How many casters are there in the world?

[Mark Carlson 255]

Does your math also take into account multi-classing? ie mystic thurge
MDC

[Ventnor]

There are as many casters as there needs to be.

[Quark Blast]

Goddity wrote:

Nice Fermi question.

Well, it's in the ballpark.

[Mark Carlson 255]

For example a mystic thurge counts as both an arcane caster and a divine caster messing up your %'s.
MDC

[RDM42]

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

For example a mystic thurge counts as both an arcane caster and a divine caster messing up your %'s.

MDC

Wouldn't prestige classes be absurdly RARE though?

[lemeres]

RDM42 wrote:

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

For example a mystic thurge counts as both an arcane caster and a divine caster messing up your %'s.

MDC

Wouldn't prestige classes be absurdly RARE though?

I would say it depends on the class, and whether it is associated with any large organizations.

Red mantis assassins and swordlords seem like prime examples since their organizations are largely born of the style used in the prestige class.

Mystic theruges... I can only see them as 'random eccentrics' anywhere that isn't a major temple of Nethys.

[RDM42]

lemeres wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

For example a mystic thurge counts as both an arcane caster and a divine caster messing up your %'s.

MDC

Wouldn't prestige classes be absurdly RARE though?

I would say it depends on the class, and whether it is associated with any large organizations.

Red mantis assassins and swordlords seem like prime examples since their organizations are largely born of the style used in the prestige class.

Mystic theruges... I can only see them as 'random eccentrics' anywhere that isn't a major temple of Nethys.

Just saying that I doubt mystic theurges throw off the percentages much because there simply aren't enough of them to be something other than a rounding error.

[Quark Blast]

Am I allowed to answer a question with a question? Well here goes...

Given the number of classes* and the fact that there are various organizations**, wouldn't listing those give one a good minimum?

Knightly orders, churches, guilds, and so forth all need a certain minimum number of members to be a viable organization and leaders of organizations are going to be high level***, with various satellite temples, monasteries, guildhalls and so forth all having mid to high level casters as leaders.

Given that, and maybe a few reasonable assumptions I've not mentioned, it seems like the numbers given by the OP and some of the follow up posts are all a little low by a single digit multiple; say 4x or 5x +-.

* Core, Base, Hybrid, Prestige, 3rd Party, etc.

** Some local, some national, and some international, or even inter-planar

*** Unless we're talking Eberron, in which case the leader of the free world just might be an 11-year old girl who casts at 3rd level when away from home <eye-roll>

[RDM42]

Quark Blast wrote:

Am I allowed to answer a question with a question? Well here goes...

Given the number of classes* and the fact that there are various organizations**, wouldn't listing those give one a good minimum?

Knightly orders, churches, guilds, and so forth all need a certain minimum number of members to be a viable organization and leaders of organizations are going to be high level***, with various satellite temples, monasteries, guildhalls and so forth all having mid to high level casters as leaders.

Given that, and maybe a few reasonable assumptions I've not mentioned, it seems like the numbers given by the OP and some of the follow up posts are all a little low by a single digit multiple; say 4x or 5x +-.

* Core, Base, Hybrid, Prestige, 3rd Party, etc.

** Some local, some national, and some international, or even inter-planar

*** Unless we're talking Eberron, in which case the leader of the free world just might be an 11-year old girl who casts at 3rd level when away from home <eye-roll>

Are all or even most members of temples, for example PC classed or even neccesarily casters?

[Quark Blast]

Good question RDM42.

Depends on the setting.

In Eberron the numbers offered by the OP and others are going to be too high. In Toril they are definitely too low. My guess for Golarion, of which I am no expert, is the numbers are too low by a factor of 4 or 5.

To answer less globally; Orders (as in knightly orders or monastic orders or guilds) typically have members who are proficient in whatever has brought them together in membership. Knights are knights after all.

Could one be a member of a 'Wizards College' as only a mere scribe? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the organization. Certainly churches would have loads of faithful that are non-casters but the administration would certainly require "wearing the cloth" (i.e. being a caster of some level).

My point is, given the typical setting, there are apt to be a great many casters who are not PCs. That doesn't make them all adventurers or retired adventurers but they are still casters.

[Can'tFindthePath]

thejeff wrote:

I'm not sure why you're making these assumptions. Are these specific to your game world?

Why would a 13 Wisdom Cleric be restricted to "apprentice"? Why would a ranger with a 13 wisdom (especially if that's his high stat and if not it's hardly a lower entry requirement) do just fine?

