What percentage of the population is what level?


Advice

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

While searching older threads I stumbled. Across this from the inner sea guide. . .

Standard (1st–5th level): This is where the vast majority of people are. It's very VERY uncommon to see NPCs with NPC class levels beyond this range.

Exceptional (6th–10th level): A significant number of national leaders and movers and shakers are of this level, along with heroes and other notables.

Powerful (11th–15th): These NPCs are quite rare; normally only a handful of such powerful characters exist in most nations, and they should be leaders or specially trained troops most often designed to serve as allies or enemies for use in high-level adventures.

Legendary (16th–20th): These are EXCEPTIONALLY rare, and when they appear they should only do so as part of a specific campaign; they all should be supported with significant histories and flavor.

Which while it works well for the higher levels is a bit vague in the middle and I was wondering how much of the population should be what level?

Right now I'm leaning towards. . .

Standard = 90%
Exceptional = 10% give or take a look. 000000001 margin
Powerful = 4 to 30 depending on country size and importance.
Legendary = 1 to 6 depending on country size and importance.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

how ever many as the GM needs there to be.


What Bandw2 says; no real point to constraining yourself to specific numbers. Dudes are whatever level you need them to be for plot purposes.


I like to world build and being able to put a number of thiis kind of thing helps.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I've always found the next town is comprised of people and creatures 1 to 5 levels above me. By that logic Antarctica has some seriously OP animals.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadalready wrote:

I've always found the next town is comprised of people and creatures 1 to 5 levels above me. By that logic Antarctica has some seriously OP animals.

It also has phoenix downs and infinity-1 swords though. It even has those potions that you collected 99 of because you never dare to use them.


Liam Warner wrote:
I like to world build and being able to put a number of thiis kind of thing helps.

I get where you're coming from, but in practice, it's as the above posters say. When you've got a party of 16th level PCs, you're going to want more than 6 NPCs in the entire nation that can match their power. The party will meet roughly the same number of NPCs each level, so you'll end up stating about as many legendary NPCs as you do standard, assuming a 1-20 campaign.

That said, if you're just looking to have a better grasp of the level distribution in your own setting, I would start by figuring out the demographics of a given nation. Here's a link relating to that. Haven't read much of it, but it looks thorough! Anyway, once you've figured out the demographics, you can start assigning each occupation an average level depending on their clout/capability. Do some math and you'll know the overall level distribution of a nation, and a have clearer picture of what the numbers represent.

Sovereign Court

I think the game breaks down past level 12-13, so there's virtually no one higher than that.

I figure 90-95% of the population is level 1-2. (I don't give extra hitdice/BAB for levels in expert -just skills/feats - which is what most everyone is. Why the heck does becoming an awesome tailor make you able to trounce low level adventuring parties?)

From there it's a sort of an exponential decay. But if the PCs can make it to level 10ish, they're well known throughout the area. People can make knowledge checks to learn about them etc. Characters much higher than that are legendary, or immortal liches etc.

Frankly - it seems (from forum posts) that a lot of people like to play considerably higher. In my opinion, that's the main reason why martials get a rap of being so inferior to casters. Past level 12-13ish it's true. Before then martials can keep up to some degree if built well. One of the many reasons I have characters retire by then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:

I think the game breaks down past level 12-13, so there's virtually no one higher than that.

I figure 90-95% of the population is level 1-2.

From there it's a sort of an exponential decay. But if the PCs can make it to level 10ish, they're well known throughout the area. People can make knowledge checks to learn about them etc. Characters much higher than that are legendary, or immortal liches etc.

Frankly - it seems (from forum posts) that a lot of people like to play considerably higher. In my opinion, that's the main reason why martials get a rap of being so inferior to casters. Past level 12-13ish it's true. Before then martials can keep up to some degree if built well. One of the many reasons I have characters retire by then.

almost everyone in APs has at least 4-7 NPC levels. (or at least the one i am currently running for people)


I should clarify this isn't to determine opposition to the party it's for the world setting. How much of the population are level x affects all sorts of things. For the opposition sure it's whatever necessary but if you walk into a village there's rules for highest level caster and the like but if 90 of the 100 people are less than 6th level it allows quick setting up of power balances.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Liam Warner wrote:
I should clarify this isn't to determine opposition to the party it's for the world setting. How much of the population are level x affects all sorts of things. For the opposition sure it's whatever necessary but if you walk into a village there's rules for highest level caster and the like but if 90 of the 100 people are less than 6th level it allows quick setting up of power balances.

Purely as a world-building exercise, I like to configure the population along a binary logarithmic scale. That is, I presume that one-half (e.g. 50%) of the population is first-level, and then halve that percentage for each successive level.

So 25% of the population is 2nd-level, 12.5% of the population is 3rd-level, etc. I think that nicely makes the higher-level characters (including the PCs) feel like they're major movers and shakers as they gain more and more power.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think it was SKR who posited that it is reasonable to assume that NPCs level with time, and that a reasonable rate of XP gain for them is one APL = CR encounter per month.

I've got a spreadsheet around somewhere (did I leave it on my work network drive?) that shows medium progression assuming CR = 1 per month and CR = APL per month, starting at age 15, and you hit level 5 somewhere around age 25-30. Level 10 is in the heady heights of the 80s or above.

It's quite a good way of getting a ballpark based on the age of the NPC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Alzrius wrote:
Liam Warner wrote:
I should clarify this isn't to determine opposition to the party it's for the world setting. How much of the population are level x affects all sorts of things. For the opposition sure it's whatever necessary but if you walk into a village there's rules for highest level caster and the like but if 90 of the 100 people are less than 6th level it allows quick setting up of power balances.

