Why are most NPC characters in D&D world level 1?

[SinsI]

The DMG and other books assume that majority of the ordinary characters are lvl 1, which I find ridiculous.
Warriors and guards would have extensive training and many mission over the course of their careers, artisans would perfect their skills, etc.
Surely they would have some levels under their belts, together with some skills and feats?

If a house cat can kill a lvl 1 commoner, that must mean that lvl 1 commoner is a very small child, and adults have far more than 1 level.

What level do you think regular non-PC characters should actually have? For example:
1) middle class farmer. 30 years old, 5 children, has several horses, a few hired hands, etc.
2) seasoned warrior. 30 years old (16 years in army, a dozen war campaigns, etc).
3) innkeeper. 45 years old, owns an inn in a medium-sized town.
4) smith. 25 years old, started apprenticeship at 10 and became independent at 16.
For the sake of simplicity, let's assume a very low magic world - wizard and cleric spells of higher levels haven't been developed/granted, or require some non-readily-available material components for each and every use (even if you have some seemingly unlimited use magic item, they just have some reservoir that uses those up nonetheless). It is not a Tippyverse.

[Ettina]

If a house cat can kill a lvl 1 commoner, that must mean that lvl 1 commoner is a very small child, and adults have far more than 1 level.

I think you're underestimating house cats.

A house cat in real life would pretty much never go all-out on a person - a tame cat is inhibited by feelings of friendship, and a feral cat will only attack until they get a chance to escape.

But if, for some reason, a house cat did go all out on a human, they could probably kill the human.

[FocusWolf413]

I usually rule that children are level 1, adolescents are level 2, and adults are 3rd. Past 3rd, people are considered exceptional.

[Zombimode]

The DMG and other books assume that majority of the ordinary characters are lvl 1, which I find ridiculous.
Warriors and guards would have extensive training and many mission over the course of their careers, artisans would perfect their skills, etc.
Surely they would have some levels under their belts, together with some skills and feats?

If a house cat can kill a lvl 1 commoner, that must mean that lvl 1 commoner is a very small child, and adults have far more than 1 level.

You're overstating the housecat issue. It is artifact of the lack of granularity at this bottom end of the scale.

Now, to the issue at hand: you have to keep in mind that the rules of this game serve a certain function, and modelling civilian life is not one of it's strengths.
Personally, I have always found the framework (craft and profession skills, skill focus, taking 10, suggested DCs) to be solid enough to model civilian life and tasks at a level of detail appropriate for my campaigns. My rule of thumb is to place most NPCs at levels 1 to 3. NPCs with skill sets more suited to "adventurous" tasks could go up higher, depending on their experience.


I think you're underestimating house cats.

A house cat in real life would pretty much never go all-out on a person - a tame cat is inhibited by feelings of friendship, and a feral cat will only attack until they get a chance to escape.

But if, for some reason, a house cat did go all out on a human, they could probably kill the human.

You're overerstimating housecats. For an able-bodied adult with the earnest intention of killing the cat this would be a trivial task (if the cats actually attacks, of course. chasing the cat is on the other hand almost impossible). Sure, if the human is unprotected some non-lifethreatening injuries are likely. If the human actually has some sort of equipment this becomes a slaugther. Any form of armor plus a dagger of knife would suffice.
The problem is, most of us have problems of putting us in the mindset of someone actually wanting to kill a housecat.

[JW86]

I do similar.

So an adolescent farmer is Level 1, a man-at-arms who has seen a few battles is level 2, a seasoned soldier is level 3, a captain, skilled sellsword, or bodyguard might be level 4...

[Flickerdart]

The DMG and other books assume that majority of the ordinary characters are lvl 1, which I find ridiculous.
Warriors and guards would have extensive training and many mission over the course of their careers, artisans would perfect their skills, etc.
Surely they would have some levels under their belts, together with some skills and feats?
You greatly overestimate both the importance of levels and the amount of experience a typical NPC has.

A guard guards. He stands there and swings a truncheon at street urchins. Elite guard captains are going to have a couple of levels, but your typical militiaman is a Warrior 1 if he's lucky.

As for craftsmen, it's trivial even for a level 1 character to produce Masterwork items. Apprentices aren't level 1 Experts, they're Commoners.

[Bronk]

The DMG and other books assume that majority of the ordinary characters are lvl 1, which I find ridiculous.
Warriors and guards would have extensive training and many mission over the course of their careers, artisans would perfect their skills, etc.
Surely they would have some levels under their belts, together with some skills and feats?

If a house cat can kill a lvl 1 commoner, that must mean that lvl 1 commoner is a very small child, and adults have far more than 1 level.

What level do you think regular non-PC characters should actually have? For example:
1) middle class farmer. 30 years old, 5 children, has several horses, a few hired hands, etc.
2) seasoned warrior. 30 years old (16 years in army, a dozen war campaigns, etc).
3) innkeeper. 45 years old, owns an inn in a medium-sized town.
4) smith. 25 years old, started apprenticeship at 10 and became independent at 16.
For the sake of simplicity, let's assume a very low magic world - wizard and cleric spells of higher levels haven't been developed/granted, or require some non-readily-available material components for each and every use (even if you have some seemingly unlimited use magic item, they just have some reservoir that uses those up nonetheless). It is not a Tippyverse.

For the first part, yeah, most random people would be level 1 at best. Why not? The adventurers are the special ones.

For the cat... DnD isn't one of those games where wee creatures get 'scratch damage' and mega monsters get 'Mega Damage', like Big Eyes Small Mouse or Rifts, so that's the sort of thing that ends up happening. Be kind to your pets! They'll save you from the rampaging rats!

For all of your numbered examples:
1: The farmer doesn't need any extra levels to run a farm, so maybe he just gets an extra commoner level or two to show that he's the boss.

2: Seasoned warrior: If he's just a grunt keeping his head down, there's no reason for more than one level of warrior no matter how long he's been in. If he is experienced, then he'll probably get a great job as a higher level warrior guard in a bigger town.

3: An innkeeper might have an extra level or two in commoner to show he's a boss, but unless he's living the 'retired adventurer' trope, there's no real reason for it.

4: The expert smith would need enough levels to account for whatever skills he has, but that's it. Heck, he'd probably use up his feats to boost his skills, so not many at that.

So yeah, the rules say most people are level 1, but do account for a smaller number of higher level types.

[SimonMoon6]

A better question might be: Why are most PC characters in a D&D world level 1 (to start with)?

If these PCs are the great heroes who are needed to save the day time after time, shouldn't they be, you know, heroic?

There is the point of view that to even get to have a level of a decent class is already making a person into an elite character. A 1st level bard is way more powerful than a 1st level commoner. (Is he really?) But that was more true in the 1st/2nd edition days when a person could have 0 levels.

And with major cities having lots of high level NPCs around, having low level heroes as the PCs just seems, well, stupid.

[Chronos]

Most people aren't expert craftsmen, or seasoned veterans, or whatever. By a large margin, most of the people in a typical D&D world are unskilled agricultural hands. Of those that are left, most are making or purveying the sorts of wares that an unskilled agricultural hand would be buying and using. The village blacksmith probably isn't making masterwork scythes-- He's making crappy scythes that he can make as cheaply as possible and as many of them as possible, and his customers don't complain, because they're not doing high-difficulty scything anyway, and there are many of them, too. Maybe one of the kids from a farming family decides he doesn't want to be an underachieving farm laborer, and runs off to the city to become a town guard: That just means that he's a level 1 warrior instead of a level 1 commoner, and now he's an underachieving guard instead. Yes, he's had training, and that's why he now has a point of BAB and a d8 HD instead of d4.

Now, there will be a few who have the motivation, aptitude, and opportunity to go further and become a warrior 5 captain of the guard, or a commoner 5 farm foreman, or whatever. And there will be even fewer who go into PC classes and become adventurers. But they're much rarer than those who don't.

[SinsI]

You greatly overestimate both the importance of levels and the amount of experience a typical NPC has.

A guard guards. He stands there and swings a truncheon at street urchins. Elite guard captains are going to have a couple of levels, but your typical militiaman is a Warrior 1 if he's lucky.

As for craftsmen, it's trivial even for a level 1 character to produce Masterwork items. Apprentices aren't level 1 Experts, they're Commoners.
A guard guards. He uses his Spot skills to discover and catch criminals, he practices his sword skills to be ready for combat with would-be burglars - and fights and defeats those burglars.
A warrior that has dozen years of experience should defeat a newby 10 times out of ten - so no way can he be the same level.
Same with craftsmen - someone that has just started his own business can't churn out high quality products with the same regularity as someone who has been in that business for years and years.