I believe the answer to that is simple mechanics. With a 13 Wisdom, a Cleric (or Ranger) can only cast up to 3rd level spells. True, they can still get spell slots of higher level, but in a world with tangible miracles and arcane power I would argue that one would need the higher spell levels to advance in a typical hierarchy.

[Quark Blast]

Can'tFindthePath wrote:

thejeff wrote:

I'm not sure why you're making these assumptions. Are these specific to your game world?

Why would a 13 Wisdom Cleric be restricted to "apprentice"? Why would a ranger with a 13 wisdom (especially if that's his high stat and if not it's hardly a lower entry requirement) do just fine?

I believe the answer to that is simple mechanics. With a 13 Wisdom, a Cleric (or Ranger) can only cast up to 3rd level spells. True, they can still get spell slots of higher level, but in a world with tangible miracles and arcane power I would argue that one would need the higher spell levels to advance in a typical hierarchy.

Any world but Eberron.*

*just say'n :)

[lemeres]

RDM42 wrote:

Just saying that I doubt mystic theurges throw off the percentages much because there simply aren't enough of them to be something other than a rounding error.

I am not disagreeing with you. Even among nethys followers, I would imagine they are specialized researchers with little expectation or results, at most.

In practical matters, both in pursuit of powers and just general pursuit for better spells, regular casters such as clerics or wizards would be preferred.

[Dasrak]

I've actually done some extensive math on this in the past, and I've never been able to get a model that reconciles the settlement guidelines with how the universe ostensibly looks. You inevitably end up with way too many spellcasters.

The rules for Thorps indicate that at least 1 in 20 people have some form of spellcasting power. Hamlets indicate that on average there is one caster capable of casting 2nd level spells out of a population of 40. The village indicates there is on average one caster capable of casting 3rd level spells out of a population of 130.

If we presume that that lower level characters are less common than higher level characters (a fair presumption, I'm sure everyone will agree) this means that that population of 130 there should be several people capable of casting lower level spells than that highest level spellcaster. In fact, given the numbers from the thorp and hamlet, there should be nine other spellcasters of lower level of the same class. Even if we presume that the highest level spellcaster sets the tone for the entire settlement and his or her class makes up 50% of all spellcasters, we're still left with the unnerving conclusion that about 20 people out of a population of 130 have some kind of spellcasting power. That's roughly 15% of the population being spellcasters... meaning probably about 30% have PC class levels.

And that's low-ball, by the way. That doesn't count for adventurers, traveling mages/clerics, hermits, or wizards who want to do research and not bother with selling spellcasting services. Once you start accounting for other things... you end up with ludicrous numbers like 60% of all people having spellcasting power. Bottom line, I've never found a way to logically reconcile the settlement rules.

[Azothath]

I would say there are about 4 times as many casters as rolling chairs, tables, and cabinets/bureaus...

[Daw]

Have you considered that one free-wheeling caster might be serving multiple thorps?
It's late, neighbor just came home and fired off the rest of his explosives, waiting for burst of adrenaline to fade. Hope this makes sense.

[swoosh]

Why four times more martial characters? There are significantly more spellcasting classes than there are non-spellcasting classes.

[RDM42]

Dasrak wrote:

I've actually done some extensive math on this in the past, and I've never been able to get a model that reconciles the settlement guidelines with how the universe ostensibly looks. You inevitably end up with way too many spellcasters.

The rules for Thorps indicate that at least 1 in 20 people have some form of spellcasting power. Hamlets indicate that on average there is one caster capable of casting 2nd level spells out of a population of 40. The village indicates there is on average one caster capable of casting 3rd level spells out of a population of 130.

If we presume that that lower level characters are less common than higher level characters (a fair presumption, I'm sure everyone will agree) this means that that population of 130 there should be several people capable of casting lower level spells than that highest level spellcaster. In fact, given the numbers from the thorp and hamlet, there should be nine other spellcasters of lower level of the same class. Even if we presume that the highest level spellcaster sets the tone for the entire settlement and his or her class makes up 50% of all spellcasters, we're still left with the unnerving conclusion that about 20 people out of a population of 130 have some kind of spellcasting power. That's roughly 15% of the population being spellcasters... meaning probably about 30% have PC class levels.

And that's low-ball, by the way. That doesn't count for adventurers, traveling mages/clerics, hermits, or wizards who want to do research and not bother with selling spellcasting services. Once you start accounting for other things... you end up with ludicrous numbers like 60% of all people having spellcasting power. Bottom line, I've never found a way to logically reconcile the settlement rules.

Not neccisarily - there may be a distinct tendency for a spellcaster from a big city to find some Thorpe to move to where they are the big fish in the small pond and have a "captive audience" - it doesn't have to mean a one in twenty distribution so much as a tendency for some low level wizards to move away from the competition.