Purely as a world-building exercise, I like to configure the population along a binary logarithmic scale. That is, I presume that one-half (e.g. 50%) of the population is first-level, and then halve that percentage for each successive level.

So 25% of the population is 2nd-level, 12.5% of the population is 3rd-level, etc. I think that nicely makes the higher-level characters (including the PCs) feel like they're major movers and shakers as they gain more and more power.

with a population of 6 billion, this makes at least 5,500 people level 20.

not saying this is a problem or anything, I just feel like giving numbers clarity.

Sovereign Court

Chemlak wrote:

I think it was SKR who posited that it is reasonable to assume that NPCs level with time, and that a reasonable rate of XP gain for them is one APL = CR encounter per month.

I've got a spreadsheet around somewhere (did I leave it on my work network drive?) that shows medium progression assuming CR = 1 per month and CR = APL per month, starting at age 15, and you hit level 5 somewhere around age 25-30. Level 10 is in the heady heights of the 80s or above.

It's quite a good way of getting a ballpark based on the age of the NPC.

Except NPCs don't level the same way as PCs. PCs are inherently exceptional.

By your logic - a 75ish year old granpa (level 9ish) could beat the snot out of a 20 year old (level 2-3)! Sorry - but that's just dumb.

Why do you think the standard Orc / goblin etc from the book is level 1? Because that's average! If that's average - then how in the world could they ever be a threat to normal people? Just send out grandma & grampa with pitchforks to deal with them!


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

I think it was SKR who posited that it is reasonable to assume that NPCs level with time, and that a reasonable rate of XP gain for them is one APL = CR encounter per month.

I've got a spreadsheet around somewhere (did I leave it on my work network drive?) that shows medium progression assuming CR = 1 per month and CR = APL per month, starting at age 15, and you hit level 5 somewhere around age 25-30. Level 10 is in the heady heights of the 80s or above.

It's quite a good way of getting a ballpark based on the age of the NPC.

Except NPCs don't level the same way as PCs. PCs are inherently exceptional.

By your logic - a 75ish year old granpa (level 9ish) could beat the snot out of a 20 year old (level 2-3)! Sorry - but that's just dumb.

Why do you think the standard Orc / goblin etc from the book is level 1? Because that's average! If that's average - then how in the world could they ever be a threat to normal people? Just send out grandma & grampa with pitchforks to deal with them!

because grandma and grampa are commoners or experts, with no weapon proficiency or anything. that level 2-3 warrior is looking a tad bit better.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

One problem with keeping NPCs at level 1-2 is that no one would be proficient craft people. Masterwork items would be extremely rare, and only adventurers could craft such items (which would make magic items extremely rare - need masterwork quality to enchant an item).

Scribes, scholars, and historians would never have more than one skill rank in their specialized studies.

A good compromise is to think of XP as a means of gaining experience in a chosen job. Adventurers gain experience by adventuring. Non-adventuring NPCs gain experience through their jobs, and could receive a modest amount of XP by making a critical success while performing their job. If the NPC gains a level through non-combat means, then they gain the minimum amount of hit points (considered rolling a 1), and can only select skills and feats that directly relate to their occupation.

BAB and saves will go up, yet such is the evils of a level based system.

Why are monster races such low level? Most combatant orcs that jump at the chance to fight the first adventurers they meet don't live long enough to level up. The higher level ones know enough to see how tough the adventurers are before they face them.

The Exchange

a master craftsman would have skill focus craft, 1 rank, stat modifier, and class kill bonus +3, masterwork tools +2. thats 3+1+2(average)+3+2=11 you can easily make masterwork crafts with that modifier. hell with an apprentice assisting for +2 your rolling a 7 or better to make masterwork.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KestrelZ wrote:

One problem with keeping NPCs at level 1-2 is that no one would be proficient craft people. Masterwork items would be extremely rare, and only adventurers could craft such items (which would make magic items extremely rare - need masterwork quality to enchant an item).

Scribes, scholars, and historians would never have more than one skill rank in their specialized studies.

Hence my mention of having levels in expert only give skillpoints & feats, but no hitdie. Why should being an amazing scholar make you an inherently better brawler?


If you are actually world building then you need to accept that that level paradigm is borked. Change it. Children are level 1 and make up 20% of the population, adolescents are level 2 and make up 10%, teenagers are 3rd level until they apprentice in a field and make up 10% of a population, apprentices retrain in PC classes and start at 3rd level, they make up 10% of a population. Professionals begin at level 4 and make up 30% of a population. The NPC population scales upward logarithmically from there.

Sovereign Court

BigDTBone wrote:
If you are actually world building then you need to accept that that level paradigm is borked. Change it. Children are level 1 and make up 20% of the population, adolescents are level 2 and make up 10%, teenagers are 3rd level until they apprentice in a field and make up 10% of a population, apprentices retrain in PC classes and start at 3rd level, they make up 10% of a population. Professionals begin at level 4 and make up 30% of a population. The NPC population scales upward logarithmically from there.

Sorry - but that makes virtually everyone ridiculously high level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Chemlak wrote:

I think it was SKR who posited that it is reasonable to assume that NPCs level with time, and that a reasonable rate of XP gain for them is one APL = CR encounter per month.

I've got a spreadsheet around somewhere (did I leave it on my work network drive?) that shows medium progression assuming CR = 1 per month and CR = APL per month, starting at age 15, and you hit level 5 somewhere around age 25-30. Level 10 is in the heady heights of the 80s or above.

It's quite a good way of getting a ballpark based on the age of the NPC.

Except NPCs don't level the same way as PCs. PCs are inherently exceptional.

