PF2: The Average Human

Hi, everyone.

What level is the average human in PF2?

And, how rare are higher level human NPCs?

Just wondering if the assumption that 95% of the population is 1st level is accurate?

And, maybe 2% are 2nd or 3rd level? And, another 1% are 4th or 5th level?

And, higher levels are even rarer?

Just wondering.

Thank you.

I'd assume 95% of the population are level -1 or 0 actually, with some mild skill training. With the other 5% being first level and above, decreasing rapidly with level.

in pf1e APs most NPCs were like 3-5 in npc classes, so i don't know.

Per PF1, average adults are usually 1st to 3rd level or so...but in NPC Classes, so they'd be one level lower by PF2 standards.

That'd make most random people levels 0-2. That sounds about right.

Now, the number who have PC Classes and should thus even maybe be built like PCs is much lower (on the order of 5% or so), but level 0-2 really does seem correct.

I'd expect most people to be zero level. IIRC there is some mention of zero-level NPCs in the CRB, but can't recall where.

You could make a zero-level NPC by just giving them ancestry and background, then stopping. So a human would have only 4 ability boosts and a maximum of 14 in any stat.

Interesting...

I like the idea of just making a human with an ancestry and background, but no class.

From there, could apply the weak or elite modifications and maybe add a thematic ability and the NPC would be done.

I think I like it.

And also perhaps throw them a higher skill prof than would be expected for their level, to represent someone who actually decided to stay a farmhand, or a merchant, or a doctor instead of running off to become an adventurer.

We are undoubtedly going to get some more concrete rules in the Game Mastery Guide, but I don't believe that is slated for release until early 2020.

Interesting...

I like the idea of just making a human with an ancestry and background, but no class.

From there, could apply the weak or elite modifications and maybe add a thematic ability and the NPC would be done.

I think I like it.

I have made just such a proposal in another thread. I'm a little unsure if it's really a homebrew, or just a creative interpretation of the CRB.

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42pjn?Zerolevel-NPCs

Drunken farmers in Fall of Plaguestone have Strength modifier +3, Dexterity modifier +1, Constitution modifier +1, Intelligence modifier +1, Wisdom modifier +0, Charisma modifier +1.

Perhaps alcohol in Golarion 2e supercharges people into superlative specimens.

Seven total stat mods is less than a 1st-level PC, but more than an NPC created with simply ancestry and background. I see nothing wrong with it, but it does appear fairly arbitrary without any guidelines for the creation of zero or 1st-level NPCs.

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

Interesting...

I like the idea of just making a human with an ancestry and background, but no class.

From there, could apply the weak or elite modifications and maybe add a thematic ability and the NPC would be done.

I think I like it.

I have made just such a proposal in another thread. I'm a little unsure if it's really a homebrew, or just a creative interpretation of the CRB.

Paizo devs (including Jason Buhlmahn at Paizocon) have said that the ability to quickly make NPCs this way is one of the reasons the PF2 character creation process is designed the way it is. It's definitely an intended use case, even if it's not spelled out in so many words in the CRB.

In any event, I'd expect the soon-to-be-released Gamemastery Guide to go into more detail on NPC creation. That book is supposed to be more akin to the D&D DMG than the PF1 Gamemastery Guide was (i.e. more crunch, less "12 types of player personalities").

Hi, everyone.

What level is the average human in PF2?

And, how rare are higher level human NPCs?

Just wondering if the assumption that 95% of the population is 1st level is accurate?

And, maybe 2% are 2nd or 3rd level? And, another 1% are 4th or 5th level?

And, higher levels are even rarer?

Just wondering.

Thank you.

The average human could be any level the GM likes in PF2, unless you're in Golarion.

In Golarion, probably 0-2.

Hrothgar Rannúlfr wrote:

Hi, everyone.

What level is the average human in PF2?

And, how rare are higher level human NPCs?

Just wondering if the assumption that 95% of the population is 1st level is accurate?

And, maybe 2% are 2nd or 3rd level? And, another 1% are 4th or 5th level?

