can't shoot all that great (a lot of them really can't... and I cringe when I go to the firing range and watch people with semi-automatic pistols). There's one very simple reason. They're not proficient with their hunting rifles. I've seen what an actual trained soldier can do firing from the hip... and well, lets just say that -5 to hit penalty from being non-proficient seems to be right on the money.

On this, we very nearly agree. It seems to me that the damage listed for the great white is way too high. And low level characters should probably have more hit points.

Indeed they do, but they also need much higher BAB to represent accurate depictions of the combat abilities of normal people, as my examples of modern soldier accuracy were meant to show. If that average is about right, it's simply easier to just give NPCs more levels.

I think of D&D as more or less a simulation of a medieval world plus a little bit of of the fantastic elements. The low power monsters like goblins may be somewhat common, but the mythical creatures are really rare. Sure, adventurers see them all the time, but that's because adventurers are foolish enough to go looking for them. Most people will never see one and virtually all who encounter malevolent ones simply die. Grizzled old guard captains (be they 7th to 8th level or 4th to 5th) who face a dragon with a liutenent (5th to 6th level or 3rd) and a dozen guardsmen (3rd to 4th or 1st or 2nd) are supposed to die, along with most of his town. That's why the people who slay dragons are epic heroes. If you evaluae the whole world by what adventurers experience you'll end up with a highly distorted view.

I will say that they do die, and in fact an Adult Red Dragon could wipe them out on a single attack run with his breath weapon. I will also say this... If you award XP at the rate of 1,000 XP a year and you apply that rule to all creatures with an intelligence to learn from their mistakes... Well let me just say that my 'Archetypal' Demons, Devils, Dragons, and other intelligent monsters tend to have class levels that correspond to their years of experience, which generally takes an already 'dangerous' creature and really kicks them up a couple notches. A Succubus on the loose is a bad thing, a succubus with levels in a charisma based class is much, much worse. I think my players like that it also livens up the foes a bit. Especially when I pull things out like a Lich or Vampire that had levels in fighter (1,000 years old gives you the ability to expand your knowledge a bit).

Still, everything depends on the world you build as the GM, but I will say that if that's your point of view then a lot of the standard encounter charts are totally immersion breaking, as everybody walking that road really should be rolling on that chart, and that's one of the reasons that I have a multilayered encounter chart that looks like this for it's first layer.

0-32 Sapient Travelers (Humans, Orcs, and so forth)
33-65 Native Wildlife (Common)
66-82 Native Wildlife (Uncommon)
83-91 Native Wildlife (Rare)
92-96 Mythical Denizens (Common)
97-98 Mythical Denizens (Uncommon)
99 Mythical Denizens (Rare)
100 Double Encounter (Reroll Twice)

On one of my charts this worked out to encountering a Dragon as having only a 0.64% chance of happening, and this would still greatly exaggerate the probability of running into a Dragon compared to what it should be for a world where mythical creatures are as rare as you suggest.

I started out my participation in this thread agreeing with you. The essay changed my mind on the matter of scale, but I still agree that people should advance a little over time. The grizzled guard captain got to be grizzled by the sorts of activities that gain one experience fast; I'd probably make him a fighter of appropriate level, though maybe warrior is good enough; I'd certainly give hime more experience points and therefore higher level than his age alone would indicate. I've only changed in my opinion of the rate of advancement for people with no experience other than what age indicates, and that is the ony thing I'd judge by what I learned from that essay. I suggested 100 xp/year rather than 1000. That way, a person 20 years into a thoroughly ordinary adulthood is 2nd level, and at 50 years in, an age many humans will reach, makes 3rd. Someone who is a non-adventurer but has lived another sort of extraordinary life, like the guard captain for instance, would have more experience and be higher level, though 5th is probably enough for almost anyone.

I could see most people being 2nd level, if not for how low hit-point and attack totals are for them. I mean, a standard enlistment period for the US Army is only six years, and by the time that's over you've been trained and honed to have a hit probability of 100% at ranges under 500 feet. A 24 year old trained soldier should therefore be a 5th level warrior. If we go with a slow XP rate for character advancement, that's exactly 1,000 xp a year for a 5th level character.