[JyP]

The DMG and other books assume that majority of the ordinary characters are lvl 1, which I find ridiculous.
Warriors and guards would have extensive training and many mission over the course of their careers, artisans would perfect their skills, etc.
Surely they would have some levels under their belts, together with some skills and feats?
One level per adventure - rule used for PCs. Also, level 1 is a kind of special case - PCs are already elite.
New rule of thumb : each decade is worth one level, unless you are living dangerously (ie, adventurer, soldier, pirate...) or are somewhat exceptionnal.

1) middle class farmer. 30 years old, 5 children, has several horses, a few hired hands, etc. => Commoner level 3 (or expert farmer)
2) seasoned warrior. 30 years old (16 years in army, a dozen war campaigns, etc). => commoner 1 / warrior 2+. Then between doing guard duty or being a shock trooper (worthy of PCs), you don't have the same levels.
3) innkeeper. 45 years old, owns an inn in a medium-sized town => Commoner level 4 unless he is a retired adventurer

[Zombimode]

What level do you think regular non-PC characters should actually have? For example:
1) middle class farmer. 30 years old, 5 children, has several horses, a few hired hands, etc.
2) seasoned warrior. 30 years old (16 years in army, a dozen war campaigns, etc).
3) innkeeper. 45 years old, owns an inn in a medium-sized town.
4) smith. 25 years old, started apprenticeship at 10 and became independent at 16.

The question is, why would any of those save the warrior ('cause the warriors skill set actually has something to do with fighting) be of a higher level then 3? Even for level 2 you would have to come up with a reason. Does tending a bar somehow makes you more apt at fighting?

If you are troubled by the fact that the smith will have strength score of "just" 13, there are two ways to adress this problem:
1) make up some explanation like "str score represents your ability to use your physical power for adventurous tasks like attacking and climbing". There, now you can have a heavily muscled smith with a Str of 13.
2) Say "screw the focused array" and just put a 16 in Str for the smith. If your players object, have a long conversation about what is actually important in the game.

Concerning the warrior, it highly depends. You said the warrior was on a "dozen war campaigns". To me that already seems like an unusual hight amount (note: "unusual", not "unlikely"). But even then, this doesn't necessarily translate into a higher level. It depends on what this warrior has acutally done and experienced on those campaigns. If the warriors was actually involved in heavy fighting in all of those campaigns (and survived!) then he/she is not a simple sergeant/militia anymore. He/she would be a highly skilled individual and veteran of many battles. He/she could be an officer now, or part of an elite fighting force. Even if he/she is still just a man-at-arms, he/she would be miles away due to the experience from the usual riff-raff and militia that makes the bulk of an army. I would peg him/her as high as level 6, probably built with PC classes and at least elite array (if not actualy point buy).
But this is one extreme. On the other hand the warrior could have seen no action at all, or always fled in sight of the enemy or just survived by luck. This is just as likely as the first extreme. In this case the warrior would still be level 1.

All in all, I doubt that there are many warriors who would have seen that much action by the age of 30. Those who did and survived are exceptional and this would be reflected by their in-game representation.

[Flickerdart]

A guard guards. He uses his Spot skills to discover and catch criminals, he practices his sword skills to be ready for combat with would-be burglars - and fights and defeats those burglars.
Not really. Go find the nearest mall cop - there's your guard. He's likely never been in a scrape his entire life, and the opponents he does face are so far beneath him in their training that they're barely worth any XP.


A warrior that has dozen years of experience should defeat a newby 10 times out of ten - so no way can he be the same level.
Also wrong. A farmboy fresh from his village is a Commoner with a Simple weapon and 1d4 hit points, and maybe Skill Focus (Farming). A trained warrior is a Warrior with Martial weapon proficiency, 1d8+2 HP, Heavy Armor proficiency, better ability scores, and feats like Power Attack. Even when they are both level 1, the warrior will wreck the trainee.


Same with craftsmen - someone that has just started his own business can't churn out high quality products with the same regularity as someone who has been in that business for years and years.
Same deal here - a novice is not an Expert, he's a Commoner with no ranks. Consider: the DC to craft Masterwork and "complex or superior" items is only 20. Taking 10, a 1st level Expert with 15 Int (+2), masterwork tools (+2), Skill Focus (+3), and 4 ranks (+4) will hit that DC every time.

At the low end of the level spectrum, characters improve not by taking levels, but by retraining their crap Commoner options into real, useful options.

[SinsI]

The question is, why would any of those save the warrior ('cause the warriors skill set actually has something to do with fighting) be of a higher level then 3? Even for level 2 you would have to come up with a reason. Does tending a bar somehow makes you more apt at fighting?
Combat is not the only way to get XP, and you get better in other things as you level up. Developed a new dish? Did a full harvesting cycle? Experimented with new type of crop? Tamed a new animal? Managed to find a new iron ore?
Look up one of the Crafting handbooks and see how many ways are there to make crafting cheaper and take less time. There's no reason why a regular craftsmen won't aim to get those feats and class features.

[The Glyphstone]

The question is, why would any of those save the warrior ('cause the warriors skill set actually has something to do with fighting) be of a higher level then 3? Even for level 2 you would have to come up with a reason. Does tending a bar somehow makes you more apt at fighting?


Farmers might have to fend off the occasional hungry wolf or lone orc menacing their herds, or chase deer away from their crops. A bartender is going to have to deal with bar fights and brawls, and occasionally wade in with a cudgel to settle them personally. Maybe that expert craftsman picks up a few tricks for handling unruly customers who aren't satisfied with what they've bought, or demand unreasonable discounts.

[Zombimode]

Combat is not the only way to get XP, and you get better in other things as you level up. Developed a new dish? Did a full harvesting cycle? Experimented with new type of crop? Tamed a new animal? Managed to find a new iron ore?
Look up one of the Crafting handbooks and see how many ways are there to make crafting cheaper and take less time. There's no reason why a regular craftsmen won't aim to get those feats and class features.

Like I said in my first reply, modelling civilian life is not the focus of D&D. If a first level commoner advances a level he objectively gets better at fighting. This is what gaining levels does: you get better at or add to your set of adventuring skills. The advances you mentioned are better handled outside the rules. You want a good cook? Make an NPC and note the trait "his cordon-bleu is excellent". 10 years earlier the same NPC would not have this trait, but "makes a passable meal" instead. In both cases the NPC could be a first level commoner or expert.

Concerning XP: you get XP by overcomming adventurous challenges. Tending the crops typically isn't one.


Farmers might have to fend off the occasional hungry wolf or lone orc menacing their herds, or chase deer away from their crops. A bartender is going to have to deal with bar fights and brawls, and occasionally wade in with a cudgel to settle them personally. Maybe that expert craftsman picks up a few tricks for handling unruly customers who aren't satisfied with what they've bought, or demand unreasonable discounts.

Sure, that may be the case. Thats why my rule of thumb puts most NPCs at level 1 to 3.

[Telonius]

For a real-world parallel, this thread (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/10123/pre-modern-farming-what-percent-of-the-population-is-in-agriculture) had a pretty good (and apparently well-researched) discussion on the topic. Short version: up until the Industrial Revolution, something like 90% or more of society involved in subsistence agriculture. (It did vary by how harsh the climate might be; more productive land could support more non-farm population). So less than 10% of the people were going to be guards or craftsmen of any description, let alone highly-trained soldiers or master craftsmen.

EDIT: Personally, in a D&D-based setting, I assume that most NPCs gain experience by surviving encounters with PCs without their shop burning to the ground.

[Jormengand]

The thing that gets me about everyone usually being 1st-level is that it means they'll probably die if they're shot once by a pistol (which IIRC is a 2d6 weapon) or rifle (2d8) whereas in real life, a gunshot is completely nonfatal 95% of the time, and most of the time there isn't anyone on hand to provide a handy heal check (not that it would matter if there were, because they would only manage it about half the time even if they were a trained paramedic.)

I have a similar problem with a longbow knocking you unconscious 5/8 of the time and staggering you 1/8 of the time in the hands of a dude with average strength who just decided that hey, he'd pick up this longbow. I can't say I've had much experience in being shot with a longbow, but I'm going to say it's not likely to knock me clean unconscious, even though I probably only have 8 CON and am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a warrior.

Plus, I really have a problem with the fact that a level 1 character has to pour all his resources into a skill to be any good at it. Let's say I'm a level 1 human expert. I take ranks in climb, craft (alchemy), heal, jump, k (engineering, religion), perform (oratory), Speak Language, swim, and tumble. Let's have a look what I can do with 4 ranks in each...