By your logic - a 75ish year old granpa (level 9ish) could beat the snot out of a 20 year old (level 2-3)! Sorry - but that's just dumb.

Why do you think the standard Orc / goblin etc from the book is level 1? Because that's average! If that's average - then how in the world could they ever be a threat to normal people? Just send out grandma & grampa with pitchforks to deal with them!

NPC stat array, and age penalties do a heck of a lot to mitigate the advantages of being level 9.

Anyway, what I didn't say earlier is that the calculation is a jumping off point. By the time someone is level 6 or 7, they're in their 40s, probably a grandparent, and probably living off their children, so they stop gaining XP.

What it really means, for demographics, is that 1st level characters are 15-16 years old, any older and they've gained a level or more. The bulk of the working population are between 2 and 5. It will be a rare person (someone who works throughout their lifetime, even into the ages where most people would retire) to go higher than that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This issue often comes up when my players seek out clerics capable of casting resurrection.

I'm fond of pointing out to players that if you can cast resurrection, you can cast planeshift, and most beings of Earth mythology capable of casting planeshift do so immediately. They go to join their god and never return.


BigDTBone wrote:
If you are actually world building then you need to accept that that level paradigm is borked. Change it. Children are level 1 and make up 20% of the population, adolescents are level 2 and make up 10%, teenagers are 3rd level until they apprentice in a field and make up 10% of a population, apprentices retrain in PC classes and start at 3rd level, they make up 10% of a population. Professionals begin at level 4 and make up 30% of a population. The NPC population scales upward logarithmically from there.

Children are not level one. Teenagers are level one, at best.


Liam Warner wrote:
I should clarify this isn't to determine opposition to the party it's for the world setting. How much of the population are level x affects all sorts of things. For the opposition sure it's whatever necessary but if you walk into a village there's rules for highest level caster and the like but if 90 of the 100 people are less than 6th level it allows quick setting up of power balances.

Well, the whole leveling system really doesn't work that well if you try to hard to figure into the nuts and bolts details. Way to much of the classes, levels, BaB, saves, feats, skills, etc... just plain don't work for a society. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

It is really only useful as a way to set up 'challenge appropriate' encounters for the PC's.

Having said that, you can try to set up some rough numbers for things like that but anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's. It really just depends upon what you set up as your base.

I've seen many people say a master blacksmith (or other skilled artesian) is a 2nd level expert with a skill focus feat. Ok, that means 95% of the population is a level 1 commoner.

At the other end of the spectrum , I've seen GM's set up their world with a master blacksmith is a 7th level expert with a trait that helps, skill focus in the profession and the related craft, and the leadership feat for apprentices and journeymen. Ok, now you can say most of the adult population is in the level 2-3 range and probably something better than commoner.

So you have to set up your baseline before you can ever even begin to answer that sort of thing.
Plus if you want to get real detailed, the baseline will change in different locations. A master carpenter in a new colony is probably not as skilled as a master carpenter in a long established capital city.

I would also bump things up a bit for the rough and tumble frontiers. Even the lowliest peasant on the frontiers might be level 3 or have an extra level of warrior (militia) just because they won't survive when X animal wonders into town. So the only ones still living might have a few more levels of something at least somewhat combat capable, feats for weapon proficiencies, toughness, etc...

In a long well established and peaceful area, skill focus and the expert class would be more in demand to succeed, might have more just plain commoner because nothing is killing them off.

So I guess what I'm saying is you need to decide a whole lot more about your setting long before you can even start to work on a question like this.


What you need to do when asking what percentage of a population is any given level is ask what you can reasonably expect people to accomplish.

For my purposes I went with and rather distinct benchmark to identify level distribution. I asked "What can I reasonably expect a professional Wizard to accomplish with magic?"

I then set out to identify spells that professional wizard should be casting. All of them turned out to be level 3 spells things like fireball and dispel magic. I then reviewed level 4 spells which seemed either to potent or exotic to expect the typical professional Wizard to be able to cast. I also reviewed level 2 spells. The level 2 spells all felt pretty amateurish, not really professional material. This whole process told me that level 5 is ideal for a Wizard. Given I wanted to be fair to sorcerers I bumped it up to 6.

Given now that the typical professional Wizard or Sorcerer is level 5 or 6 I also said that other classes level at the same rate. So now all classes in my setting are fully professionally trained at level 5-6. Most people can't really expect to reach level 7 as that opens up things that I don't want common in my settings, but exceptional individuals can and do reach level 7 and beyond.

Now you just adjust percentages to taste.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find the old 2e ethic handy here.

9-10 is 'name level' where people start being known. This is where your famous artists, kings, warriors of renown, etc fall into. When someone says 'Swordsman' and they think of Charles the Hammer, he's probably a 10th level or higher guy.

The majority of folks I'd argue should be in the 3-7 range. The 1 and 2 are basically what I'd call the journeyman or apprentice stage of folks, usually untrained, or green folks.

The irony for me is that the 20th level folks should be more common then the 12-17 ones. Why? By capstone, most really high level folks find methods for staying around, and with the dedication it takes to become that high level, they generally have a reason to remain involved enough that they don't go toddling off elsewhere.

The plane shift idea has merits, but in the case of most good deities, the response to a 14th level cleric popping into the Seven Heavens to commune with his deity and get an early start on retirement would be met with 'You've got a job to do, Seven Heavens ain't for slackers.'