Hmm... I think I'll go with that.

niks97cobra

2014-07-24, 03:10 AM

I like the idea, but I wouldn't keep myself bound to it, like someone mentioned above. It would be a guideline.

jqavins

2014-07-24, 08:54 AM

I could see most people being 2nd level, if not for how low hit-point and attack totals are for them. I mean, a standard enlistment period for the US Army is only six years, and by the time that's over you've been trained and honed to have a hit probability of 100% at ranges under 500 feet. A 24 year old trained soldier should therefore be a 5th level warrior. If we go with a slow XP rate for character advancement, that's exactly 1,000 xp a year for a 5th level character.
I'd say that a six year stint in the military, while not rare, is also not the "completely ordinary life" I've referred to. I'd give more experience for the army training. I'm only saying that 1000 xp is too much just for a year's worth of breathing and functioning in society. It's for that I'd go with 100 xp/year instead, with training, extraordinary hardship, and probably quite a few other sorts of things garnering more.

Stellar_Magic

2014-07-24, 05:07 PM

Well I can certainly see that there should be variability (and I'm really going to have to take a hard look at the how to handle extremely long lived peoples), I think part of it is a matter of perspective. Modern living is comparatively easy to life in a Medieval world, let alone one where there are bloody owl-bears in the woods.

When we're talking about an average person in medieval society, we're talking about someone with a life expectancy of around 25 years (though that number is so low mostly due child mortality and death in childbirth). We're also talking about someone that essentially lives hand to mouth... Most 'commoners' would be able to make their own clothes (as tailors are something for only the rich), they would grow their own food, and so forth because they wouldn't be able to afford to buy such things. Life is hard for them, and while 100 XP may be suitable for a towns person or day laborer, most people in a medieval society are farmers constantly working pretty hard to keep starvation at bay... If you think of living as a series of skill challenges, they've got a pretty tough existence when the threat of starvation is hanging over their heads.

There are also examples that take the 1,000 XP number and totally blow it out of the water. Take a member of a hunter-gatherer society who has to hunt for food. If you have to hunt down a deer for food once a week to keep you and your family alive... well a CR1/2 Deer means 200 XP a week, or 10,400 XP a year!

Considering life expectancy is actually a lot higher in a hunter-gatherer society then an agrarian society (60 years usually) then by the time you reach your normal life expectancy you'd be a 12th level character, even using the slow character progression numbers.

Another way to consider would be to give XP per year is by dependence on the difficulty of living. Say the professional soldier is drilled and practiced to the point that his yearly experience gain is the equivalent of a CR 4 or 5 encounter, while the average farm hand or day laborer only gets a yearly experience gain equivalent to a CR 1/2 or 1 encounter. There are a lot of different ways to do it, but overall it basically comes down to the idea that people gain levels.

A Delta Force Operator for example I see as being 7th to 8th level and gains experience at about the equivalent of a CR 7 or 8 encounter a year, without going on operations just due to how much training they get. While a 70 year old farmer may only have 14,000 XP due to getting just the equivalent of a CR 1/2 a year and only be 4th level. However, that 70 year old has probably had the most boring existence imaginable.

The commoner is a far less common thing in the modern developed world. I generally say that if you graduated High School, you're at least an expert or a commoner/expert... We're afforded 13 years of free education in the United States, and most go for at least 17 years with college and all. I've got more like 20 years of education since I've got a mastery... So I tend to think of myself as a 5th level Expert.

Which hilarious is in line with about how good a shot I am, Actually, if I wanted to stat myself I'd say...

Expert 5
Str 13, Dex 13, Con 11, Int 14, Wis 11, Cha 13
BaB +3, CMB +4, CMD 14

With my Saiga Carbine I'd have a +4 to hit, statistically. Now, one thing the range increment system does not do is account for how high the 'hit probability' can get as hit probabilities increase to about 100% against adjacent targets (obviously)... So I'll have to do a bit more number crunching to get normal spread on targets at indoor shooting ranges.

*Does a lot of Math*

A +4 to hit with a weapon with a range increment of 975 feet comes out to about a 2 1/2 inch spread at 25 feet, which is consistent with my experience at the local firing range. It increases to around 3 inches if I fire rapidly (equivalent of using the rapid fire feet). At 975 feet (300 meters) my shots will be spread around a 3-4 foot circle centered on the target, ergo having a hit probability of around 65%.

Oh, and here's a shocking idea... The 5.56 round in that carbine travels those 300 meters in 1/3rd of a second. A person can move up to 15 feet in that time frame (running flat out with the speed of an Olympic runner), so yes... people are not flat-footed to gunfire... at least not at those ranges.

Now, Joe Commoner... the idiot with a pistol in the next lane blazing away with a Glock (90 feet range increment), he's got a spread of around 2-3 feet at a target 10 feet away. This is consistent with a person with +1 BAB and -5 non-proficient penalty attempting to use the rapid fire feet. In fact the exact number for a spread like this is 2 feet and 5 inches, right on the money.

