From a flavor perspective, is it possible to reach level5 without adventuring/killing

[SoHardToRegiste]

I'm thinking that a monk can possibly reach level 5 easily without killing or adventuring, provided that he has adequate training partners to spar with.

The same could be said for a fighter. A fighter can train in the archery range for years and have an accurate shot, therefore reaching say level 5.

But he has to fight against quick, moving targets who are adept at using cover to reach level 10.

Is is fair to say that a level 10 character is strong enough to be known nationally?

I do not think level 10 can be attained without adventuring, killing and surviving life and death struggles. As they say, what does not kill you can only make you stronger, and narrowly escaping death can teach you a lot.

Do you guys think a wizard can learn how to cast Fireball by practicing under the guidance of his teacher and/or tomes? Or is the wizard required to leave his school to adventure in slay or be slain journeys to be able to reach level 5?

What is the maximum level a character can reach without adventuring or killing?

I believe some classes such as the Ranger needs a lot of hands-on experience in order to progress. Like the fighter, the Ranger can practice to be an accurate shot by himself, but he has to hunt wild animals in order to learn how to track them. So Rangers definitely need to adventure early, perhaps earlier than level 5.

Wizards, fighters and monks I think can reach level 5 without adventuring.

[Siosilvar]

If "survive the year" qualifies as an EL 1 challenge, then the maximum level you could reach is 9. Obviously this includes hunting and the like.

[World Eater]

You're mixing up fluff and crunch in a very, very dangerous way.

[gbprime]

Oh I'm sure anyone can reach level 5 without adventuring. Towns are chock full of mid level NPC's, and I'm pretty sure most of them aren't ex-adventurers. especially the experts and commoners.

I see no reason why PC classes could be any different. Yes, they're trained for adventuring, but there's no reason why they couldn't hang around the college, estate, academy, or monastery a few extra years for something important. All the while they'd be earning small amounts of XP for resolving issues. Enough years of it and it adds up.

[Jarrick]

Oh I'm sure anyone can reach level 5 without adventuring. Towns are chock full of mid level NPC's, and I'm pretty sure most of them aren't ex-adventurers. especially the experts and commoners.

I see no reason why PC classes could be any different. Yes, they're trained for adventuring, but there's no reason why they couldn't hang around the college, estate, academy, or monastery a few extra years for something important. All the while they'd be earning small amounts of XP for resolving issues. Enough years of it and it adds up.

I agree, but would like to add that this shouldnt replace adventuring for leveling up, unless you're playing a rather unusual dnd game.

[Flickerdart]

Training could be fairly easy as long as a high-level adventurer is there to supply summoned/captured opponents. Following the Leadership table (where the followers are NPC-classed, and likely haven't ever seen combat, and the best cross-section of a population we have) this sort of lifestyle can take you as high as level six, but very few such people progress beyond 1st level.

[gbprime]

You could also model it after a lot of the young adult literature, where there is conflict and intrigue but rarely violence. "Winning" means having the other party hauled off by the authorities. That sort of thing could be good for a few levels early on without ever having killed anyone.

[elonin]

Don't forget about role playing experience. Also defeating an opponent also happens through nonlethal means. For example say that in adolescence the townsfolk have to patrol their town as a part of their tax/support. Even if they only have to deal with a few drunks that would count.

That works for lower levels but I'm a bit leery of the thought that anyone who is a master craftsman used to be in the military or previous adventurers.

[gbprime]

That works for lower levels but I'm a bit leery of the thought that anyone who is a master craftsman used to be in the military or previous adventurers.

Well remember, a "master craftsman" only needs to be someone who can clear +10 on his roll. That's 4th level. 7 ranks, a +3 for a skill focus, and +1 or +2 for a stat. Done.

[Crow]

No Challenge = No XP

In any case...

Following the Leadership table (where the followers are NPC-classed,

Can you point me to where it says followers use NPC classes. I thought that was how it was supposed to be but can't find the reference. Is this a holdover from 3.0 that was omitted from 3.5?

[Endarire]

3.5 Leadership-wise, cohorts and followers can be any class.

[Ormur]

For the more scholarly classes I once jokes that thesis could have challenge ratings. "I finally turned in my BA thesis: Ding, level up".