[Mark Carlson 255]

I chose the Mystic Thurge as it was a blatant (and extreme) example but think of the following extreme situation.

City: Temple Town or Templeton
Capital of Minaret
Notes: Very religious population and the center of all magical knowledge in the country. Tempelton and the nation itself is very unusual in that they require all practitioners of magic or psycic powers to study with a divine caster for 1 year before undertaking any other training.

In the case above the author from another country notes that in Minaret 97% (some people just do not do what the country wants) of the arcane casters are multi-classed and visitors from another country should take note of the Minarets religious laws and consequences for not following them.

Should There Note Be Some Guidelines?:
IMHO, yes but unfortunately I have seen it taken to various extremes that can in fact wreck games or as in most cases work fine for your home game but has a less beneficial effect on other's home game.
The systems that I have seen in the past that most people say was beneficial to them were those in which they provided a number of examples and ranges of %'ages as well as had a good grasp of just how statistics are used in the modern world and what you can use them for. ie statistic's use is more than just part over the whole when used in the real world and what you can use the numbers for and what you cannot reliability use the math for.

MDC

[thejeff]

Can'tFindthePath wrote:

thejeff wrote:

I'm not sure why you're making these assumptions. Are these specific to your game world?

Why would a 13 Wisdom Cleric be restricted to "apprentice"? Why would a ranger with a 13 wisdom (especially if that's his high stat and if not it's hardly a lower entry requirement) do just fine?

I believe the answer to that is simple mechanics. With a 13 Wisdom, a Cleric (or Ranger) can only cast up to 3rd level spells. True, they can still get spell slots of higher level, but in a world with tangible miracles and arcane power I would argue that one would need the higher spell levels to advance in a typical hierarchy.

But that 13 gets you to 7th level before you get 4th level spells you can't cast. Except that you get a stat bump at 4, so you really can cast 4th level spell, so you're alright until 9, by which time you've got your 8th level stat bump, so you're at a 15 and can cast 5th level spell. At 11 you get 6th so you're stuck. Even with NPC wealth you should be able to get a +2 headband and that and your remaining stat boosts lets you cast 9th level spells.

Sure, you're probably not going to be the best in your organization, but hardly stuck at "apprentice". And the ranger with a 13 high stat isn't likely to excel either.

[Zhangar]

swoosh wrote:

Why four times more martial characters? There are significantly more spellcasting classes than there are non-spellcasting classes.

More spellcasting classes doesn't translate into more actual spellcasters, just a greater variety of them.

(For example, 10 people with the ability to become alchemists, magi, wizards, or arcanists doesn't mean you get 10 of each; it means the 10 get divided between those four classes.)

So that "4 times as much" figure would be assuming that out of say, 100 people, 20 of them are getting split among the various caster classes (meaning that not every caster class would even be represented in selection), and the other 80 are getting split among the martial classes (possibly with fighters, the "classic" martial class, making up as many as half the group, and cavaliers, brawlers, slayers, etc., all having much less representation).

All the above example is completely arbitrary, of course.

[Azothath]

I tend to think of classes like job descriptions or college courses... a character does this job then that job in order to learn and maximize his potential. It's done mainly on hearsay as you wouldn't get to peek at the class description as they are in the book (from an in game perspective).

I suspect it would be a standard gaussian curve with spellcasters at the fringes of the probability distribution.

[Mark Carlson 255]

Remembering back I have seen this idea stretched into the area of town building (or I should say reversed engineered into population definition), so that you could say a town of Z size should have A number of blacksmiths, B number of grain mills, C number of churches etc. The numbers often come from common 2 sources and at time from 2 less common sources. The common being medieval England, Rome and the less common China and Japan. The real world numbers are gleamed from various tax records, historical accounts and imperial edicts and based on such can provide some beneficial info about town building during the era on which the data is based. IIRC I have seen a few computer programs that have been created that can populate said town for you based on the size you provide and which system or the % of each system you would like to have the numbers based on.
But after awhile if the numbers are not customize all towns seem the same and often lose there uniqueness. ie all towns begin to feel like your local representative of a national super market in which they have 2-5 sizes of stores and each sized store is laid out in the exact same way so if you want into one store in location A and another store of the same size 500 miles away you can go to the same aisle and find the exact same thing.
It is that feeling of genericness that I try to avoid in my games.

But again having some rough numbers can be very helpful, when designing all sorts of aspects for a game.

MDC

[Alzrius]

On a semi-tangential note, here's a fun thought-activity with regards to population breakdown in a given country/region/area using the 3.X demographics tables.