And, higher levels are even rarer?

Just wondering.

Thank you.

The average human could be any level the GM likes in PF2, unless you're in Golarion.

In Golarion, probably 0-2.

I mean, even just looking through Sandpoints gazetteer, almost every NPC was 3-5, even the whore that ran the Pixie's Kitten was a level 3 sorc, lvl 2 aristocrat, the orphanage owner is a lvl 4 wizard, lvl 2 rogue, the general store owner is a lvl 7 commoner...

I'm not sure where people get the average person being lvl 0-2. Because it really doesn't seem to hold up on the actual examples in the campaign settings.

I mean, even just looking through Sandpoints gazetteer, almost every NPC was 3-5, even the whore that ran the Pixie's Kitten was a level 3 sorc, lvl 2 aristocrat, the orphanage owner is a lvl 4 wizard, lvl 2 rogue, the general store owner is a lvl 7 commoner...

I'm not sure where people get the average person being lvl 0-2. Because it really doesn't seem to hold up on the actual examples in the campaign settings.

That was PF1. In the Breachill gazetteer from Age of Ashes, the great majority of named NPCs don't have class levels at all; they're just listed as "Roxie Denn (CN female human tavernkeeper)" or "Jorell Blacktusk (LN male human half-orc librarian)".

Presumably the Lost Omens World Guide will contain some general demographic data, until then we're mostly speculating though.

I mean, even just looking through Sandpoints gazetteer, almost every NPC was 3-5, even the whore that ran the Pixie's Kitten was a level 3 sorc, lvl 2 aristocrat, the orphanage owner is a lvl 4 wizard, lvl 2 rogue, the general store owner is a lvl 7 commoner...

I'm not sure where people get the average person being lvl 0-2. Because it really doesn't seem to hold up on the actual examples in the campaign settings.

There's a huge difference between the average level of people (as shown by things like the generic farmer stat block, which is level 2, or the generic barmaid who is level 1), and the average level of named and important NPCs.

The actual breakdown for Class levels of characters mentioned in Sandpoint is as follows (or was in the gazetteer in the original AP...I think they added a couple for the Anniversary Edition...the basic premise stays the same, though):

103 1st-2nd (74 unnamed)
35 3rd-4th (9 unnamed)
14 5th-6th
7 7th-8th

And that ignores all the unnamed people who are also unstatted, most of whom may be assumed to be 1st or 2nd level. Plus, most of those 3rd-4th level ones are 3rd.

That means that 3/4 of the NPCs mentioned or thereabouts, are level 1-3...which is exactly what converts to level 0-2 in PF2 given the difference in what level means (actually...it converts a fair number of 1st level Warriors and the like to level -1).

It also makes sense that most notable business owners are higher than average levels, as capable individuals tend to acrue wealth and power.

It also makes sense that most notable business owners are higher than average levels, as capable individuals tend to acrue wealth and power.

That's an American myth that has been dispelled by data.

Malk_Content wrote:

It also makes sense that most notable business owners are higher than average levels, as capable individuals tend to acrue wealth and power.

That's an American myth that has been dispelled by data.

I'm sorry reasonable definitions of "capable" are so painful to you.

That's an American myth that has been dispelled by data.

Has it? If you ignore inherited wealth, I mean? As most of the cited characters have no inheritance to help them.

It also depends rather strongly on the particular economic system being operated in...

And it's certainly true in Pathfinder even if untrue in reality, given how levels work. You get high enough level you can acquire power directly in a way no real world person can, and power allows for the easy accumulation of wealth.

I sense a hard derail barreling towards us and would like to preemptively ask everyone to focus on the topic at hand (real world economics should definitely be taken to a different topic thread.)

On the subject at hand, it's important to note that PF2 intentionally divorces character and NPC progression. It is (theoretically at the moment) entirely possible that you could have a 2nd level character who is e.g. Legendary in baking with an unexpectedly high skill modifier. They didn't go out and live an adventuring life and progress in that manner, but they did practice, master, and ultimately reach the highest degrees of functionality in that skill. Similarly, you could have that same character be a level 2 combat challenge, because it's fairly easy for an armored adventurer to take out a baker in a duel, but a level 18 challenge in a baking contest, because their skill in that very narrow field is equivalent to what a level 18 adventurer would be capable of (though said adventurer would also be highly proficient in a great many other tasks as well.)