Climb 3 (4 skill -1 STR) I can apparently only climb a tree with a 12, even though I can quite easily do it about 80% of the time minimum.
Craft 8 (4 skill 4 INT*) I can make some acid on a 7. We're expected to be able to make standard solutions of acids for chemistry without a chance of failing, and my entire chemistry class managed just fine.
Heal 5? (4 skill 1 WIS?) Okay, I need a 10 to perform first aid. But I'm a frickin' qualified first aider! What gives?
Jump 3 (4 skill -1 STR) I need a 12 to take no damage for falling less than twice my own height. Which I do all the time. Wow. I need a 7 to jump onto something I could jump over without thinking about it. Oh, and 2/3 of the time the fall damage from failing will knock me out.
Knowledge 8 (4 skill 4 INT) I need a 7 to answer basic questions, and to tell you about Kantian Ethics (which I could write you an essay about) I need either a 12 or a 22, though it's never specified which. I need a 13 to remember anything about a clay golem's immunities and I couldn't tell you that a Solar's alignment is Any Good if I tried.
Perform 4? (4 skill 0 CHA?) Well, it's possible that someone might pay me some amount of money that I actually care about to go to one of my speeches, I guess? I'm not even sure how much I could get for performing oratory IRL, so I'm gonna skip this.
Swim 3 (4 skill -1 STR) This is egregiously bad: on a 7 I get to swim in my local pool, if I roll 1 or 2 I go underwater and need to hold my breath - fortunately I can do this for 1 minute 36 seconds - or drown. If I try to get up, I halve this time, so if I roll badly I might end up drowning in my local pool.
Tumble 5 (4 skill 1 DEX) Whew, a re-roll on the check to take less damage when falli... oh, I still need a 10. Well then.

So I take skill focus, or athletic feat, or whatever? Not so fast. I count 8 skills in need of help, and because I only have 4 feats tops (human, 1st, flaw, flaw) and have one of those burned on MWP rifle and another on MWP rapier, I can't possibly remedy the situation with feats. To get any of those skills nearly functional, I - random human-person on the internet - would have to be at least level 5, maybe 4.

Oh, and that rapier? I can't hit (not damage, hit) a coin using it without rolling a 7 or more. Assuming, of course, that I have weapon finesse, otherwise I need a 9. With a longsword? Nope, that's gonna be a 13. Woodcutting axe? 17. I'm gonna need some BAB on me to be at all realistic (and what's with me only being able to make one attack every 6 seconds, anyway? If you're only making one attack every 6 seconds with a rapier, you're doing something horribly wrong. If you're only making one attack every 6 seconds with a rifle, that's covering fire. Rapid fire is every 2 seconds, and even then all the cadets will invariably fire faster than once per 2 seconds).

So yeah, first-level character syndrome can't be fixed with a few feats. Even if I had straight 18s, I still wouldn't be capable of doing the same things at first level that I can do easily in real life.

*Apparently, comparing my IQ to the 3d6 spread. Not sure I believe that, but I'm being generous to prove a point.

[heavyfuel]

Wasn't there a rule that you don't get XP by defeating enemies alone? Like, a farmer could gain XP by farming or some such? Also, guards that practice in their off-time should have a few levels, as they are defeating enemies (even if they use non-lethal weapons)


Even when they are both level 1, the warrior will wreck the trainee.

Same deal here - a novice is not an Expert, he's a Commoner with no ranks. Consider: the DC to craft Masterwork and "complex or superior" items is only 20. Taking 10, a 1st level Expert with 15 Int (+2), masterwork tools (+2), Skill Focus (+3), and 4 ranks (+4) will hit that DC every time.

At the low end of the level spectrum, characters improve not by taking levels, but by retraining their crap Commoner options into real, useful options.

Sorry, but none of these things I've marked are supported by the rules. You can't be a lv 1 commoner trainee and then progress to become a lv 1 Warrior. Doing that is multiclassing and makes you a Commoner 1/ Warrior 1, not a Warrior 1.

There's also no such thing as having a class level (Commoner) and no ranks. You don't get to choose holding on to your skill points until you get another level.

While you can retrain things (skill ranks, feats, class features even) you certainly can't retrain classes.

[dantiesilva]

I read in I believe the dmg 2 that a week of training in some guild gives a certain amount of exp. So if you applied that to everything things become more realistic. I personally never have npcs at level 1 that are adults.

[The Glyphstone]

While you can retrain things (skill ranks, feats, class features even) you certainly can't retrain classes.

You can in PF, though.

[Telonius]

Many people combine the "Retraining" and "Rebuilding" rules given in PHB2. Levels can be Rebuilt, upon successful completion of a Rebuild quest. For a Commoner, I suppose that might be a six-month boot camp (to become a Warrior), or tutelage under a master craftsman (for an Expert) or the local hedge wizard (for an Adept), something like that.

[Flickerdart]

There's also no such thing as having a class level (Commoner) and no ranks. You don't get to choose holding on to your skill points until you get another level.
If you have ranks in Profession (Farmer), as far as a combat situation is concerned, you have no skill ranks. That was the entire point of my post.

[heavyfuel]

You can in PF, though.

Really? I didn't know that since my experience with PF is very very limited.

However, Fickledart was most certainly talking about 3.5, considering he mentioned the Warrior having a d8 HD, when in PF they have d10

[Flickerdart]

Really? I didn't know that since my experience with PF is very very limited.

However, Fickledart was most certainly talking about 3.5, considering he mentioned the Warrior having a d8 HD, when in PF they have d10

As mentioned above, Rebuild is a thing. Plus, the DM is not at all obligated to follow player character creation and advancement rules.

[Zombimode]

Sorry, but none of these things I've marked are supported by the rules. You can't be a lv 1 commoner trainee and then progress to become a lv 1 Warrior. Doing that is multiclassing and makes you a Commoner 1/ Warrior 1, not a Warrior 1.

There's also no such thing as having a class level (Commoner) and no ranks. You don't get to choose holding on to your skill points until you get another level.

While you can retrain things (skill ranks, feats, class features even) you certainly can't retrain classes.

Uhm, read the DMG's. You would be surprised by what is actually supported by the rules. First level whatever with the ability to cast scry once/day? No problem.

Also, what makes you think that class levels are anything more then a representation of a creature in its current state?

[heavyfuel]

If you have ranks in Profession (Farmer), as far as a combat situation is concerned, you have no skill ranks. That was the entire point of my post.

Fair enough.


Many people combine the "Retraining" and "Rebuilding" rules given in PHB2. Levels can be Rebuilt, upon successful completion of a Rebuild quest. For a Commoner, I suppose that might be a six-month boot camp (to become a Warrior), or tutelage under a master craftsman (for an Expert) or the local hedge wizard (for an Adept), something like that.


As mentioned above, Rebuild is a thing. Plus, the DM is not at all obligated to follow player character creation and advancement rules.

Except rebuilding requires questing, which is an objective, and therefore awards XP... And not just any quest though, but one that is "significant and challenging". So just by doing the said quest he should have some XP, maybe even enough to become lv 2.

And yes, the DM is not at all obligated to follow player character creation and advancement rules, but then again, the DM is not obligated to do anything.


Uhm, read the DMG's. You would be surprised by what is actually supported by the rules. First level whatever with the ability to cast scry once/day? No problem.

Also, what makes you think that class levels are anything more then a representation of a creature in its current state?

Yes, there are some very stupid things supported by the rules. We have 5 threads filled with them. But that's not the point. The point is that you don't get to start with a class and then switch whenever you like.

That in no place in any rulebook I've read such representation is mentioned.

[danzibr]

I think you're underestimating house cats.

You're overerstimating housecats.
In an old math thread, a level 1 human commoner with average stats and a club has a 40 something percent chance to win against the cat.

An adult human with a freakin' club. Against a cat. Not even 50% chance to win.

One thing which was suggested in a previous thread (and unless I completely missed it, hasn't been mentioned here), is you hit level 1 in adolescence, and from then on, daily life (that is, no adventuring/encounters/whatever) gives 1 exp per day. So a mature (whatever that means) human would be level 2, and upwards of a decade later, level 3.

[Chronos]

In real life, most people will survive a gunshot if they get medical attention, and most will die from it without medical attention, while some unusually tough individuals can survive even multiple gunshots without medical attention. The same is true in the game.