Basically, what if the percentages given for each type of settlement were taken as the distribution for how the population was spread out throughout a country?

That means that, if we look at table 5-2 on page 137 of the 3.5 DMG (table 4-40 on page 137 of the 3.0 DMG), we can see that on a d% roll, a 1-10 is a thorp, an 11-30 is a hamlet, etc. So under this idea, 10% of a kingdom's population lives in thorps while 20% lives in hamlets, etc.

If we also utilize the population-per-settlement column on that table (that is, we pick a number within that population range that divides evenly into the total population for that settlement type) then we can calculate some quick averages for both how many of a settlements of a given type there are, and how many people live in each one.

For example, the Generic Kingdom has a population of 5 million people:

• 10% of the population (500,000 people) live in thorps. Presuming about 50 people to a thorp, then the kingdom has 10,000 thorps within its borders.

• 20% of the population (1,000,000 people) live in hamlets. Presuming about 250 people to a hamlet, then the kingdom has 4,000 hamlets.

• 20% of the population (1,000,000 people) live in villages. Presuming about 800 people to a village, there are 1,250 villages in the kingdom.

• 20% of the population (1,000,000 people) live in small towns. Presuming about 1,600 people to a small town, then the kingdom has 625 small towns.

• 15% of the population (750,000 people) live in large towns. Presuming about 3,500 people to a large town, then there are 250 large towns within the kingdom.

• 10% of the population (500,000 people) live in small cities. Presuming about 10,000 people to a small city, then the kingdom has 50 small cities.

• 4% of the population (200,000 people) live in large cities. Presuming about 20,000 people to a large city, then there are 10 large cities within the kingdom.

• 1% of the population (50,000 people) live in a metropolis. Since there's no upper limit on the population of a metropolis (minimum 25,001 people), it's easiest to say that this will give us a single metropolis of 50,000 people.

Altogether, the Generic Kingdom has 16,186 population centers of various sizes, with an average of just over 300 people per population center.

Of course, this won't work for regions with a total population of 2,500,000 or less, because at that point 1% of your population no longer meets the minimum number of people necessary for a metropolis. In that case, just divide the remainder among the next largest settlements (e.g. if you had a kingdom of 1,000,000 people, the 1% set aside for a metropolis would only be 10,000 people, which isn't enough for a settlement that size. In that case, you'd simply add an additional 10,000 people to the 40,000 that you've already allocated among your large cities).

At that point, you can start plugging in the numbers regarding what classed NPCs of what levels live in a given community as you need to, and voila! You have an easy-to-make kingdom!

(Fun fact: Notwithstanding their organization, the community-generation tables in the 3.0 and 3.5 DMGs are identical. However, most people don't know that the Epic Level Handbook introduced alternate versions of a few of these tables (pg. 113-114), stated to be used to retcon in modifiers to make the game world more epic.

The major changes for these are that they vastly increase the GP limit in communities and inflate community modifiers for each settlement listing (and how many times you roll for the larger communities). They also introduce a new size of settlement above metropolis: the planar metropolis, population 100,000+. It doesn't have a percent listing, despite appearing on the random community table; it's listing is given as "special.")

[Lazlo.Arcadia]

thejeff wrote:

I'm not sure why you're making these assumptions. Are these specific to your game world?

Why would a 13 Wisdom Cleric be restricted to "apprentice"? Why would a ranger with a 13 wisdom (especially if that's his high stat and if not it's hardly a lower entry requirement) do just fine?

It is one of simple demographics. How many people have a 200 IQ? Or a PHD? Vs a professional certification or an Associates degree?

Lower stats = more people will participate. A Wisdom 13 Cleric vs a Wisdom 13 Ranger. One will virtually master their trade, the other will barely scratch the surface.

[thejeff]

Lazlo.Arcadia wrote:

thejeff wrote:

I'm not sure why you're making these assumptions. Are these specific to your game world?

Why would a 13 Wisdom Cleric be restricted to "apprentice"? Why would a ranger with a 13 wisdom (especially if that's his high stat and if not it's hardly a lower entry requirement) do just fine?

It is one of simple demographics. How many people have a 200 IQ? Or a PHD? Vs a professional certification or an Associates degree?

Lower stats = more people will participate. A Wisdom 13 Cleric vs a Wisdom 13 Ranger. One will virtually master their trade, the other will barely scratch the surface.

Why does a Wisdom 13 Cleric do better than a Wisdom 13 Ranger (Especially assuming that the far more MAD Ranger is putting his high stat into Wisdom.)