I've never really dared explaining what's behind XP but in my campaign but I've been leaning towards dangerous challenges being necessary. The encounter doesn't have to be violent but someone higher than level 5 has most likely won quite a few scuffles. Mid level NPCs are virtually guaranteed to have killed someone and they aren't that common. My party is just completing a side quest that involves holding the hands of a few wizard students while they overcome enough challenges to get the hang of 2nd level spells. They do this by walking through a valley of death in the middle of nowhere slaying monsters. The wizard academy has numerous teleportation circles leading to such places where students can be trained. The wider implications of this are a bit troubling but most classes aren't as methodical or deliberate as wizards in earning their XP.

[Flickerdart]

Can you point me to where it says followers use NPC classes. I thought that was how it was supposed to be but can't find the reference. Is this a holdover from 3.0 that was omitted from 3.5?

I vaguely recall a side note somewhere saying that followers with PC class levels are treated as several levels higher than they actually are.

[gbprime]

3.5 Leadership-wise, cohorts and followers can be any class.

The way I always view it, if you put no effort into your "organization", you get NPC classes. Work at it, and you can fill the ranks with better classes.

[Gamer Girl]

Yes. Any class can.

To get experience, you simply need to use your abilities in new and challenging ways..or in other words 'get experience' doing things.

Adventures are the 'short cut'. On an adventure, your really in a 'do or die' type of situation. You have to learn things quick. And that is why adventures gain XP fast.

The towns folk have all day, month, year to learn things and get experience. They are in no hurry..their life is not on the line.


And the common folk don't just train, they also do all sorts of work. A ranger, for example guides travelers through the woods, hunts and traps game, and even has to track down the occasional run away thief. These activities don't give much XP each, but over a year the ranger can easily gain a level.

The same way a wizard, who is part of the city guard, would have to solve crimes and even catch the bad guys..by arresting them, not killing them.

A fighter kind has to fight to get XP...they are after all a fighter. A city guards man, for example:has to break up bar fights, fight off the occasional wild animal or monster, and subdue criminals.


The average homebody type only gets maybe 100 XP a month. Plus you can assume at at least twice a year they have to do something XP worthy where they can get a bunch of XP. This works out to roughly a level each year or two.

Remember that a character gets XP for things other then combat. The DMG has the rules for Story Awards, Noncombat Awards and Roleplaying Awards. A monk scout only gets like 25 XP for a week long scouting mission to check on the border forest...but it's still XP.

And don't forget Mission Goals. If a fighter builds 'school of warfare' that would count as a mission goal and get them XP.

And there is no limit to how high of level they can get...except how long they will live and life. As they level up, there progress will slow down. A ranger can go from 1st to 2nd level in just a year, getting the 1,000 XP needed. But to go from 6th to 7th, they now need 6,000 and at 1,000 per year..that will take six years.

It's a good 10 years for a normal folk to get from 1st to 5th level. Five more to 6th level, six more to 7th level. It will take close to 50 years for them just to get to 10th level.

Plus you get the Life limit. most normal people do the same thing..over and over and over again, and get no XP for it. Doing what you know gives you no experience. But this is the life of common folk, and it gets worse as they get older....so their gains of XP will be less and less.

Note the values given are for humans...each race would get to 10th level around 'Old age' for their race.

[Crow]

I vaguely recall a side note somewhere saying that followers with PC class levels are treated as several levels higher than they actually are.

Ah, I believe you're thinking of the mention in the Epic Level Handbook, maybe? I can't remember if it was from there or the 3.0 DMG.

[Scorpions__]

Ah, I believe you're thinking of the mention in the Epic Level Handbook, maybe? I can't remember if it was from there or the 3.0 DMG.

Epic Level Handbook.





DM[F]R

[Coidzor]

Without killing? 20th. Without killing and with some mechanism to become epic level, the highest level possible is an arbitrarily high number of levels.

Without adventuring? Now that's trickier due to the ill-defined nature of adventuring. There are, after all, entire games of D&D where not a single dragon is slain or dungeon broken into, looted, and all of the inhabitants later found as parts of hats.