This is consistent with a 2nd or 3rd level commoner of average attribute score. Considering most of the time I see 'Joe Commoner' blazing away with a Glock pistol he's about 18, I think that seems about right. To be 2nd level at 18 years old would require around 200 XP per year. To be 3rd level would require over 400 XP per year.

Then there's the old man in a wheelchair that is in the other lane beside me. He looks to be in his forty or fifties, and he's using a .45 Revolver. He sets the target up at the extreme end of the range (around 50 feet), takes aim, and gets a spread of about 1-2 inches.

Statistically this guy could engage a man sized target at 2,040 ft. away with a 50% chance to hit! With most single-action pistols having around 160-320 ft. range increments, this means the guy has to have an effective to hit value of +16. With Far Shot as a feat, it drops to +8, but that's still shocking accuracy.

Assuming weapon focus, +2 or +3 dex modifier, and so forth we end up with at least a +4 BAB... more likely a +5 or +6 due to aging. If he was a warrior, he'd between 4th and 6th level. If he was a commoner, he'd be between 9th and 13th level. If he was an expert he'd be between 6th and 9th level.

So lets go back to XP per life experience with that example. Unknown character between 4th and 13th level whose wheel-chair bound and around 40-50 year old.

1,000 XP a year gives us a 6th level character, which works out pretty good for an expert having that sort of skill, if he focused on shooting as a major hobby.

To be a 4th level warrior at that age would require over 300 XP per year, and seem rather strange considering what I've said about 5th level warrior in the US Military. To be a 9th level commoner at that age would require over 2,500 XP a year assuming slow character advancement.

Stellar_Magic

2014-07-25, 11:50 AM

Well... for the Einstein example, keep in mind that Einstein was only 26 years old when the Theory of Relativity was published and he was only 35 when the Theory of General Relativity was released. Ergo, Einstein at that time in his life probably would have been a 4th or 5th level expert by my numbers.

If you stat out Einsterin (Int 16 based on IQ estimates) and add up what he actually could do before middle age, his skill list is a lot longer then most people would expect. He gets 10 skill points a level, and he has a long list of skills that he would have ranks in. Besides Knowledge (Physics), you'd have... Knowledge (Engineering), Knowledge (Politics), Knowledge (Religion), Perform (String Instruments), Perform (Oratory), Profession (Examiner), Diplomacy, and a smattering of other skills with maybe one or two ranks in them.

When he died, he was 76... Therefore around 7th to 8th level. At that level (assuming he kept putting ranks in Physicist) he'd have a +17 to that Skill. He could answer most tough questions in the field at any time (DC 20), and the really tough ones (DC 30) 35-40% of the time.

jqavins

2014-07-25, 03:48 PM

If you stat out Einsterin (Int 16 based on IQ estimates)...
... then you clearly demonstrate the danger of relying on IQ estimates, or even IQ at all for that matter. Look at the distribution for a 3d6 attribute roll. An 18 intelligence places one in the 99.5th percentile of smart people. Anything over 18 is supposed to be exceptional, but not necessarily impossible. Since some racial adjustments can get an attribute over 18, as can attribute advancement with levels, I'd have to say that a human starting intelligence over 18 is so rare as to be safely excluded by character generation, but not theoretically impossible. Based on Einstein's accomplishments, one has to conclude that his Int was at least 18 and probably greater, i.e. he was smarter than 199 out of every 200 people, and probably a lot smarter.

Stellar_Magic

2014-07-25, 04:16 PM

... then you clearly demonstrate the danger of relying on IQ estimates, or even IQ at all for that matter. Look at the distribution for a 3d6 attribute roll. An 18 intelligence places one in the 99.5th percentile of smart people. Anything over 18 is supposed to be exceptional, but not necessarily impossible. Since some racial adjustments can get an attribute over 18, as can attribute advancement with levels, I'd have to say that a human starting intelligence over 18 is so rare as to be safely excluded by character generation, but not theoretically impossible. Based on Einstein's accomplishments, one has to conclude that his Int was at least 18 and probably greater, i.e. he was smarter than 199 out of every 200 people, and probably a lot smarter.

So you're arguing for an even smarter Einstein... You know the real world's bell curve for attributes like Strength and so forth is a lot more severe then the distribution curve of 3d6.

Einstein's estimated IQ was 160, which is the 99.99 percentile. IQ measurements are age independent so I ignored the possible +3 bonus to IQ from age bonuses, especially considering all his major groundbreaking physics accomplishments happened before he reached middle-age. The highest reported IQ on record is 198... which is right in line with what you state as potential attributes for a character, as a character may get an 18 +2 during basic character generation (Pathfinder's +2 to one attribute rules for Humanity) gives you 20. A character's Intelligent Quotient divided by 10 gets you a plausible Int Score. Here's how the score values add up as percentiles.