I've already pointed out that the Cleric with a starting 13 Wisdom can easily cast 9th level spells by the time she gets them. The ranger may even more easily cover all his spell levels, but he's not going to be very good at all the other rangery things - like fighting for example.
Why is he a master and the Cleric only scratching the surface?

Mind you, both will likely be well behind the ones who rolled well and started out with awesome stats, but that doesn't differentiate.

[MeanMutton]

swoosh wrote:

Why four times more martial characters? There are significantly more spellcasting classes than there are non-spellcasting classes.

The number of classes don't represent the number of people in them.

[MeanMutton]

Dasrak wrote:

Bottom line, I've never found a way to logically reconcile the settlement rules

Pathfinder's base ruleset expects a very, very, very common level of magic, much higher than any other fantasy game, movie, book, etc., that I'm familiar with.

[Lazlo.Arcadia]

Guys feel free to take a look at How many towns / castles / people are in your kingdom?. It is something of a continuation of this discussion based on an EXCELLENT article I found some time ago and simply focuses on the population demographics based largely on the size of the region covered. From which it breaks down what population would look like, and from there you can begin generating your demographic numbers like we have been discussing.

Based on those same demographics it also looks at how many towns, castles, castle ruins, etc should be in the area. This allows a DM to plan out adventures, campaign storylines, etc far in advance of when they were needed. Most campaigns tend to have you traveling through a deserted area 100 times until one day, "by the way, the deserted castle on the hill probably has treasure / monsters / quests". Wait up a second there boss...WHAT castle on the hill? You mean I've been here for 40 years of game time and NEVER seen it before now?

As for my numbers being off for Forgotten Realms vs Eberron, etc. I'll draw your attention back to my original post which discuss the limitations of the campaign setting being used as the back drop. It is a "Lower" magic environment with a level cap and few magic items. That said, I still think the numbers are pretty close to where they should be.

For those who disagree, that is good to. My post is not about establishing, "this is the way it has to be", but rather is about "this is what i thought was a good benchmark for campaign development". I have always felt these types of games are about creative expression and not about finding a definitive "right answer". I'd point out that even as far back as Gygax the D&D / D20 developers and authors have always said the same thing.

Bottom line: If you don't care for my numbers, thats ok. Have you run a similar projection, and if so would you mind sharing with us how your demographics were the same or different? IE; if you feel PC classes are a 1 in 6, have you done a demographic break down of class & level to see how many of what are in the local market?

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Quark Blast wrote:

Am I allowed to answer a question with a question? Well here goes...

Given the number of classes* and the fact that there are various organizations**, wouldn't listing those give one a good minimum?

Knightly orders, churches, guilds, and so forth all need a certain minimum number of members to be a viable organization and leaders of organizations are going to be high level***, with various satellite temples, monasteries, guildhalls and so forth all having mid to high level casters as leaders.

IF the order however features characters that are elite by design, that number could be pretty small in relation to the general population. The Paladins of Charlemagne for example, never numbered greater than twelve. A single Green Lantern would be responsible for an entire space sector which could have hundreds of populated worlds. Similarly, a given city is only going to support a limited number of thieves and bards, so their respective guilds will be very limited in membership. Many of the latter group in particular would not be bards, but experts with Perform, or even the occasional rogue cooling off for awhile.

[Mark Carlson 255]

Lazlo.Arcadia

Great advice. Do the math yourself and know the limitations on where the numbers come from.

The article provides you the info on where he got his numbers and based on history you can see why the numbers came about. ie Medieval France, probably heavily influenced by Roman's propensity to build roads and have places to stay 1 days march from the last place.

I am bummed that I cannot find my old resource (copy of a web page and the code that generated the city info) that had data from England, Rome, China and Japan (IIRC).
Also IIRC the first article I saw on the subject was based on England's Dooms Day Book (tax book) in which the went around recording everything for tax purposes. From there modern people (gamer's, historians and statisticians) can make some good guesses about towns and cities back then.

MDC

[Razcar]

Lazlo.Arcadia wrote:

By establishing a baseline for these questions and then sticking to it, it creates a sense of realism for the campaign world with an enormous ripple effect.

You will never get this line of thinking to work. You want to know why? Because the worlds we play RPGs in are not created first. The games are created first. The settings follow after, and try to fit into, and around, the rules of the games about as well as the authors can wrangle them to. (Which is usually not very well.) And this is how it should be.

The worlds are not meant to be logical. They are meant to be fun to play in. Everything is a slave to this rule. Because if they weren't fun to play in, we wouldn't.