Combat is not the only way of acquiring experience, it just has the most support.

I'm pretty sure even in the CR system, traps aren't combat but give XP.

If "survive the year" qualifies as an EL 1 challenge, then the maximum level you could reach is 9. Obviously this includes hunting and the like.

That would be a very boring year and uneventful (but safe) life where it was so devoid of challenges that it was the only encounter and only 1st level. And if you really wanna get into it, the EL of the year would probably be based upon the toughest encounters of the year that impacted survival.

So a subsistence farmer in a good year would probably get very little XP, with negotiating for a price for his crops being the trickiest thing, whereas in a year where things just kept taking a turn for the interesting, capturing a panicked bovine/ox and calming it, managing to prepare for/counteract a late frost that threatens the first buds of the year's crop would yield more XP for surviving the year in addition to the XP from the individual encounters.

I imagine a tribe of, say, neanderthals level cap and baseline would be a lot higher due to the dependence on hunting and the XP from that as well as the higher stakes of foraging and such to survival upping the virtual EL value.

An interesting thought, though.

It'd pretty much require 1st level adventurers to either justify their low level via their youth or via "trading in" their old NPC levels for adventuring abilities.

Though now, come to think of it, I think I'll have to try it out sometime where every character has a couple of HD, say commoner or humanoid, like, say, 3-4 in addition to the 1st class level that get traded in for class levels&HD through the leveling process until level 5, after which HD are gained rather than converted.

[true_shinken]

IIRC, d20 Modern has a rule where you gain experience for growing old or something like that.

[Keinnicht]

Given that XP is just rewarded for "overcoming challenges" I always imagine a bunch of level 20 commoners running around, having accomplished making lots of crops, woooing their love, raising children, etc.

And I do believe that love is at least EL 21.

[randomhero00]

IMO training can only go as far as lvl 3 or so. 4th and 5th are those that have survived horrendous situations. 4th and 5th s locally known so several cities or towns depending on the world and how far out in the boondocks they are (unless they purposefully keep their identity a secret.) And above 5th, 6+ start to become known on a kingdom or national level (but not a ton, just people have heard of them). Its not till 10+ that almost everyone has heard of you.

[Jack DeCoeur]

I think I have to agree with Gamer Girl. Whilst everyone can earn XP in their everyday lives, adventurers go for the 'trial by fire' approach. Gaining large amounts of XP at a vastly increased chance of serious injury or death.

The thing is with XP system is that with every level you gain, you need more experience to reach the next tier than you did to get from your previous one to your current position. So whilst a farmer could earn, say a levels worth of experience in a year to get to level 2, the transition from level 2 to level 3 will take him longer, unless he really pushes himself (trying newer, riskier crop rotation techniques perhaps?)

That seems to be the general theme, the riskier an action, the more experience it is worth if you overcome it. Unless your training carries a significant risk of death or serious injury, then, it can likely only take you so far (or, if you do continue with the 'safer' training it will take longer and longer to gain levels that way, until you get so high a level that it is no longer a challenge and you stop gaining XP all together.

[Optimator]

I'd say it certainly is, although in the world my group plays in treats level 7/8 as the border between realistic skill and superhuman skill, as opposed to the more agreed-upon 6th/7th level barrier. All sorts of instances can give small amounts of experience, such as successfully negotiating a trade deal or solving a personal/family/business crisis. Over many years, it should add up, turning into the occasional level-up. Makes perfect sense to me.

One problem with this line of thinking, however, is the game mechanics. There isn't a RAW way to gain skill without leveling up, and levelling up entails several improvements, stat-wise (adventuring/killing stats!), that may or may not mesh with how one pictures a particular NPC. I try not to think too hard about what it means, since it's just a game and the mechanics aren't skewed for that kind of thing. It's the same argument of "how did you gain ranks in Knowledge: (whatever) while exclusively killing hobgoblins in a cave for a day?" You really just have to hand-wave it at some point.

[Flickerdart]

It's the same argument of "how did you gain ranks in Knowledge: (whatever) while exclusively killing hobgoblins in a cave for a day?" You really just have to hand-wave it at some point.