And you don't even need to look at a "mall cop" to find a 1st-level warrior. Even a full police officer will usually not get into a fight most days, and when they do, it's usually going to be multiple well-equipped police officers against a single drunk unarmed commoner. Most cops have never been in a fight with a guy with a gun determined to kill them (a CR 1 encounter), much less 13 such fights. And the few that have are probably on the SWAT team, and they probably are a few levels higher.

Further, you can conclude just from logic that most people should be low level. Everyone starts out at first level, it takes time to reach each subsequent level, and there will always be some people who die or retire before reaching that next level, so each subsequent level should have fewer people at it.

[atemu1234]

I think you're underestimating house cats.

A house cat in real life would pretty much never go all-out on a person - a tame cat is inhibited by its knowledge of its dependence on humans, preferring cruel torture to outright murder, and a feral cat will only attack until they get a chance to escape.

But if, for some reason, a house cat did go all out on a human, they could probably kill the human.

Fixed that for you.

[Zombimode]

Yes, there are some very stupid things supported by the rules.

Why would you call that stupid?


The point is that you don't get to start with a class and then switch whenever you like.

As PC, sure. The rules are very clear. As an NPC? All bets are off.

And even as a PC, for two different campaigns I see no reason not to let a player play the same character (at different points of its life, of course) but build it differently. People change.



That in no place in any rulebook I've read such representation is mentioned.

So, in your view, what IS a class and level, then, if not a representation of a creature in the language of the game rules?

[heavyfuel]

Why would you call that stupid?

As PC, sure. The rules are very clear. As an NPC? All bets are off.

And even as a PC, for two different campaigns I see no reason not to let a player play the same character (at different points of its life, of course) but build it differently. People change.

So, in your view, what IS a class and level, then, if not a representation of a creature in the language of the game rules?

I don't know what gives you Scrying 1/day at lv 1. Could you point it out to me? I assumed you were saying it was possible by RAW abuse, and would be therefore stupid.

Why would all bets be off for NPCs? They are characters and follow character creation rules. Even monsters follow these rules.

Class levels are a representation of all the experiences the character had. As a general rule, there's no "forgetting" in D&D. If you don't swim for a decade, you don't lose you ranks in Swim. If you never speak Dwarven in your entire life, you can still have it as a bonus language. A representation of the creature's past and present, not just present.

[Surpriser]

In my opinion, trying to model non-plot-critical NPCs using the same rules as PCs is not a good idea, because this is not what the system was designed for.
But I still think that any NPCs above 3rd level should be exceptional individuals.

Let's see:
Jormengand, you simply provided the most exhaustive list in this thread so far, so I used your post as an example.


The thing that gets me about everyone usually being 1st-level is that it means they'll probably die if they're shot once by a pistol (which IIRC is a 2d6 weapon) or rifle (2d8) whereas in real life, a gunshot is completely nonfatal 95% of the time, and most of the time there isn't anyone on hand to provide a handy heal check (not that it would matter if there were, because they would only manage it about half the time even if they were a trained paramedic.)
Yes, low level D&D is pretty deadly, we agree there (maybe give max hp to everyone at first level? Twice that?)
That said, while you might not die instantly if shot IRL, the pain and blood loss would almost certainly at least reduce your abilities if not make you fall over completely. D&D simply uses a binary system to model this: You are either not affected at all or unconscious.
The paramedic would not roll, but simply take 10 and easily pass the check every time (unless under fire, where it seems realistic that the stress would complicate things)


I have a similar problem with a longbow knocking you unconscious 5/8 of the time and staggering you 1/8 of the time in the hands of a dude with average strength who just decided that hey, he'd pick up this longbow. I can't say I've had much experience in being shot with a longbow, but I'm going to say it's not likely to knock me clean unconscious, even though I probably only have 8 CON and am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a warrior.
Same as above. You are also omitting the fact that that guy with the longbow first needs to hit you.



Plus, I really have a problem with the fact that a level 1 character has to pour all his resources into a skill to be any good at it. Let's say I'm a level 1 human expert. I take ranks in climb, craft (alchemy), heal, jump, k (engineering, religion), perform (oratory), Speak Language, swim, and tumble. Let's have a look what I can do with 4 ranks in each...
Note that these skills are pretty unfocused. While this might accurately describe your skillset, if you had to earn a living from one or two of these skills, you would take additional skills that give synergy boni before "hobby" skills.



Climb 3 (4 skill -1 STR) I can apparently only climb a tree with a 12, even though I can quite easily do it about 80% of the time minimum.[QUOTE]
Depends on the tree. IRL, not all trees are equally hard to climb. The DC given serves as a "reasonable" guess for a standard tree, the number representing the actual difficulty could be +-5. And indeed, by taking 10 you would be able to automatically climb a lot of trees and most of them using equipment or assistance (+2).

[QUOTE]Craft 8 (4 skill 4 INT*) I can make some acid on a 7. We're expected to be able to make standard solutions of acids for chemistry without a chance of failing, and my entire chemistry class managed just fine.
And this is weaponlike acid you could hurl at someone to kill them? Even so, simply take 10 on the check and you will always succeed. Also consider that a) both chemistry and education are not as advanced in D&D as they are now and b) chemistry =/= alchemy (or do you know how to produce Antitoxin?).



Heal 5? (4 skill 1 WIS?) Okay, I need a 10 to perform first aid. But I'm a frickin' qualified first aider! What gives?
Right, so take 10. With assistance and the right equipment you could even account for adverse conditions.


Jump 3 (4 skill -1 STR) I need a 12 to take no damage for falling less than twice my own height. Which I do all the time. Wow. I need a 7 to jump onto something I could jump over without thinking about it. Oh, and 2/3 of the time the fall damage from failing will knock me out.
If you fall for more than 3m, there is a significant chance that you can hurt yourself, especially in a stressfull situation. Note that hanging by the arms and then letting go to reduce the distance is not covered by the check. I agree that falling damage (especially its scaling) is a bit wonky.


Knowledge 8 (4 skill 4 INT) I need a 7 to answer basic questions, and to tell you about Kantian Ethics (which I could write you an essay about) I need either a 12 or a 22, though it's never specified which. I need a 13 to remember anything about a clay golem's immunities and I couldn't tell you that a Solar's alignment is Any Good if I tried.
So, by taking 10 you can automatically answer the basic questions about your field (and the fields themselves are pretty wide). To write an essay about a specialized topic, you probably need to look things up in a book - and here is the +2 bonus you need to answer even tough questions.
Still, the Knowledge skill does not really handle both specialization and powerful monsters that well.


Perform 4? (4 skill 0 CHA?) Well, it's possible that someone might pay me some amount of money that I actually care about to go to one of my speeches, I guess? I'm not even sure how much I could get for performing oratory IRL, so I'm gonna skip this.
Swim 3 (4 skill -1 STR) This is egregiously bad: on a 7 I get to swim in my local pool, if I roll 1 or 2 I go underwater and need to hold my breath - fortunately I can do this for 1 minute 36 seconds - or drown. If I try to get up, I halve this time, so if I roll badly I might end up drowning in my local pool.
So, since you have 16 chances to roll that 8+ before you drown, it is enormously unlikely that you will actually drown in your local pool. Also note that adventurers in D&D usually swim in gear.
And of course, take 10...


Tumble 5 (4 skill 1 DEX) Whew, a re-roll on the check to take less damage when falli... oh, I still need a 10. Well then.
So, by taking 10 you are able to fall 3m automatically and 6m if you roll well on the jump check, without a bruise or a twisted ankle. Remarkable, IMHO.


So I take skill focus, or athletic feat, or whatever? Not so fast. I count 8 skills in need of help, and because I only have 4 feats tops (human, 1st, flaw, flaw) and have one of those burned on MWP rifle and another on MWP rapier, I can't possibly remedy the situation with feats. To get any of those skills nearly functional, I - random human-person on the internet - would have to be at least level 5, maybe 4.
So now you take Skill Focus in the feat that you need most - and suddenly you are able to do things better than most others, which is what a specialization means.
Are you trained in the use of a rifle and a rapier? If not, you probably don't have these feats.