Yes, the world has to have a rudimentary, thin coat of sense; there should be some farms here and there and water should be wet and there's firewood and food coming from somewhere ("commoners"). But this is just so we can brush it aside and concentrate on what the world is really there for - for us to adventure in.

So you will not get a good formula for how many spell casters there are based on sizes of settlements, since the caster is only placed there by the author so the PCs can get a remove disease. That 5th level cleric is not there to fill a quota, or represent some in-world logic. Or another example. In Pathfinder there's five bestiaries filled with hundreds of critters each. Not to represent a beautiful, fully logical ecosystem were thousands of species (hundreds of them intelligent) live among each other (or next door), manage to fulfill their needs for survival, and procreate year after year. No, they are there so the PCs can get fun opponents to fight in an adventure. And so on, the spells are there as fun tools to solve problems with, the PC alignments are there for an easy and fun role playing aid, etc etc. They are not there to make sense.

Having e.g. Raise Dead exist would have such effects on a real society that we cannot remotely fathom it. But when playing this game we need it, to raise the rogue (again...).

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Lazlo.Arcadia wrote:

For those who disagree, that is good to. My post is not about establishing, "this is the way it has to be", but rather is about "this is what i thought was a good benchmark for campaign development". I have always felt these types of games are about creative expression and not about finding a definitive "right answer". I'd point out that even as far back as Gygax the D&D / D20 developers and authors have always said the same thing.

Bottom line: If you don't care for my numbers, thats ok. Have you run a similar projection, and if so would you mind sharing with us how your demographics...

There really is no such thing as a benchmark. Campaign worlds, novels, aren't about crunching numbers. I will absolutely gaurantee that Tracy and Hickman don't have a number for how many Wizards of High Sorcery existed at any time in the world of Krynn, nor did they likely care. They had name wizards who interacted in story, and background characters whose only purpose was to be elements in setting the environment.

For the players, the "world" is the sum total of the areas they interact in, and those secondarily referenced. You might impress yourself with having US Census style numbers for commoners and classes, but it doesn't matter to them. Nor for the most part do they contribute to the story.

When it comes to worldbuilding, atmosphere and setting are the key, and concentrating on numbers in an attempt at model simulation tend to be distractions from the story. It's a reason that I prefer the novels of Ray Bradbury and Issac Asimov, or just about any other author to those of Rob Forward, although there are a whole ton of known writers who aren't as good technically as Forward. Worldbuilding is the time when it's best TO put the cart before the horse. The goal should be the present environment, and world building is what you use to set it up as a dramatic setting, not a meaningless exercise in atttempted simulation.

Or to put it this way, I could not care less about how many Hobbits lived in the Shire. Of greater interests are the families of the significant characters and how their social interactions either brought forth the heroes, or give me a sense of what they were fighting for.

[Mark Carlson 255]

D. Moonrunner;

I disagree some what. If authors basic ideas and numbers are way off then likely most people would not read them.

I have known a few authors and their way of writing can vary quite a bit from simply I just let it flow and let my editors make sure everything works to I like to map out every little detail to help me get a full picture which helps the author out.

Since I have been gaming since 79' I have acquired many RPG products from a variety of systems and the ones I continue to use and re-use tend to be the ones that are more real world based and not just some idea of what is cool/interesting/in/etc at the time. But also my gaming preference has drastically changed over the yeas as well and I do not think I could play games such as Paranoia and Toon for longer than 4 hours today.
Also of more important to "me" today is that some things make some sense and blatant disregard for basic principles of physics and science are quick turn offs. I am not going to put some of the big problems I have out of the open web as authors of modules and game stuff are often vastly under pain and have to often work with horrid deadlines and creating new and interesting module/adventure/setting ideas in short times spans can lead to incongruities when others have time to sit back and study them for months and or years.

Also again as I said before quite a few people do not like the hard classification system (I think in general it has to do with a the fear of math most authors have) but quite a few authors I know love to have some base lines presented to them to fully flush out their stories and settings. Also I have tended to see very little success of such commercial products but heaps of praise for such free products as those that love to use such concepts like that someone has done a lot of data driven work for them.

MDC

[Can'tFindthePath]

thejeff wrote:

Lazlo.Arcadia wrote:

thejeff wrote:

I'm not sure why you're making these assumptions. Are these specific to your game world?

Why would a 13 Wisdom Cleric be restricted to "apprentice"? Why would a ranger with a 13 wisdom (especially if that's his high stat and if not it's hardly a lower entry requirement) do just fine?

It is one of simple demographics. How many people have a 200 IQ? Or a PHD? Vs a professional certification or an Associates degree?

Lower stats = more people will participate. A Wisdom 13 Cleric vs a Wisdom 13 Ranger. One will virtually master their trade, the other will barely scratch the surface.