A lot of campaign settings try to get rid of their high level good folks (nobody ever questions where all the high level evil guys seem to come from), so as to avoid the Elminster problem, but its inelegant and immediately starts the PCs on questioning why only the evil gods seem to have powerful followers, or why their mages are so incompetent compared to the scrub wizards they fight weekly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I always aim for as low as possible outside the party. Granted you need governments to not be push overs but I want the PCs to eventually feel special and significant as early as possible and for as long as possible. Even if they are fighting foes that challenge them. I want the players to feel after a while like they are growing into the legendary hero status. In previous additions PC felt like the B team because every hamlet in Forgotten Realms has an epic level caster as their benefactor or ruler. Apparently they cant be troubled with this crisis that might wipe out their beloved city so we must rely on the B team cause Dritzzt is out dancing with snow leopards.

I treat NPC classes differently. I stop dealing with the hit points for most experts commoners or aristocrats after a few levels but allow them to gain skills and or feats. This means I can create a level 16 expert tavern owner as a social challenge and have a built in xp reward for a level 14 party.

I usually treat guard captains, local well known crafts people around 5-8 level. Government officials, regionally known masters at 8-12 level. Beyond that is pretty rare.

Silver Crusade

Gnomezrule wrote:

I always aim for as low as possible outside the party. Granted you need governments to not be push overs but I want the PCs to eventually feel special and significant as early as possible and for as long as possible. Even if they are fighting foes that challenge them. I want the players to feel after a while like they are growing into the legendary hero status. In previous additions PC felt like the B team because every hamlet in Forgotten Realms has an epic level caster as their benefactor or ruler. Apparently they cant be troubled with this crisis that might wipe out their beloved city so we must rely on the B team cause Dritzzt is out dancing with snow leopards.

This means the world design is healthy, although from a story perspective its unfortunate since the party doesn't get to be 'the' most important person.

To put things in perspective on how this occurs organically, I run a campaign setting. I've been running the same campaign setting for a while. Those epic level and high level guys in various hamlets and cities? Usually former PC characters now in their 'post campaign' stage.

They don't go away.

Neither I, nor historically my players, have appreciated the fact that most campaign settings seem to be built around the ethic of the good guys (its never the bad guys) who seem to suffer periodic brain-drains of their best and brightest until five random dudes stumble along and solve problems that they should be able to handle themselves.

If your country can't handle a small army of ogres, or a griffon attack, or any of the thousands of seemingly normal occurrences in the fantasy RPG world, its not a very good country. And dealing with this stuff requires people who can deal with it.

Realms suffered because it had senescent high level people who sat around doing bunk and making it feel like they were hiring you to do the adventuring equivalent of preparing their fajitas and doing their lawn work and then being useless at you when you asked for help.

When the high level guys are dealing with high level threats, and you're dealing with problems they either 1.) Don't notice or 2.) Had to play triage with, you still get to be a hero.

It also helps when the higher level guys don't act like they have a WBL limit on how they help you. Watch how higher level players treat lower level heroic types, they tend to be very supportive, but don't give up their sweetest stuff to them and don't like when they start getting over-relied on for stuff that literally wastes their time (I've seen high level guys actually like the thrill of going to deal with a problem one of their low level friends had trouble with and wiping the floor with it damn near effortlessly.)

Batman's heroism isn't limited when he stops a group of thugs on the dock, just because Superman's out in space somewhere punching a living sun.

My one big thing though, if you're going to say there are only like a handful of level 16 guys in the world, don't make them all (or even a majority of them) bad guys and inflict the same power limitation on monsters.

Don't say 'there are only six 12th level guys and you're one of them' and then have the party have to deal with like 6 hamatulas. Its lame.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
If you are actually world building then you need to accept that that level paradigm is borked. Change it. Children are level 1 and make up 20% of the population, adolescents are level 2 and make up 10%, teenagers are 3rd level until they apprentice in a field and make up 10% of a population, apprentices retrain in PC classes and start at 3rd level, they make up 10% of a population. Professionals begin at level 4 and make up 30% of a population. The NPC population scales upward logarithmically from there.
Sorry - but that makes virtually everyone ridiculously high level.

Uh, it makes 80% of the population 4th level and lower, it makes 95% of the population 5th level or lower. What exactly is your issue with that?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A while back I wrote a post on my blog saying that a good shorthand for a GM is to assume that each day a character - including NPCs - spends "training" (essentially, doing their normal job) is worth 1 XP.

So in other words, figure out a person's age in the number of days they've lived (minus pre-working childhood, and whatever their usual days off are), and that's their XP total, which will correspond to a given level.

The reason I call this a shorthand is that it's not meant to be an absolute. If you want to adjust them upwards so that they have a higher level, presume that they've utilized the standard methods of gaining XP - that they've killed some monsters or completed some sort of story-quest. Instantly, that triggers brain-storming about what they did, and presto! Instant fleshing-out of specific NPCs.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
If you are actually world building then you need to accept that that level paradigm is borked. Change it. Children are level 1 and make up 20% of the population, adolescents are level 2 and make up 10%, teenagers are 3rd level until they apprentice in a field and make up 10% of a population, apprentices retrain in PC classes and start at 3rd level, they make up 10% of a population. Professionals begin at level 4 and make up 30% of a population. The NPC population scales upward logarithmically from there.
Children are not level one. Teenagers are level one, at best.

He's world building, not game playing. It is a completely different paradigm that changes all of the assumptions about the distribution and advancement of leveled characters. You can't have a 0 level human, and adolescents are more skilled than children, and teens are more skilled than adolescents.


Bandw2 wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
Liam Warner wrote:
I should clarify this isn't to determine opposition to the party it's for the world setting. How much of the population are level x affects all sorts of things. For the opposition sure it's whatever necessary but if you walk into a village there's rules for highest level caster and the like but if 90 of the 100 people are less than 6th level it allows quick setting up of power balances.