20 - 1 per 5 Billion
19 - 1 per 100 Million
18 - 1 per 5 Million
17 - 1 per 200 Thousand
16 - 1 per 10 Thousand
15 - 1 per 1 Thousand
14 - 1 per 200
13 - 1 per 40
12 - 1 per 10
11 - 1 per 3
10 - 1 per 2

Int 16 therefore seems about right for Einstein, especially when you realize how many other people with a comparable intelligence were running around at the time. We've got the fathers of quantum mechanics to deal with, not to mention thousands of inventors and other people who were doing things during the period.

atemu1234

2014-07-25, 04:25 PM

Meet my 3,800 year old elf lich. Have fun.

Stellar_Magic

2014-07-25, 06:14 PM

Meet my 3,800 year old elf lich. Have fun.

3,800,000 XP... So 19th level with Slow Character Advancement.

19th level Lich... Sounds perfect for the ultimate 'Big Bad' of a campaign to me.

atemu1234

2014-07-25, 06:37 PM

3,800,000 XP... So 19th level with Slow Character Advancement.

19th level Lich... Sounds perfect for the ultimate 'Big Bad' of a campaign to me.

But he's also a wizard who has never studied wizardry. So he knows absolutely no spells. So, even more hilarious is when he, with max ranks in spellcraft, can identify any spell being cast, but cannot prepare anything. More fun.

jqavins

2014-07-25, 08:43 PM

So you're arguing for an even smarter Einstein... You know the real world's bell curve for attributes like Strength and so forth is a lot more severe then the distribution curve of 3d6.
No, the real world bell curve is exactly 3d6, because 3d6 is the roll used for normal folks. The rule of Int = IQ/10 is total BS.

Einstein's estimated IQ was 160, which is the 99.99 percentile.

Even if we had records of an actual IQ test for Einstein, those things are of really dubious value. Estimates based on compiling various indirect measures are virtually worthless.

20 - 1 per 5 Billion
19 - 1 per 100 Million
18 - 1 per 5 Million
17 - 1 per 200 Thousand
16 - 1 per 10 Thousand
15 - 1 per 1 Thousand
14 - 1 per 200
13 - 1 per 40
12 - 1 per 10
11 - 1 per 3
10 - 1 per 2

I completely don't buy your methodology, but soemhow you've come out with a reasonable answer. Are you seriously suggesting that Einstein was only at the 1 in 10,000 level? That there are about 700,000 people alive right now as smart as he was? Nonsense! Based on the chart above, and considering how many billion people have ever lived, Albert was clearly a 19 or 20.

atemu1234

2014-07-25, 09:06 PM

Stellar_Magic

2014-07-25, 09:56 PM

No, the real world bell curve is exactly 3d6, because 3d6 is the roll used for normal folks. The rule of Int = IQ/10 is total BS.

Even if we had records of an actual IQ test for Einstein, those things are of really dubious value. Estimates based on compiling various indirect measures are virtually worthless.

I completely don't buy your methodology, but soemhow you've come out with a reasonable answer. Are you seriously suggesting that Einstein was only at the 1 in 10,000 level? That there are about 700,000 people alive right now as smart as he was? Nonsense! Based on the chart above, and considering how many billion people have ever lived, Albert was clearly a 19 or 20.

I'm not going to argue this... as people have inflated Einstein's abilities extensively. Yes, IQ studies are inherently troublesome, but if you actually study the man you realize there are a huge number of things he simply got wrong (Quantum Mechanics is something Einstein despised and strove to actively refute, he never managed it) and that there were dozens of people just as smart as he was, even active in his own field at the same time. Yes, he was the father of Relativity, studied Brownian motion, and did all those things, but that does not make him the 'smartest person ever'. People with equal or even greater intellects exist.

Anyway...

3d6 gives a very rough and general approximation for the actual bell curve of human abilities. However, it is far from right, and the attribute generation gives no room for strength, dexterity, or endurance training which would profoundly effect those statistical values. A good example can come from the encumbrance rules and world records for weightlifting.

The rules state that a character can lift as much as their maximum load over their head, like in the weightlift known as a 'clean and jerk'. The Olympic Record for this lift is... 581 pounds. To lift that in DnD requires a strength score of 22 to 23. To get this in Pathfinder would require a roll of 18 Str, +2 from Race, and +2 or +3 from Attribute increases. Ergo, it could only be achieved by a level 8 to 12 human character. If this was 3.5 instead of Pathfinder, it would require a level 16 to 20 character just to get those last two points.