Oh, and that rapier? I can't hit (not damage, hit) a coin using it without rolling a 7 or more. Assuming, of course, that I have weapon finesse, otherwise I need a 9. With a longsword? Nope, that's gonna be a 13. Woodcutting axe? 17. I'm gonna need some BAB on me to be at all realistic (and what's with me only being able to make one attack every 6 seconds, anyway? If you're only making one attack every 6 seconds with a rapier, you're doing something horribly wrong. If you're only making one attack every 6 seconds with a rifle, that's covering fire. Rapid fire is every 2 seconds, and even then all the cadets will invariably fire faster than once per 2 seconds).
Note that you can hit objects or helpless foes automatically, without even rolling.
If that coin is floating around and trying to evade your attacks, I can't imagine that it would still be that easy.
Concering the 6 seconds: In these 6 seconds, you could also move your speed without penalty to your attack. In addition, a single attack roll does not really model a single attack (you don't magically speed up when an enemy provokes an AoO), but rather multiple attacks, blocks, dodges, feints, ...

To sum it up: There are certainly some things where the D&D skill system falls short, especially when modelling non-adventuring things. But it actually works better than it seems at first glance (unless you forget to take 10) and the fact remains that this is not what the system was designed for.



What level do you think regular non-PC characters should actually have? For example:
1) middle class farmer. 30 years old, 5 children, has several horses, a few hired hands, etc.
2) seasoned warrior. 30 years old (16 years in army, a dozen war campaigns, etc).
3) innkeeper. 45 years old, owns an inn in a medium-sized town.
4) smith. 25 years old, started apprenticeship at 10 and became independent at 16.


1) Probably level 2 or 3 commoner or expert. He seems to be quite successful for a farmer, considering the price of a horse.
2) As others have said, depends on what he actually did in these campaigns. Anything between Warrior 1 and Fighter 5 (this meaning that he is a truly battle-hardened veteran who is probably an officer by now or part of the personal guard of some noble)
3) Expert, level 2 to 4. Owning a house means that he is probably a very talented innkeeper with lots of experience by now.
4) Expert, level 1 to 3. Standard items like pots, farming equipment, horseshoes are trivial for him and after 15 years of training he might even be capable to make some masterwork items.

Unless any of these actually have any adventuring experience, there is no need to have them become better at adventuring.

[Zombimode]

I don't know what gives you Scrying 1/day at lv 1. Could you point it out to me? I assumed you were saying it was possible by RAW abuse, and would be therefore stupid.

Why would all bets be off for NPCs? They are characters and follow character creation rules. Even monsters follow these rules.

Eh. Kinda, and kinda not. Check out DMG 2 p. 153+
It has been some time since I've read this chapter but the essence of it (to me at least) is that if you can't build an NPC with PC creation rules you should just wing it. The civilian "diviner" with the ability to cast some higher level divination spells without actually beeing a high level caster was one of the examples, irrc.


Class levels are a representation of all the experiences the character had. As a general rule, there's no "forgetting" in D&D. If you don't swim for a decade, you don't lose you ranks in Swim. If you never speak Dwarven in your entire life, you can still have it as a bonus language. A representation of the creature's past and present, not just present.


I mean you can see it that way and it's a reasonable interpretation. But sitting in the DMs chair, you will probably find yourself a bit restraint if you try to hold up this interpretation under any circumstances. Of course, I could also play that game and state that your interpretation isnt actually spelled out in the books either, so my "slice of life" interpretation is not any less valid :smalltongue:
But on a more serious note, as a DM you are more concerned with the question "how do I represent this characters abilities in the rules" then "how do I simulate this characters life using the rules". Like I've priviously stated, the rules of a roleplaying game sever a certain function. Modelling life, much less civilian life, is not the point if the D&D rules. Don't try to use the rules for something they dont even try to accomplish.

[PersonMan]

Most cops have never been in a fight with a guy with a gun determined to kill them (a CR 1 encounter), much less 13 such fights.

A CR 1 encounter gives 300 XP, so a level 1 character will hit level 2 after only four solo fights. 13 is in a party of 4.

[Flickerdart]

"Guy with a gun" is a CR1/2 encounter, though. Unless you're assigning him Fighter levels?

[atemu1234]

"Guy with a gun" is a CR1/2 encounter, though. Unless you're assigning him Fighter levels?

Guns are very expensive, definitely not going to be on an NPC of CR 1/2.

[Jormengand]

In my opinion, trying to model non-plot-critical NPCs using the same rules as PCs is not a good idea, because this is not what the system was designed for.
But I still think that any NPCs above 3rd level should be exceptional individuals.

Let's see:
Jormengand, you simply provided the most exhaustive list in this thread so far, so I used your post as an example.


Yes, low level D&D is pretty deadly, we agree there (maybe give max hp to everyone at first level? Twice that?)
That said, while you might not die instantly if shot IRL, the pain and blood loss would almost certainly at least reduce your abilities if not make you fall over completely. D&D simply uses a binary system to model this: You are either not affected at all or unconscious.
The paramedic would not roll, but simply take 10 and easily pass the check every time (unless under fire, where it seems realistic that the stress would complicate things)


Same as above. You are also omitting the fact that that guy with the longbow first needs to hit you.



Note that these skills are pretty unfocused. While this might accurately describe your skillset, if you had to earn a living from one or two of these skills, you would take additional skills that give synergy boni before "hobby" skills.


Climb 3 (4 skill -1 STR) I can apparently only climb a tree with a 12, even though I can quite easily do it about 80% of the time minimum.
Depends on the tree. IRL, not all trees are equally hard to climb. The DC given serves as a "reasonable" guess for a standard tree, the number representing the actual difficulty could be +-5. And indeed, by taking 10 you would be able to automatically climb a lot of trees and most of them using equipment or assistance (+2).


And this is weaponlike acid you could hurl at someone to kill them? Even so, simply take 10 on the check and you will always succeed. Also consider that a) both chemistry and education are not as advanced in D&D as they are now and b) chemistry =/= alchemy (or do you know how to produce Antitoxin?).


Right, so take 10. With assistance and the right equipment you could even account for adverse conditions.


If you fall for more than 3m, there is a significant chance that you can hurt yourself, especially in a stressfull situation. Note that hanging by the arms and then letting go to reduce the distance is not covered by the check. I agree that falling damage (especially its scaling) is a bit wonky.


So, by taking 10 you can automatically answer the basic questions about your field (and the fields themselves are pretty wide). To write an essay about a specialized topic, you probably need to look things up in a book - and here is the +2 bonus you need to answer even tough questions.
Still, the Knowledge skill does not really handle both specialization and powerful monsters that well.


So, since you have 16 chances to roll that 8+ before you drown, it is enormously unlikely that you will actually drown in your local pool. Also note that adventurers in D&D usually swim in gear.
And of course, take 10...


So, by taking 10 you are able to fall 3m automatically and 6m if you roll well on the jump check, without a bruise or a twisted ankle. Remarkable, IMHO.


So now you take Skill Focus in the feat that you need most - and suddenly you are able to do things better than most others, which is what a specialization means.
Are you trained in the use of a rifle and a rapier? If not, you probably don't have these feats.


Note that you can hit objects or helpless foes automatically, without even rolling.
If that coin is floating around and trying to evade your attacks, I can't imagine that it would still be that easy.
Concering the 6 seconds: In these 6 seconds, you could also move your speed without penalty to your attack. In addition, a single attack roll does not really model a single attack (you don't magically speed up when an enemy provokes an AoO), but rather multiple attacks, blocks, dodges, feints, ...

To sum it up: There are certainly some things where the D&D skill system falls short, especially when modelling non-adventuring things. But it actually works better than it seems at first glance (unless you forget to take 10) and the fact remains that this is not what the system was designed for.

I take issue with the fact that my brother punching me twice is near-guaranteed to knock me unconscious in D&D, whereas in real life it would just hurt a lot and that's it. The fact that him hitting me with a stick is 5/6 likely to knock me out and 1/6 likely to stagger me is also very silly.

Omitting the roll to hit is no accident. Most pistol hits are not lethal. The fact that most pistol attacks are also not lethal is here irrelevant.

I can climb perfectly normal, bog-standard trees with relative ease.

D&D doesn't model chemistry well, it's true, but while standard solutions are specifically designed not to be dangerous (as well as being, y'know, standard) it should be far easier to make weaponisable acid. Plus, someone threatening to kill me if I failed to make a standard solution still wouldn't make me fail 30% of the time.

You can't take 10 the moment that you're under some kind of threat (such as the threat of the possibility of your friend dying). Bear in mind that if I didn't have that single point of wisdom, I couldn't take 10 and perform first aid successfully anyway.

You can't take 10 if you are under threat of taking damage on a failure. I can quite easily fall 10 feet without hurting myself.

In real life, I could quite happily answer basic questions about engineering or philosophy (going to say philosophy for reasons that should be obvious) even with a knife to my throat.

I don't suddenly lose my ability to swim about a third of the time when someone starts shooting at me. Also, swimming in gear? That's what we in this neck of the woods call "Armour check penalty," pardner.