Purely as a world-building exercise, I like to configure the population along a binary logarithmic scale. That is, I presume that one-half (e.g. 50%) of the population is first-level, and then halve that percentage for each successive level.

So 25% of the population is 2nd-level, 12.5% of the population is 3rd-level, etc. I think that nicely makes the higher-level characters (including the PCs) feel like they're major movers and shakers as they gain more and more power.

with a population of 6 billion, this makes at least 5,500 people level 20.

not saying this is a problem or anything, I just feel like giving numbers clarity.

Absalom only has a population of ~300,000 and is the largest city on Golarion. Given that information, I think the total population of humanoid races is somewhere between in the millions, and less than 20 million. So don't use 6 billion as a point to estimate numbers of people. It's three orders of magnitude off. If we use the .5^20 progression Alzirus postulated then we end up with about 6 people being 20th level in the entire world, assuming a world populaiton of 6 million, not 6 billion. Which is much more reasonable.

Nephril wrote:
a master craftsman would have skill focus craft, 1 rank, stat modifier, and class kill bonus +3, masterwork tools +2. thats 3+1+2(average)+3+2=11 you can easily make masterwork crafts with that modifier. hell with an apprentice assisting for +2 your rolling a 7 or better to make masterwork.

Don't forget he can just take 10 all day every day and never need to roll. Your artisans are making masterwork quality items from level 1. KestrelZ's observation is incorrect, because instead of no one making masterwork items almost anyone can make them if they have the right equipment and spend a feat for it.


6 billion is almost the population of the modern world, with the level of health care and food production. When my grandfather was born (Sometime in the 40s)the world population was around 2.2 billion. World population around the year 1000 was estimated to be somewhere around 300 million.

Fantasy settings have more medieval technology levels, so should have more medieval population levels. Still, magic can pump that up, so about 1 billion is probably the highest you should figure. And even that may be pushing it.


Spook205 wrote:
This means the world design is healthy, although from a story perspective its unfortunate since the party doesn't get to be 'the' most important person.

Actually that is one of the things I like most about PF APS eventually you are a significant world impact.

My last character is King of Korvosa hunting down the evil wizard that betrayed us at the end of Curse of the Crimson Throne.

In our current Skulls and Shackles run if they avoid TPKs or dont trade being pirates for something else in the sand box one of them will become the Hurricane King or Queen.

Obviously you become king in kingmaker.

The only people that seem to surpass the PCs n the end are the rarified few that touch the Starstone.


Using Alzirus's postulation

Total Population 6000000

Level Population Percentage Cumulative Percentage
1 3000000 50.00% 50.00%
2 1500000 25.00% 75.00%
3 750000 12.50% 87.50%
4 375000 6.25% 93.75%
5 187500 3.13% 96.88%
6 93750 1.56% 98.44%
7 46875 0.78% 99.22%
8 23437.5 0.39% 99.61%
9 11718.75 0.20% 99.80%
10 5859.375 0.10% 99.90%
11 2929.6875 0.05% 99.95%
12 1464.84375 0.02% 99.98%
13 732.421875 0.01% 99.99%
14 366.2109375 0.01% 99.99%
15 183.1054688 0.00% 100.00%
16 91.55273438 0.00% 100.00%
17 45.77636719 0.00% 100.00%
18 22.88818359 0.00% 100.00%
19 11.4440918 0.00% 100.00%
20 5.722045898 0.00% 100.00%

Note: I only set the percentages to two decimal places...which was a mistake with Excel's rounding. But this gives you some rough ideas. ~94% of people are 5th level and lower.


For a total population of 100 million you still get pretty reasonable numbers. The numbers of people above level 13 are higher than I would like, but I think still pretty reasonable. With 100 million people you only end up with ~100 people being level 20

Total Populaiton 100000000

Level Population Percentage Cumulative Percentage
1 50000000 50.00005% 50.00005%
2 25000000 25.00002% 75.00007%
3 12500000 12.50001% 87.50008%
4 6250000 6.25001% 93.75009%
5 3125000 3.12500% 96.87509%
6 1562500 1.56250% 98.43759%
7 781250 0.78125% 99.21884%
8 390625 0.39063% 99.60947%
9 195312.5 0.19531% 99.80478%
10 97656.25 0.09766% 99.90244%
11 48828.125 0.04883% 99.95127%
12 24414.0625 0.02441% 99.97568%
13 12207.03125 0.01221% 99.98789%
14 6103.515625 0.00610% 99.99399%
15 3051.757813 0.00305% 99.99704%
16 1525.878906 0.00153% 99.99857%
17 762.9394531 0.00076% 99.99933%
18 381.4697266 0.00038% 99.99971%
19 190.7348633 0.00019% 99.99990%
20 95.36743164 0.00010% 100.00000%


Jeraa wrote:

6 billion is almost the population of the modern world, with the level of health care and food production. When my grandfather was born (Sometime in the 40s)the world population was around 2.2 billion. World population around the year 1000 was estimated to be somewhere around 300 million.

Fantasy settings have more medieval technology levels, so should have more medieval population levels. Still, magic can pump that up, so about 1 billion is probably the highest you should figure. And even that may be pushing it.

In your grandfathers time they didn't have cure light wounds.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you wonder how realms full of lowish level soldiers deal with scary things - I ran the numbers once.

For one thing - a lot of the common 'wandering monsters' have pretty low AC, just a big chunk of HP. That means while they're a major threat to a small group - a few dozen guys with bows can deal with them.

For example - consider my standard level 1 human warrior trooper 'archer'.