The hobgoblins you killed carried valuable scholarly works that advanced the field of (whatever).

It's assumed that characters spend some downtime after a level-up to study, train and so forth. At least, that's the way it makes sense.

[Tharkie]

I usually consider level 5 the line between human(oid) and superhuman, so a level 5 expert would be the peak of human achievement IRL.
Certain classes (wizards, for example) could probably level past that without ever getting in a fight, but that would likely involve a homebrewed wizard variant with lower HP/saves.
Since the rules are designed around the idea of adventurers killing stuff and taking it's stuff, there's really no support for stuff like this in the base rules (other than a few vague mentions of "overcoming challenges").

Oh I'm sure anyone can reach level 5 without adventuring. Towns are chock full of mid level NPC's, and I'm pretty sure most of them aren't ex-adventurers. especially the experts and commoners.

What towns?

[Coidzor]

What towns?

Referring to the DMG tables, probably.

I've never really understood this apparently not uncommon problem with the idea that the adventuring party and their direct antagonists are not the only people above level 5 on their home plane.

The DMG itself even states that your party's not the first group of people to achieve this kind of power in a standard game and so there's going to be other players involved in things, especially if the players decide they want to lay waste to civilization for a lark.

[elpollo]

Yes. Levels are a fairly arbitrary measure of power, and there's no reason as to why someone should have to start at level 1. A child could suddenly have his draconic bloodline awaken and be able to cast incredibly destructive spells (in game terms suddenly becoming a level 10 sorcerer), or a man could pick up a sword an discover himself to naturally be the best swordsman this side of the styx (level 10 fighter/warblade/whatever you want).

[gbprime]

or a man could pick up a sword an discover himself to naturally be the best swordsman this side of the styx (level 10 fighter/warblade/whatever you want).

Martial arts films do this a lot. The lackluster student or the schmo off the street suddenly awakens or steps up to the challenge and becomes awesome.

While I'd hesitate to use a movie like Kung Fu Hustle as a good example of ANYTHING... it's a good example of this.

And no, not THAT town. Just towns in general.

[Lord.Sorasen]

I always thought levels were sort of an arbitrary way of doing things...

I know it's cheesy, but I always use the "Destiny" approach. Mind you, I'd never tell the actual party this, as it's a pretty shameful thing, but I've always assumed that PCs are just sort of... Better than NPCs. Maybe destiny isn't the best word. It's sort of hard to explain so I'll use an example via Avatar [Last Airbender (animated series, not movie), not Blue people). Your main characters are children, 12-16 or so, and yet they are all combat masters, rivaling and possibly surpassing the many (much older) great masters. Other than the main character and the main (or secondary, depending on how you look at it) characters, none are ever actually stated to be prodigies, and yet they have all mastered their craft, often discovering new techniques entirely. A couple of these characters learned their crafts over the course of a single year.

I always figured DnD assumed this. Theoretically, one could reach infinitely high levels simply mastering his craft within a non-adventurer lifestyle. But NPCs never will: Not because they're not adventuring but because they're not the PCs and therefor will not gain power at the same rates.

Why does adventuring seem to give much greater exp? The same reason a level one treasure isn't enough to buy a warhorse, but is enough to purchase somewhere near 600 chickens. The system is built for adventurers.

[TheBlackShadow]

Personally, I've never thought of there as being any sort of level cap or seperation between "human" and "superhuman", since my character is human (or another variety of mortal, doesn't matter, we're all in the same boat), and he is here, at this level, doing these things, so, logically, he can't be superhuman. Anyone can gain any amount of levels in anything of they try hard enough (campaign restrictions on magic and whatnot notwithstanding), it's just the more you do it, the harder it gets, and the less normal a certain level of ability is. You could, theoretically, have an Epic-level Farmer running around somewhere (though what kinds of abilities and methods of gaining XP, and the benefits that would confer, I do not know). My Wizard had a nemesis (one of very many, and also a Wizard) who eventually reached Lv.14 though barely ever killing anything and simply spending lots of time and effort studying, researching, learning, practicing, and even teaching various forms of magic (albeit with a lot of implied politicking and near-weaponised bureaucracy on the side).