You still can't take 10 if there is a threat to your continued existence upon landing.

I need about 8 skill focuses, and then some more skill bonuses from somewhere, to get all of those to acceptable levels. I am indeed trained in the use of a rifle and a rapier, which is why I gave myself those feats.

You don't automatically hit inanimate objects (unless I try Coup de Graceing the coin), they just get -10 to their AC, so if the coin were a flying, DEX 10 coin, then its touch AC would go up from 8 to 18. Also, this means that if I'm armed with a halberd, I need a 13 to hit because I can't coup it (not in an adjacent square). Rifle, that'll be a 7... from 10 feet away. That's actually probably the closest to making sense.

Thing is, D&D does and must try to model the average person, and it falls short. Even first-level adventurers have all sorts of weird rules baggage that doesn't quite make any sense.

[Flickerdart]

Guns are very expensive, definitely not going to be on an NPC of CR 1/2.
In a D&D setting? Maybe. In a setting with mall cops? Absolutely not.

[Hrugner]

It's probably closer to the game's modeling method to use the "crowds" rules for most NPCs. Just throw crowds everywhere to simulate the appropriate level of population and call it good. Any character with a sheet and a marker is probably exceptional, which goes for cats as well. Assume any person who is just "crowd" is flat footed and staggered after they take any damage and has no weapons or armor proficiency. Only use the dice if there should be a question about the outcome.

So to answer the initial questions, I would need to know if any of these people are worth mentioning or if they are who you expect to see in their position. Assuming the character is just backdrop, don't bother wasting time modeling them, let them take ten on their non-combat skill checks to indicate their proficiency and otherwise offer no threat nor reward.

[ShurikVch]

I taken your examples and tried to check how they work among existing NPCs (Forgotten Realms Wiki (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page))

1) middle class farmer. 30 years old, 5 children, has several horses, a few hired hands, etc.Unfortunately, the only known farmers are Durgo Silvermane (Expert 7), Ilmurk Jongrath (Expert 6/Warrior 2), Shandra Jerro (Fighter), and some unnamed farmer from D&D Miniatures: Desert of Desolation (Commoner 1)

2) seasoned warrior. 30 years old (16 years in army, a dozen war campaigns, etc).
Warrior 2 may be Generic City Guard private or Emerald Claw Soldier
Warrior 4 may be Greyhawk City Militia Sergeant; Serag Kull was one of the captains of the military force known as the Red Plumes, and had that class/level
Duldelph Maremmon (Warrior 9) was the leader of the Highmoon Trading Coster which operated throughout the Sword Coast.

3) innkeeper. 45 years old, owns an inn in a medium-sized town.
Asanta: Commoner 1
Baerill: Commoner 1
Thrun Samallahan: Commoner 5
Dela Alder: Commoner 10
Mharus: Fighter 1
Staephon Gylesman: Fighter 3
Buldegas Mhaerkoon: Fighter 4
Beliot Sevenecho: Fighter 5
Chalthos Immer: Fighter 5
Dunman Kiriag: Fighter 5
Jhanos Yhliivast: Fighter 6
Tosker Nightsword: Fighter 7
Holfast Harpenshield: Fighter 9
Polinar Kirin: Fighter 10
Jhaele Silvermane: Fighter 4/Expert 2
Filiare: Fighter 5/Expert 5
Durgo Silvermane: Expert 7
Kessla: Bard 6

4) smith. 25 years old, started apprenticeship at 10 and became independent at 16.
Taerom Fuiruim: Fighter 1
Dunlath Darlspur: Fighter 2
Haljal Throndor: Fighter 2
Martin von Mensch: Fighter 4
Togar Ironseth: Fighter 4
Quiral: Fighter 5
Opara Rendril: Fighter 6
Harneth Breldren: Fighter 4/Expert 2
Yeslick Orothiar: Fighter/Cleric
Albhaera Haerldoun: Wizard 6

[Th3N3xtGuy]

The DMG and other books assume that majority of the ordinary characters are lvl 1, which I find ridiculous.
Warriors and guards would have extensive training and many mission over the course of their careers, artisans would perfect their skills, etc.
Surely they would have some levels under their belts, together with some skills and feats?

If a house cat can kill a lvl 1 commoner, that must mean that lvl 1 commoner is a very small child, and adults have far more than 1 level.

What level do you think regular non-PC characters should actually have? For example:
1) middle class farmer. 30 years old, 5 children, has several horses, a few hired hands, etc.
2) seasoned warrior. 30 years old (16 years in army, a dozen war campaigns, etc).
3) innkeeper. 45 years old, owns an inn in a medium-sized town.
4) smith. 25 years old, started apprenticeship at 10 and became independent at 16.
For the sake of simplicity, let's assume a very low magic world - wizard and cleric spells of higher levels haven't been developed/granted, or require some non-readily-available material components for each and every use (even if you have some seemingly unlimited use magic item, they just have some reservoir that uses those up nonetheless). It is not a Tippyverse.


If he is militia with very few training yes he is a warrior with 1 level of commoner and a few warrior. But if he is actually a trained soldier for, lets say the King he is a Fighter. In 3.5 at least a fighter is someone who is professionally trained soldier. Even in the book of Heroes of Battle grunt soldier are considered low level fighters. PC starting at 1 are not heroes yet so its okay for a professional soldier that is trained and experienced to be stronger then noob 1 and noob 2.

[Flickerdart]

If he is militia with very few training yes he is a warrior with 1 level of commoner and a few warrior.
There's no way a barely-trained militiaman has multiple levels of anything. Your average village militia is a bunch of Commoners who own spears and padded mail.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

The thing that gets me about everyone usually being 1st-level is that it means they'll probably die if they're shot once by a pistol (which IIRC is a 2d6 weapon) or rifle (2d8) whereas in real life, a gunshot is completely nonfatal 95% of the time, and most of the time there isn't anyone on hand to provide a handy heal check (not that it would matter if there were, because they would only manage it about half the time even if they were a trained paramedic.)

I have a similar problem with a longbow knocking you unconscious 5/8 of the time and staggering you 1/8 of the time in the hands of a dude with average strength who just decided that hey, he'd pick up this longbow. I can't say I've had much experience in being shot with a longbow, but I'm going to say it's not likely to knock me clean unconscious, even though I probably only have 8 CON and am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a warrior.

This is why I tend to favor Constitution Score used in place of Constitution Modifier for first level Hit Points. It helps significantly with that, while still allowing lucky hits to really injure and/or kill a character.

For the skills...I haven't quite found something I'm happy with yet, but my campaigns often allow extra skill point progression instead of leveling. PCs never take this (obviously), but NPCs can use a +skill progression instead of a +level progression, allowing them to gain extra skills and go behind the cap of 4 without leveling up their combat ability.

[Flickerdart]

For the skills...I haven't quite found something I'm happy with yet, but my campaigns often allow extra skill point progression instead of leveling. PCs never take this (obviously), but NPCs can use a +skill progression instead of a +level progression, allowing them to gain extra skills and go behind the cap of 4 without leveling up their combat ability.
Isn't this conceptually similar to the Prodigy template?

[Th3N3xtGuy]

There's no way a barely-trained militiaman has multiple levels of anything. Your average village militia is a bunch of Commoners who own spears and padded mail.

I was talking about the scenario about the veteran. If he has raised arms against invaders during war and somehow survived he won't just be a commoner and militia training in heavy armor movement and swinging a sword properly isn't exactly extensive training. So it is possible for militiaman to learn that with the right instructor.

[Flickerdart]

I was talking about the scenario about the veteran. If he has raised arms against invaders during war and somehow survived he won't just be a commoner and militia training in heavy armor movement and swinging a sword properly isn't exactly extensive training. So it is possible for militiaman to learn that with the right instructor.
You have a bit of a misconception about medieval soldiers, it seems.

A peasant conscript is a random guy with a pike. Surviving a campaign means that he managed not to die for a few months, not that he became John Rambo. After the war is over, he goes back to farming. He wouldn't have been trained in heavy armor, because heavy armor is expensive. He wouldn't have been trained in swords, because swords are expensive. He would not be suited to training anybody in anything.

[Th3N3xtGuy]

You have a bit of a misconception about medieval soldiers, it seems.

A peasant conscript is a random guy with a pike. Surviving a campaign means that he managed not to die for a few months, not that he became John Rambo. After the war is over, he goes back to farming. He wouldn't have been trained in heavy armor, because heavy armor is expensive. He wouldn't have been trained in swords, because swords are expensive. He would not be suited to training anybody in anything.