HP: 10

AC: 15 (studded/dex)

Feats: Point Blank / Rapid Shot

Attacks : (longbow) +1/+1 (d8 damage) and don't forget about point blank

Now - this isn't very threatening to an adventurer. And one of these guys isn't a threat to an ogre. But a squad of 20 is!

At +1 to hit, at 100 ft (ogres aren't exactly stealthy - and their initiave sucks) the standard ogre is hit on a roll of 16. So those 20 troopers would hit 10 times, with a 50% chance of a crit mixed in. So the average damage would be 49.5.

An ogre has 30 HP. So to close from 100ft, there'd need to be a min. of 3 ogres.

And if they do close - especially if there are more than 3, they'd have to deal with my other level 1 warrior trooper 'interceptor'.

HP: 14

AC: 22 (four-mirror armor/tower shield/dex)

Feats: shield focus / toughness

Attacks : (javilin) +0 (1d6+2) or (battleaxe) +1 (1d8+2)

The point of this guy isn't damage. A couple of these guys would be deployed with a squad of archers. They ready actions to get in the path of charges in order to give the archers more time to fire within point-blank range. Once they use their readied actions, they 5 foot step back (archers don't have precise) and then ready again.

Against foes more accurate than an ogre, they'll take full defense being their shield before readying their intercept. That way their foe can only hit their shield and not them. (it might break - but once that happens they're allowed to withdraw/retreat)

Don't think that NPCs have to fight monsters etc on the same terms that adventurers do. Both of these builds are effective in groups and built on the cheap. They fight on their own terms.

And just think of those ogres trying to deal with a town wall!

Silver Crusade

Gnomezrule wrote:
Spook205 wrote:
This means the world design is healthy, although from a story perspective its unfortunate since the party doesn't get to be 'the' most important person.

Actually that is one of the things I like most about PF APS eventually you are a significant world impact.

My last character is King of Korvosa hunting down the evil wizard that betrayed us at the end of Curse of the Crimson Throne.

In our current Skulls and Shackles run if they avoid TPKs or dont trade being pirates for something else in the sand box one of them will become the Hurricane King or Queen.

Obviously you become king in kingmaker.

The only people that seem to surpass the PCs n the end are the rarified few that touch the Starstone.

Yeah, this supports my point. :D

I think when you run and accommodate for the higher level NPCs and treat them in terms of motivation as if they were themselves PC, they tend to not have as much of a 'Elminister is home treating his syphalls' thing going for them.

And your math is well received Charon, but I still prefer my nation-states to be able to proactively deal with monstrous threats on a local basis, instead of having to call up the whole army to deal with every ogre mage, dragon and hill giant.

Going off of ultimate campaign, it'd take like two dozen ACR 1 armies of Level 1 guys to take out a CR 14 dragon (ACR 8, I think) which given they're supposed to be marginally common is a bit ridiculous.


Spook205 wrote:
Gnomezrule wrote:
Spook205 wrote:
This means the world design is healthy, although from a story perspective its unfortunate since the party doesn't get to be 'the' most important person.

Actually that is one of the things I like most about PF APS eventually you are a significant world impact.

My last character is King of Korvosa hunting down the evil wizard that betrayed us at the end of Curse of the Crimson Throne.

In our current Skulls and Shackles run if they avoid TPKs or dont trade being pirates for something else in the sand box one of them will become the Hurricane King or Queen.

Obviously you become king in kingmaker.

The only people that seem to surpass the PCs n the end are the rarified few that touch the Starstone.

Yeah, this supports my point. :D

I think when you run and accommodate for the higher level NPCs and treat them in terms of motivation as if they were themselves PC, they tend to not have as much of a 'Elminister is home treating his syphalls' thing going for them.

And your math is well received Charon, but I still prefer my nation-states to be able to proactively deal with monstrous threats on a local basis, instead of having to call up the whole army to deal with every ogre mage, dragon and hill giant.

Going off of ultimate campaign, it'd take like two dozen ACR 1 armies of Level 1 guys to take out a CR 14 dragon (ACR 8, I think) which given they're supposed to be marginally common is a bit ridiculous.

Aren't the PCs or their rare ilk how the nation deals with Ogre magi without calling out the army?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhatahema wrote:
Liam Warner wrote:
I like to world build and being able to put a number of thiis kind of thing helps.

I get where you're coming from, but in practice, it's as the above posters say. When you've got a party of 16th level PCs, you're going to want more than 6 NPCs in the entire nation that can match their power. The party will meet roughly the same number of NPCs each level, so you'll end up stating about as many legendary NPCs as you do standard, assuming a 1-20 campaign.

That said, if you're just looking to have a better grasp of the level distribution in your own setting, I would start by figuring out the demographics of a given nation. Here's a link relating to that. Haven't read much of it, but it looks thorough! Anyway, once you've figured out the demographics, you can start assigning each occupation an average level depending on their clout/capability. Do some math and you'll know the overall level distribution of a nation, and a have clearer picture of what the numbers represent.

I don't think that the world-building and storytelling aspects of this should be as far apart as you imply. Being higher level should mean more than just tossing bigger numbers at NPCs and monsters. A 16th level fighter should be confident that he can take nearly anyone else in the kingdom one on one--and he should have heard of anyone he can't take one on one. To use a literary example, Gregor Clegane from the Game of Thrones novels has few equals in straightforward combat. When he is finally killed, he is killed by someone who also has a fearsome reputation and uses a poisoned spear. That is how it should be in games too.