Why does a Wisdom 13 Cleric do better than a Wisdom 13 Ranger (Especially assuming that the far more MAD Ranger is putting his high stat into Wisdom.)

I've already pointed out that the Cleric with a starting 13 Wisdom can easily cast 9th level spells by the time she gets them. The ranger may even more easily cover all his spell levels, but he's not going to be very good at all the other rangery things - like fighting for example.
Why is he a master and the Cleric only scratching the surface?

Mind you, both will likely be well behind the ones who rolled well and started out with awesome stats, but that doesn't differentiate.

Well, you are quite right about the cleric and his advancing wisdom, hadn't thought of that. As far as the ranger, no one said it was his high stat. Just that it would compare favorably to an acolyte with a lowish wisdom.

[thejeff]

Can'tFindthePath wrote:

]Well, you are quite right about the cleric and his advancing wisdom, hadn't thought of that. As far as the ranger, no one said it was his high stat. Just that it would compare favorably to an acolyte with a lowish wisdom.

Well, the original point was the "entry requirements are simply lower." If the MAD character needs some high stats and a 13 Wisdom, I don't see that as lower.

[thenovalord]

We use between 1% and 5% for Galorian. I think almost every settlement in every AP has a spellcaster. The setting is very high magic
So almost everywhere should have ample created water, wholesome food, etc.

[RDM42]

thenovalord wrote:

We use between 1% and 5% for Galorian. I think almost every settlement in every AP has a spellcaster. The setting is very high magic

So almost everywhere should have ample created water, wholesome food, etc.

An ap, by definition does not represent a standard scenario. It's a situation arranged to specifically be a adventure, including having magical resources and the like available. Not every small village need have a magic user - just the ones the pcs happen to be visiting. I submit that 'but an adventure path has it 'to not be a proper benchmark for the world at large.

[chopswil]

as many as the plot requires

[Lemmy]

6d100 ⇒ (18, 16, 86, 73, 87, 77) = 357

[Razcar]

RDM42 wrote:

thenovalord wrote:

We use between 1% and 5% for Galorian. I think almost every settlement in every AP has a spellcaster. The setting is very high magic

So almost everywhere should have ample created water, wholesome food, etc.

An ap, by definition does not represent a standard scenario. It's a situation arranged to specifically be a adventure, including having magical resources and the like available. Not every small village need have a magic user - just the ones the pcs happen to be visiting. I submit that 'but an adventure path has it 'to not be a proper benchmark for the world at large.

Exactly my point, and expressed much clearer than I managed to :) You cannot correlate gaming world data and apply it relative to the game world, since the world around the adventurers is geared to satisfy their needs, and the needs of the adventure - and not geared to satisfy logic. Is the village close to a dungeon the PCs are heading to? Then "pop!" there's a cleric, "pop!" a wizard, "pop!" an inn and finally, a blacksmith pops out of the ground.

[MeanMutton]

RDM42 wrote:

thenovalord wrote:

We use between 1% and 5% for Galorian. I think almost every settlement in every AP has a spellcaster. The setting is very high magic

So almost everywhere should have ample created water, wholesome food, etc.

An ap, by definition does not represent a standard scenario. It's a situation arranged to specifically be a adventure, including having magical resources and the like available. Not every small village need have a magic user - just the ones the pcs happen to be visiting. I submit that 'but an adventure path has it 'to not be a proper benchmark for the world at large.

The settlement rules indicate that every single settlement does have a spellcaster.

[GM Rednal]

Most settlements probably have casters with NPC classes, I think. XD I mean, that's basically what the Adept class is for.

[RDM42]

MeanMutton wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

thenovalord wrote:

We use between 1% and 5% for Galorian. I think almost every settlement in every AP has a spellcaster. The setting is very high magic

So almost everywhere should have ample created water, wholesome food, etc.

An ap, by definition does not represent a standard scenario. It's a situation arranged to specifically be a adventure, including having magical resources and the like available. Not every small village need have a magic user - just the ones the pcs happen to be visiting. I submit that 'but an adventure path has it 'to not be a proper benchmark for the world at large.

The settlement rules indicate that every single settlement does have a spellcaster.

They indicate that any settlement pcs come across is liable to have access to that level spells. Not neccesarily the same.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

D. Moonrunner;

I disagree some what. If authors basic ideas and numbers are way off then likely most people would not read them.

Prove it. Of all the discussions about Tolkien, from the genuflections to the most blazing critiques. How many of them can you honestly say were about minutiae such as Elven, Hobbit, or Human population numbers?