The rules and bell curve for it are a good approximation for a dice based game, but I would never describe them as being perfect or exact. I think another D20 based game explicitly said that GMs should treat all commoner scores as 10 and not use a score package. The basic score package ends up representing someone that's actually above average if you think of 10 as being the 50% mark as the average roll for 3d6 is 10.5... not 10.

All of this is really distracting from what we started discussing in the first place. XP over time.

I do have a related question though, how common is it for you to utilize under-age character like teens, kids, and so forth?

Stellar_Magic

2014-07-25, 10:01 PM

The very premise of his argument is flawed. It's been shown repeatedly int =/= IQ. Also, quite frankly, IQ doesn't accurately measure intelligence. It measures reasoning, problem-solving among other things, making it more similar to wisdom, though even then it's a poor judge of numbers.

I see that as the definition of Intelligence in DnD and Pathfinder... combined with memory. Wisdom is something else entirely, as it primary affects skills based on things like visual acuity and general sense perception, not problem solving or so forth. Of course no ability score is harder to quantify as Charisma...

jqavins

2014-07-26, 08:51 AM

I see that as the definition of Intelligence in DnD and Pathfinder... combined with memory. Wisdom is something else entirely, as it primary affects skills based on things like visual acuity and general sense perception, not problem solving or so forth. Of course no ability score is harder to quantify as Charisma...
Poor, pitiful, put-upon Wisdom. No one, including the game's designers, seems to know what it is. It's been one's spiritual connection to the cosmos, senses, intuition, and the ineffible quality exemplified by Soloman and Ben Cartright. Charisma's hard, but I'm not so sure Wisdom isn't harder. Oh well, it's only a game.

jqavins

2014-07-26, 09:24 AM

I'm not going to argue this... as people have inflated Einstein's abilities extensively. Yes, IQ studies are inherently troublesome, but if you actually study the man you realize there are a huge number of things he simply got wrong (Quantum Mechanics is something Einstein despised and strove to actively refute, he never managed it) and that there were dozens of people just as smart as he was, even active in his own field at the same time. Yes, he was the father of Relativity, studied Brownian motion, and did all those things, but that does not make him the 'smartest person ever'. People with equal or even greater intellects exist.
Yes, some exist, but very few. Not 700,000 today. He wasn't the smartest who ever lived, but probably in the top few hundered.

Incidentally, he was also the father of quantum mechanics. (It's what he got his Nobel for.) He did not dispise it, but did dislike the probabalistic interprettation. And his big final failure wasn't an attempt to refute it, but rather to reconcile it with relativity, something many are still trying to do and none has.

3d6 gives a very rough and general approximation for the actual bell curve of human abilities. However, it is far from right, and the attribute generation gives no room for strength, dexterity, or endurance training which would profoundly effect those statistical values.
I think this is a matter of interpretation. I'd say the numbers for the attributes give a very rough approximation, but the distribution of those nuumbers for what they're worth is exactly 3d6 by definition. What does in mean to be in the 98th percentile of intelligence or strength, or any other characteristic? Whatever it means, it must map to a 17, because 17 is the 98th percentile on 3d6, and 3d6 is the definition of the scores.

The rules and bell curve for it are a good approximation for a dice based game, but I would never describe them as being perfect or exact. I think another D20 based game explicitly said that GMs should treat all commoner scores as 10 and not use a score package. The basic score package ends up representing someone that's actually above average if you think of 10 as being the 50% mark as the average roll for 3d6 is 10.5... not 10.
The rules, sadly, say a lot of contradictory things. Sadlier, many people pick one to cling to without even realizing that they are doing so. (I cling to "3d6 defines the distribution" but at least I am aware that it's a matter or interprettation. I'm probably guilty on other counts.) I've been pointing out to people for decades that 10 is not average, 10.5 is, which means that 10 and 11 are equally common. Where the rules say "use 10 for the average stat" or words to that effect, they teach so many people, so wrongly, that 10 is the average. On the other hand, they quietly get that right 10 and 11 have the same ability modifier of 0. They say things like 3d6 is the distribution for Int and Int = IQ/10, but these simply can't possibly both be true; pick one. (I've made my choice plain.) Etc.

All of this is really distracting from what we started discussing in the first place. XP over time.
Indeed. I'm sorry I started it. In fact, I had decided a little while ago I had said all I have to say about experience over time and was not going to contribute to this thread anymore, then I just couldn't keep quite about Einstein and a 16 Int. If you have any more to say about Dear Doctor Albert, I will bite my toung and concede the last word.

I do have a related question though, how common is it for you to utilize under-age character like teens, kids, and so forth?
Uncommon, and virtually never with sufficient importance that I need a rule for their experience progression.