This will impact the kinds of stories that you can tell at 16th level. Breaking into the local dry goods store isn't a challenge for a 16th level rogue and a party of 16th level adventurers won't be challenged by an ordinary group of bandits. If they are challenged, it is an indication that there is something very unusual about the bandits. On the other hand, treating the world in this manner also allows you to tell other kinds of stories. Turin in the Silmarillion is impressive because he killed Glaurung--a feat far beyond the power of most warriors. If there aren't non-level adjusted forces out there, which were once stronger than the PCs but are now weaker and ones which were once far beyond their power but are now within their reach, then gaining levels doesn't mean much beyond spending more time adding up the modifiers on your dice. (This is one of the reasons that previous editions of D&D assumed that, at some point (somewhere around name level), characters would take a place on the world stage and things like castles, armies, and politics would be as much a part of the game as 10'x10' rooms and ochre jellies.)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spook205 wrote:


Going off of ultimate campaign, it'd take like two dozen ACR 1 armies of Level 1 guys to take out a CR 14 dragon (ACR 8, I think) which given they're supposed to be marginally common is a bit ridiculous.

Meh - I always figured that dragons etc are half the reason why people build ballistas. Though in my opinion ballistaes should get touch attacks or something within a ranged increment similar to guns. (If a musket gets to ignore armor - why shouldn't a ballistae?)

In that case - a dozen or so ballista would be able to drive off a CR14 dragon with relative ease. (how high are their touch attacks?)

For that matter - a few dozen casters (or characters with UMD) with wands of acid arrow could deal with any dragon but green.


I have a macro to calculate the level of NPCs (with PC classes) in a settlement, randomly determine their classes and such based on the population number you input. I remember I made it based on the info on some book, but can't remember which one (specifically, I can't remember if it was 3.X material, Pathfinder material or a mix of the two), and then added my personal variations and math.

For a population of 100 millions I get 4 level 20 NPCs, meaning 0.00000004% (which for my own games is as rare as they should be).

It's hard to put it in words without making it too messy; while in code-form it just takes a click, in physical dice rolling and calculations it gets quite intricate.

My primary progression* starts with a factor of 20 for level 1 that then gets doubled for each additional level.
What this actually means is:
Level 1 NPCs = roud down: (total population / 20)
- Update population to (initial population - Level 1 NPCs)
Level 2 NPCs = roud down: (updated population / 40)
- Update population to (last updated population - Level 2 NPCs)
[...so on, until...]
Level 20 NPCs = roud down: (updated population / 10485760)

*There are also other calculations involved, but right now it's hard to reverse-engineer them to write everything here, also because right now I don't have time.

Remaining population is divided in NPC classes as follows: 85% Commoners, 7% Warriors, 6% Experts, 1% Adepts, 1% Aristocrats. Of course, these percentages are to be adjusted depending on the kind of settlement (for example, a town that heavily relies on shamans and the like will have more Adepts and less something else).


If you really want to make these numbers work out you probably need to seriously consider factoring in mortality rates for each level. The higher your level the more likely you are to die before reaching the next level.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gnomezrule wrote:
Spook205 wrote:
Gnomezrule wrote:
Spook205 wrote:
This means the world design is healthy, although from a story perspective its unfortunate since the party doesn't get to be 'the' most important person.

Actually that is one of the things I like most about PF APS eventually you are a significant world impact.

My last character is King of Korvosa hunting down the evil wizard that betrayed us at the end of Curse of the Crimson Throne.

In our current Skulls and Shackles run if they avoid TPKs or dont trade being pirates for something else in the sand box one of them will become the Hurricane King or Queen.

Obviously you become king in kingmaker.

The only people that seem to surpass the PCs n the end are the rarified few that touch the Starstone.

Yeah, this supports my point. :D

I think when you run and accommodate for the higher level NPCs and treat them in terms of motivation as if they were themselves PC, they tend to not have as much of a 'Elminister is home treating his syphalls' thing going for them.

And your math is well received Charon, but I still prefer my nation-states to be able to proactively deal with monstrous threats on a local basis, instead of having to call up the whole army to deal with every ogre mage, dragon and hill giant.

Going off of ultimate campaign, it'd take like two dozen ACR 1 armies of Level 1 guys to take out a CR 14 dragon (ACR 8, I think) which given they're supposed to be marginally common is a bit ridiculous.

Aren't the PCs or their rare ilk how the nation deals with Ogre magi without calling out the army?

The Army Combat Rules work a bit differently. Having siege engines'd just up their OM by 1 or 2. It'd be colossal armies of CR1 creatures vs a fine army of 1 dragon, and he'd still be pretty close to being able to mop the floor with them. That means something like 1200 men (at pretty high cost to the kingdom) to maybe take down a single say, mature green dragon or froghemoth.

While it might be reassuring to some to know that the entire world's order and safety depends on four to eight dudes, I don't think that's really a good overall method.

Given the organization we see for a lot of monsters (like giants and their cadres of 30-60) the normal governments would conceivably need a way of dealing with this stuff, or else DMs need to revise their world maps to involve thousands of pockets of 'Orc tribes' or 'Chuul swamp land' and we end up in the hell-scape of the execrable 'Points of Light' campaign where by all rights, people should be eating their own boots and anything resembling a normal society should be non-existent (nobody is going to follow the King if he can't protect them, mutual webs of loyalty in exchange for protection is how feudalism works).

Also, if the merchants can't reasonably venture outside without having to find one of the six magic people in the world who can handle the very, very common monsters of high CR this would lead us back to the shoe-eating.

I'm pretty sure even Paizo acknowledges the average is around 4-6 in their NPC codex for like soldiers and guards, but the level distribution of the people is also contingent on the CR distribution of the monsters.