Don't bother looking for the answer. I can tell you that it's none, because Tolkien never bothered coming up with them. And for the most part neither did the bulk of any other author worth reading about.

[Quark Blast]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Quark Blast wrote:

Am I allowed to answer a question with a question? Well here goes...

Given the number of classes* and the fact that there are various organizations**, wouldn't listing those give one a good minimum?

Knightly orders, churches, guilds, and so forth all need a certain minimum number of members to be a viable organization and leaders of organizations are going to be high level***, with various satellite temples, monasteries, guildhalls and so forth all having mid to high level casters as leaders.

IF the order however features characters that are elite by design, that number could be pretty small in relation to the general population. The Paladins of Charlemagne for example, never numbered greater than twelve. A single Green Lantern would be responsible for an entire space sector which could have hundreds of populated worlds. Similarly, a given city is only going to support a limited number of thieves and bards, so their respective guilds will be very limited in membership. Many of the latter group in particular would not be bards, but experts with Perform, or even the occasional rogue cooling off for awhile.

I understand your points but these aren't relevant to 3.PF type settings. At least none that I'm familiar with.

If you want to use examples from history, just look at the numbers of the three most famous Knightly Orders. Templars, Hospitallers, Teutonic. These three individually had living memberships in the thousands at any given time. And in 3.PF terms all of those knights would be leveled characters.

Can't really do that for casters though as there is no useful real world analog.

Only in Eberron do your low numbers of elites mesh with a 3.PF setting, and in that setting you just have to take it as given since verisimilitude was not a high design priority there, seemingly.

[Quark Blast]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

D. Moonrunner;

I disagree some what. If authors basic ideas and numbers are way off then likely most people would not read them.

Prove it. Of all the discussions about Tolkien, from the genuflections to the most blazing critiques. How many of them can you honestly say were about minutiae such as Elven, Hobbit, or Human population numbers?

Don't bother looking for the answer. I can tell you that it's none, because Tolkien never bothered coming up with them. And for the most part neither did the bulk of any other author worth reading about.

Tolkien is not a good example.

Tolkien's world is, as designed, massively underpopulated relative to any 3.PF campaign setting I've ever seen.

[Mark Carlson 255]

The fact that I have known some authors that have done it proves my point and depending on the category that the author is writing in it can have a big influence. Also I have known authors who did so for a number of projects and then since they had a handle on the basic idea quit doing so. Just as some authors find it helpful to make maps and or drawings of various cities, towns to help them visualize their story better.
Can I say every author has done it no, as I have read and put down many a book when the facts just get two far out there for me and or they chose just to forget or ignore some basic physics.
But I think I can safely say that authors that are trying to write fantasy and keep ignoring facts (and not providing some reasoning why it is different) often do not have their novels pass the editors desk and into publication. Now a days where anyone can publish it is much easier for them to cut out editors.

For example Xanth series by Piers Anthoney is vastly different world to write in vs Thieves World or Game of Thrones. If you have the ability to simple create mounds of food in Xanth then people do not need to spend as much time farming and or storing food so in your town you may not have a grain mill, grain silos or see any fields.
IMHO, good authors do not try and squeeze 100,000 people into a 10 by 10 room and expect you to believe it.

MDC

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

For example Xanth series by Piers Anthoney is vastly different world to write in vs Thieves World or Game of Thrones. If you have the ability to simple create mounds of food in Xanth then people do not need to spend as much time farming and or storing food so in your town you may not have a grain mill, grain silos or see any fields.
IMHO, good authors do not try and squeeze 100,000 people into a 10 by 10 room and expect you to believe it.

MDC

Xanth in my estimation has been little more than a series of books looking for new excuses for bad puns. Which is a shame as Anthony once wrote some damm hard fiction in the OX series. Nor am I particurlarly interested in any new incarnation of the Tippyverse.

And your last point is so much a strawman that it sets itself on fire.

[The Sideromancer]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

For example Xanth series by Piers Anthoney is vastly different world to write in vs Thieves World or Game of Thrones. If you have the ability to simple create mounds of food in Xanth then people do not need to spend as much time farming and or storing food so in your town you may not have a grain mill, grain silos or see any fields.
IMHO, good authors do not try and squeeze 100,000 people into a 10 by 10 room and expect you to believe it.

MDC

Xanth in my estimation has been little more than a series of books looking for new excuses for bad puns. Which is a shame as Anthony once wrote some damm hard fiction in the OX series. Nor am I particurlarly interested in any new incarnation of the Tippyverse.

And your last point is so much a strawman that it sets itself on fire.

You shouldn't PUNish an author for their love of wordplay.