Ah but this is D&D, normal medieval, sure militia troops are poor slobs destined to be fodder. But its really up to the DM and looting a battlefield was a common thing to happen. So maybe he got access to armor that way. Again its up to the DM in the end. Oh and a Rambo character is at the very least a level 5 fighter/3 Barbarian.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Isn't this conceptually similar to the Prodigy template?

Somewhat, yes.

[Flickerdart]

Ah but this is D&D, normal medieval, sure militia troops are poor slobs destined to be fodder. But its really up to the DM and looting a battlefield was a common thing to happen. So maybe he got access to armor that way.
Armor that he wasn't trained in using, that would be extremely heavy and cumbersome to put on, and that would probably be claimed by whatever lord ordered him to loot it in the first place? Or did you think that soldiers were just let loose upon the battlefield to grab whatever they felt like keeping?

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Armor that he wasn't trained in using, that would be extremely heavy and cumbersome to put on, and that would probably be claimed by whatever lord ordered him to loot it in the first place? Or did you think that soldiers were just let loose upon the battlefield to grab whatever they felt like keeping?

Also most halfway complicated armor was made for a specific individual. Unless you were VERY close in build to the original wearer, it wouldn't do you much good.

[Th3N3xtGuy]

Armor that he wasn't trained in using, that would be extremely heavy and cumbersome to put on, and that would probably be claimed by whatever lord ordered him to loot it in the first place? Or did you think that soldiers were just let loose upon the battlefield to grab whatever they felt like keeping?

Touche, anyways regardless ,from how he described him he sounded like a professional soldier rather then a militiaman . Militia don't served for 16 years in the army, they are drafted for campaigns/wars that end around winter usually. So to the OP i'd make him a low level fighter rather then warrior.

[Flickerdart]

OP has an equally romantic notion of what a veteran warrior would actually be like. Someone who was in 12 military campaigns in 14 years is not a "regular non-PC character" unless your setting has non-stop war between everybody and the wars are fought with nerf bats so nobody ever dies.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

OP has an equally romantic notion of what a veteran warrior would actually be like. Someone who was in 12 military campaigns in 14 years is not a "regular non-PC character" unless your setting has non-stop war between everybody and the wars are fought with nerf bats so nobody ever dies.

Compare this with actual historical knights, most of whom would fight in between 0 and 1 campaign during their lives. Maybe a few sieges thrown in for good measure, although those often didn't see a lot of actual combat.

[Telok]

The commoner and other npc classes evolved from the old AD&D 0-level commoner. But AD&D didn't stat people the way 3+ does, you were either a monster (hp, ac, attack, saves, specials), had character classes, or were a 0-level. What this really meant was that the npc was either important enough in a fight to have stats, or was unimportant and ought to go down in one hit.

That 0-level commoner wasn't just unskilled, pathetic, dirt farmers. It covered master smiths, rich merchants, the kings advisors, and anyone who wasn't important in combat. 3rd edition changed that assumption and gave everyone character style stats without changing the fact that 90% of the npcs don't need stats. Then they kept the fact that since 90% of the npcs aren't important in a player character fight scene then 90% of the npc population must be the weakest type of commoner, the 1st level commoner. So you get this wierd distortion where most npcs have stats they don't need and thus can't, by the rules that govern those stats, earn enough to live on or survive falling off a stool.

And man, if you think cats are dangerous to 1st level commoners try a mule or a donkey.

From here;: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?404802-Should-commoners-be-more-powerful&p=18988185#post18988185

[Th3N3xtGuy]

OP has an equally romantic notion of what a veteran warrior would actually be like. Someone who was in 12 military campaigns in 14 years is not a "regular non-PC character" unless your setting has non-stop war between everybody and the wars are fought with nerf bats so nobody ever dies.

Isn't D&D in the end all romanticize. Don't know about your experience with it but fighting a dragons and fighting of invading forces of demons with only 2-8 "Heroes" seems very idealized. Or gods walking the earth and giving divine powers to mortals to fight the good fight. From my experience D&D is more Renaissance Italy tech and warfare then Dark Ages or Medieval.

[Chronos]

Quoth Person_Man:

A CR 1 encounter gives 300 XP, so a level 1 character will hit level 2 after only four solo fights.
Solo fights, yes. Which real police officers avoid like the plague, because those things are dangerous.

[Clistenes]

Well, the difference between adventurers and normal people is that adventurers get their xp killing a lot of people and surviving. Most NPCs don't mindlessly throw themselves against scary monsters, and if they do, they probably end dead because they don't have a DM selecting challenging but non lethal encounters for them.

In a city with 20,000 people maybe 100 will grab as sword and try to become adventurers. 50 will face a monster too tough during their first encounter and die. 25 will die during their second encounter. About a dozen will survive their third encounter. The 4-6 adventurers who live to level up because they were lucky and stumbled upon goblins and kobolds instead of ogres and hill giants are the PCs.

If you read about the greatest duelists in gladiators in our own world, most of them fought relatively few encounters when compared to D&D's PCs:
-A roman gladiator who won five consecutive fights was freed. The gladiator Flamma, a famous champion who refused to retire was killed in his 34th fight.
-François de Montmorency-Bouteville, the man who probably fought most duels under the reign of Louis XIII is known to have engaged in 22 duels.
.Freaking Mushashi Miyamoto, who is considered the top swordman in Japan history fought sixty duels to death before switching to non-lethal encounters.
And not all the people Flamma or Bouteville or Miyamoto killed were strong opponents, many probably were quite weaker than they were.

By contrast, a 3.5 party would need about a dozen encounters to reach level two (not counting the xp won completing side quests and winning social encounters). Bouteville, the greatest duelist in France would be around level 5, and Flamma would have reached level 6th only just before his last fight. And those were the champions of their time, the highest level fighters you could find.

Most NPCs should get xp and level up very slowly, unless they face serious non-combat challenges often during their lives, and only a few would take levels as Fighters, Wizards, Clerics...etc., most would take levels as Commoners or Experts and would still have low CRs.

[SinsI]

OP has an equally romantic notion of what a veteran warrior would actually be like. Someone who was in 12 military campaigns in 14 years is not a "regular non-PC character" unless your setting has non-stop war between everybody and the wars are fought with nerf bats so nobody ever dies.
It is a semi-professional soldier in an army that actually does battle, someone that regularly takes up weapons, like a longbowmen during the Hundred Years' War, or
like a regular member of viking ship crew (not the captain or the first mate);there are bound to be quite a few of such members on each ship that sails each Spring campaign.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

It is a semi-professional soldier in an army that actually does battle, someone that regualry takes up weapons, like a longbowmen during Hundred Years' War, or
like a regular member of viking ship crew (not the captain or the first mate);there are bound to be quite a few of such members on each ship that sails each Spring campaign.

To reiterate:


Compare this with actual historical knights, most of whom would fight in between 0 and 1 campaign during their lives. Maybe a few sieges thrown in for good measure, although those often didn't see a lot of actual combat.

A few battles, maybe. But even grueling campaigns had MANY more periods of marching and siege warfare than they did of pitched battles. In fact, many European commanders during the middle ages preferred to AVOID pitched battles whenever possible.

[Invader]

I think you're underestimating house cats.

But if, for some reason, a house cat did go all out on a human, they could probably kill the human.

:smallconfused:

In what bizarro world do you live that a house cat can kill a human?

[Clistenes]

A few battles, maybe. But even grueling campaigns had MANY more periods of marching and siege warfare than they did of pitched battles. In fact, many European commanders during the middle ages preferred to AVOID pitched battles whenever possible.

Up to the XVII century armies would avoid a battle unless they had overwhelming superiority, and would retreat to a defensible position otherwise. Recruiting large numbers of people, arming and training them, moving them to the battlefield and keeping the logistics during the war was very difficult, both because of the lack of structures and administrative organization, the lack of funds and the lack of good logistical planning, so armies were small and a great defeat could end the war.

From the XVII century onwards the national states developed effective systems to recruit, arm, train and send the battlefield large numbers of recruits, building a "factory of soldiers" that could keep the war going even taking many casualties.

[SinsI]

A few battles, maybe. But even grueling campaigns had MANY more periods of marching and siege warfare than they did of pitched battles. In fact, many European commanders during the middle ages preferred to AVOID pitched battles whenever possible.
The campaigns I was talking about are 2 or 3 skirmishes where their side has VAST numerical superiority - a hundred vikings raiding a village that is protected by a dozen unskilled members of local militia.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

The campaigns I was talking about are 2 or 3 skirmishes where their side has VAST numerical superiority - a hundred vikings raiding a village that is protected by a dozen unskilled members of local militia.