One tribe of non-gutter tier giants (as in giants who can spell their own sodding names like fire, frost, storm, etc) could literally smash a kingdom guarded by CR 1 and 2s to matchsticks without any trouble, and they'd just need to wait for the heroes to go two kingdoms over to solve that kingdom's rat swarm problem or something.

That's a lot of belief to suspend to just allow the PCs to be the 'special' ones. Never-minding that the party tends to be intrinsically special even with high level guys because there's a bunch of them (4-8 usually), as opposed to just one.

Heroes can still be heroes even if like 10% of the world population is on their tier or higher, it still means they're in the top 10%.

EDIT: Whoops, not 1200 men, 12,000 men.

Sovereign Court

Spook205 wrote:
The Army Combat Rules work a bit differently. Having siege engines'd just up their OM by 1 or 2.

Meh - I think they underestimate massed numbers and siege weapons vs single big things. I mean - they're going to have a 1/20 chance to hit anything! (Though to deal with high DR there'd need to be a teamwork feat or something similar to the archery feat which lets you combine for vs DR for the dragon to be threatened much by anything but the siege weapons.)

And I'm not saying there wouldn't be higher levels guys mixed into an army. I was just using them as an example of how a bunch of level 1 warriors can deal with middling threats throw numbers & teamwork.


BigDTBone wrote:
Jeraa wrote:

6 billion is almost the population of the modern world, with the level of health care and food production. When my grandfather was born (Sometime in the 40s)the world population was around 2.2 billion. World population around the year 1000 was estimated to be somewhere around 300 million.

Fantasy settings have more medieval technology levels, so should have more medieval population levels. Still, magic can pump that up, so about 1 billion is probably the highest you should figure. And even that may be pushing it.

In your grandfathers time they didn't have cure light wounds.

Cure light wounds is irrelevant here. It might save some number of people but that is relatively unimportant to facts we can know about Golarion.

The largest populaiton center (in Avistan at least and probably the planet) has a population of 300,000. Which is relatively small by modern standards. On Earth cities achieved that size somewhere around 500 to 300 BC. Rome wouldn't reach a million people until roughly 1 AD. Population growth is exponential, with an apparent change in the populaiton growth factor around 1000 AD.

Edit: To further clarify why cure light wounds is irrelevant we need to look at birth and death rates over a large enough scale. If were considering human that scale should be approximately 120 years (the maximum possible length of a human life span). While you might save an individual from a horrible death using CLW, unless he actually has more children or becomes immortal he doesn't contribute further to the change in globabl populaiton.

Now, in truth it is reasonable that some people saved by CLW might go on to have children they wouldn't have otherwise, but estimating this effect is near impossible. In my opinion it's probably small enough to be negligble.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spook I don't think we disagree. I am just saying that I like the PCs to feel special. They do have peers just less than it felt in past editions.

Think about it this way. In Star Wars Leia appealed to Obi Wan as her only hope. This sort of plea adventurers hear a lot. However in some worlds this means the word "only" needs to be redefined. I mean if every city has a team of rapid response troubleshooters of 10th level answering to a wizard who can keep 7th level spells on the table some one walking in and telling the PCs that only they can address the problem is odd.

Don't get me wrong. They still need to get to the higher levels its just that there is a lot less company up there. Also certainly higher level issues like dragons or cadres of giants do from time to time rise up narratively I would suggest that it happens rarely not biannually.

Uncommon but not unheard of is how I try to play things.


Couple things I want to point out -

High population centers usually have schools. So around those schools you'll usually end up with some fairly high level people. I'm thinking level 6-10 range for teachers with a couple masters in the level 11-15 range.

High level people do NOT need to be good in combat. Most are very poor in combat. Having a low BAB progression and no spells can mean that 9th level NPC merchant makes a fine snack for a Bear. Where that same bear is a yawn fest to a standard 9th level adventurer.

Silver Crusade

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Spook205 wrote:
The Army Combat Rules work a bit differently. Having siege engines'd just up their OM by 1 or 2.
Meh - I think they underestimate massed numbers and siege weapons vs single big things. I mean - they're going to have a 1/20 chance to hit anything! (Though to deal with high DR there'd need to be a teamwork feat or something similar to the archery feat which lets you combine for vs DR.)

Given that by RAW they'd be plinking at it on a DR they probably couldn't get through why he got bored frying dozens of them every 2-5 rounds, I think the army combat rules actually kind of increase their output (although it also makes it a bit more vague).

Let me actually dig into the numbers on this, instead of me yanking stats out of my butt on memory..12,000 is a bit high! I was closer with the 1200.

Alright,

A fine army's ACR is CR-8. So our dragon friend has an army combat rating of 6, but he also has special characteristics (DR, flight, etc) that boost his in-combat statistics (OM, DV, etc) The flight trait alone means the human army can be rendered incapable of engaging it in the melee phase (phases represent the battle, not so much round by round).

Our human army (lets assume army and not militia since I don't want to stack the deck) of CR 1 yobbos (fighter 2s) is colossal (meaning 2k men) giving it a +8 to calc ACR which gives them an ACR of 9, but no real special characteristics.

This is assuming the guy setting the army on the dragon is an idiot and wants a fair fight. More likely he'd send two armies.

So assuming the King isn't an idiot, that boils down to requiring four /thousand/ guys for ever CR 14 anything that props up somewhere. Every iron golem, roper, lich, froghemoth or so on, requires a kingdom to potentially dispatch upwards of 3,000 dudes to deal with it (and that's assuming a standing battlefield engagement), unless they have higher level assets to use against it (and we can't always count on the PCs being in town, so there'd rationally need to be NPCs of 'PC-class' around on the allied side of the balance sheet as well as the hostile side).

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / What percentage of the population is what level? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.