And that doesn't earn people much XP, since it's not a challenge at all, and they have a massive numbers advantage.

Or you're on the village side, and you either die, flee, or hide. Not much XP there either.

[lsfreak]

Armor that he wasn't trained in using, that would be extremely heavy and cumbersome to put on, and that would probably be claimed by whatever lord ordered him to loot it in the first place? Or did you think that soldiers were just let loose upon the battlefield to grab whatever they felt like keeping?

Our conception of the "Middle Ages" tends to be an amalgamation of Arthurian England and 100 Years War France, the latter of which was exceptionally brutal towards the peasantry. Others were different, and yes, other places in the medieval ages did have armored militia and peasants:


In towns under German Town Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_town_law), which covers Central and Northern Europe, i.e. most of Europe north of the Alps, East of the Rhine, and West of Russia, members of the militia were required to own weapons and at least some armor (usually a breast plate and a helmet, but sometimes a more complete harness) as one of the conditions for citizenship or partial citizenship. Citizens were a minority in the towns however (the active militia was usually 10-20% of the population) and the town government and the guilds both retained armories, usually kept in specific towers within the town wall or at other strategic points in the city, with with to arm the non-citizen classes (like apprentices and servants) in an emergency.

-snip-

Militias of towns in Italy were pretty similar in this respect [-snip-] some towns restricted the ownership of certain arms and armor for the lower classes (I know Milan enacted a restrictive law in the 16th Century), while conversely in Venice, the militias remained strong and very well equipped. Towns in Flanders were quite warlike and their citizens were if anything, more heavily armed than the Germans.

-snip-

For peasants it varied a bit more widely. In some districts (Mazovia for example in modern day Poland) they were forced to own armor and a certain amount of other military kit, in other areas (certain parts of France) they were banned from owning it. In most districts of Poland records show that peasants deployed for battle with good armor and military grade weapons (as opposed to like pitch forks and scythes - source Arms and Armor in Medieval Poland 1350-1450, Andrzej Nadolski (1990), page 475). In Sweden peasants were pretty heavily armed, augmented by kit they seized in numerous victories over foreign mercenaries. From what Tobtor posted here in the past it sounds like Denmark was restrictive of peasants owning military kit. Germany varied, in some places like Brandenburg there were restrictions, and generally a kind of 'squeeze' started against the peasants toward the 16th Century, (contributing to wide social unrest) but in most German districts in the late medieval era wealthier peasants could afford armor and were fairly routinely called up for military duty. Certain regions of Germany had 'wild' peasants (like in Switzerland or lower Saxony) who were heavily armed and armored. In England and Scotland wealthier peasants (yeomen) were recruited as archers and those who actually joined armies would have some kind of armor.

[Zombimode]

Compare this with actual historical knights, most of whom would fight in between 0 and 1 campaign during their lives. Maybe a few sieges thrown in for good measure, although those often didn't see a lot of actual combat.

Eh, Knights in particular are actually a bit of a bad example, since there was a period of time where armed men who would qualify as "knights" under most definitions (yes, "knight" is not a precise term) did travel arround selling their swords to other lords to fight their battles. Fun fact: it was one or two hundred of these wandering knights what the roman emperor expected when he called the pope for help against the seljuks. What he got was the first Crusade...

[SimonMoon6]

Plus, I really have a problem with the fact that a level 1 character has to pour all his resources into a skill to be any good at it.

Yeah, here the issue is really the concept of "levels" which is an insidious thing. The problem combines two basic assumptions: (1) everyone starts at level 1 and then they gain levels later, increasing their abilities dramatically as they do and (2) even when medium-to-high-level, characters should still have a chance to fail at simple, basic tasks. If we could remove (2) from the scenario, that would ameliorate things quite a bit; then, people could be competent at first level. But instead, people need to fail at everything at 1st level so they'll feel cool when they're higher level. It reminds me of 1st edition "thieves" who had a ton of skills that were totally terrible at at first level; only when they got much higher in level would they have even a reasonable chance of success at simple things (and non-thieves would always fail, of course).

[Clistenes]

Yeah, here the issue is really the concept of "levels" which is an insidious thing. The problem combines two basic assumptions: (1) everyone starts at level 1 and then they gain levels later, increasing their abilities dramatically as they do and (2) even when medium-to-high-level, characters should still have a chance to fail at simple, basic tasks. If we could remove (2) from the scenario, that would ameliorate things quite a bit; then, people could be competent at first level. But instead, people need to fail at everything at 1st level so they'll feel cool when they're higher level. It reminds me of 1st edition "thieves" who had a ton of skills that were totally terrible at at first level; only when they got much higher in level would they have even a reasonable chance of success at simple things (and non-thieves would always fail, of course).

That's why I have often thought that non-combatants with NPC classes (Commoners and Experts, mostly) should have a faster progression than PC classes in exchange for not getting any hit points past first level. An experienced lawyer, for example, could be a 6th level Expert with rank 9 in Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive and Profession (Lawyer), but he would still have a single d8 HD and no bonus to attacks and saves.

If PCs had a profession before starting their adventuring careers (like a farmer who becomes a fighter, for example) they should receive bonus skill points and feats at first level to represent their old background.

[TrollCapAmerica]

.....

In AD&D everyone was 0th level and for logically explainable reasons

In 3.5 ive always found NPC classes a little ridiculous but never batted an eye at them. Its still just a world where most people dont murderhobo and the few with combat training get it to protect a towns gate not to get feats and fight Ogres

Assuming lv2 and up could be commonplace is insanity.

[atemu1234]

.....

In AD&D everyone was 0th level and for logically explainable reasons

In 3.5 ive always found NPC classes a little ridiculous but never batted an eye at them. Its still just a world where most people dont murderhobo and the few with combat training get it to protect a towns gate not to get feats and fight Ogres

Assuming lv2 and up could be commonplace is insanity.

In my campaigns, everyone is usually a class of some sort (never commoner). Experts are commonplace enough, but most are some variety of other class. I know this kind of flies in the face of the rules.

Heck, high-level people are also common in my campaigns. Or moreso than usual.

[Feddlefew]

Everyone in my 3.5 campagns gets a "level 0" using their racial HD and the NPC class reflecting their background, which represents childhood. I usually assume that people passively gain one level every (max life expectancy / 10) x 2(current level) years after adulthood, but people who are actively questing in some way, even if it's something like making the perfect goat cheese, level up much more quickly.

[ShurikVch]

That's why I have often thought that non-combatants with NPC classes (Commoners and Experts, mostly)Hey, Experts are able to be decent combatants - Iaijutsu Focus, UMD/UPD... (and, if Force Skills are in game, Expert class may skyrocket tot T3)

:smallconfused:

In what bizarro world do you live that a house cat can kill a human?http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2012/12/121206_EXP_BadCat.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-large.jpg

[Clistenes]

Hey, Experts are able to be decent combatants - Iaijutsu Focus, UMD/UPD... (and, if Force Skills are in game, Expert class may skyrocket tot T3)

I said that Experts and Commoners shouldn't be good combatants, not that an Expert can't be a decent combatant.

[SinsI]

That's why I have often thought that non-combatants with NPC classes (Commoners and Experts, mostly) should have a faster progression than PC classes in exchange for not getting any hit points past first level. An experienced lawyer, for example, could be a 6th level Expert with rank 9 in Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive and Profession (Lawyer), but he would still have a single d8 HD and no bonus to attacks and saves.

If PCs had a profession before starting their adventuring careers (like a farmer who becomes a fighter, for example) they should receive bonus skill points and feats at first level to represent their old background.

Yes, that's the most sane solution. They don't get better at fighting (unless they have an NPC warrior type class), but they still train and don't lose to PCs in their professions (rather, they spend their feats to improve it so they are better than the PCs that can't afford to waste their resources on things that don't increase their immediate survivability, no matter how overpowered they are in the long term).

[Necroticplague]

My main problem with 'most the world is low-level mundanes', is that there are quite a few things that are stated to be hating of living things in general, and statted to be unable to be dealt with without magic. Like pretty much any random incorporeal undead. Unless wizards with magic missile are hanging around, or clerics with turning, one shadow, ghost, or allip could wipe out a whole village on its own.

[Story]

On in other words, the pesudo-medieval background of most D&D settings isn't consistent with the addition of widespread powerful magic inherent in the rules. So it's anyone's guess really.