I might also put forth the idea that the new dynamic works much better from a "realism" perspective in that it doesn't require NPCs who are supposed to present very specific higher level challenges within a given field to also be capable of grappling dragons into submission just because they're supposed to be super good at making cake.

I sense a hard derail barreling towards us and would like to preemptively ask everyone to focus on the topic at hand (real world economics should definitely be taken to a different topic thread.)

On the subject at hand, it's important to note that PF2 intentionally divorces character and NPC progression. It is (theoretically at the moment) entirely possible that you could have a 2nd level character who is e.g. Legendary in baking with an unexpectedly high skill modifier. They didn't go out and live an adventuring life and progress in that manner, but they did practice, master, and ultimately reach the highest degrees of functionality in that skill. Similarly, you could have that same character be a level 2 combat challenge, because it's fairly easy for an armored adventurer to take out a baker in a duel, but a level 18 challenge in a baking contest, because their skill in that very narrow field is equivalent to what a level 18 adventurer would be capable of (though said adventurer would also be highly proficient in a great many other tasks as well.)

I might also put forth the idea that the new dynamic works much better from a "realism" perspective in that it doesn't require NPCs who are supposed to present very specific higher level challenges within a given field to also be capable of grappling dragons into submission just because they're supposed to be super good at making cake.

So if I'm creating a level 1 starting character, a 700-year-old elf who's been a baker since he was a youth of 70, why can't I start as a legendary baker? For 630 years, all he did was bake, bake and bake some more. Yet he can't make anything better than a 15-year-old human adventurer who was a baker for a few months. Both are trained, with a +1 from level, plus whatever their ability mod is.

You say this is better from a realism perspective, but there's still an obvious problem.

So if I'm creating a level 1 starting character, a 700-year-old elf who's been a baker since he was a youth of 70, why can't I start as a legendary baker? For 630 years, all he did was bake, bake and bake some more. Yet he can't make anything better than a 15-year-old human adventurer who was a baker for a few months. Both are trained, with a +1 from level, plus whatever their ability mod is.

You say this is better from a realism perspective, but there's still an obvious problem.

Because you start as a level 1 adventurer, not a level 2 baker. "Baker" isn't a PC class. If you want to play as a baker, you could presumably homebrew a class that is untrained in all weapons, and master at Baking Lore at level 1. But that's not the kind of adventurer that most players want to be.

So if I'm creating a level 1 starting character, a 700-year-old elf who's been a baker since he was a youth of 70, why can't I start as a legendary baker?

Because he's a level 1 PC. Either make him not a PC, convince your GM not to make him start at level 1, don't make him 700 years old, or come up with your own backstory to explain this contrived situation that you chose.

This just in, not every character is a viable level 1 PC concept!

Honestly, legendary at anything while also being lv 1 is kind of weird. I mean sure a GM could allow and flavor it as, "a boon from the Baker god" or something, but then again any edition can have that.

As a GM I'd allow someone to have legendary at a lore at level 1, but all their weapon, class, spell armour and save proficiencies get knocked down a level to represent the sheer dedication to that one task.

Barry was a baker, and boy, did he love baking. From dusk til dawn his hands were coated with flour as he went about his craft. He became legendary for his bread, which some claimed could increase your strength or cure disease. But Barry never paid attention to any of that, he just went about his baking. Until Barry's baking world came crumbling down. Nothing seemed wrong at first, a group of adventurers came to buy some of Barry's bread, the same as any other day.

"Wait how much does the bread cost!?" One of the party exclaimed, which Barry found quite rude. "I could buy a wand of cure disease for four of those!" Another of the party claimed, to the confusion of Barry, who wasn't sure what wands had to do with anything. "Yeah f&+& this, let's just kill him, he probably couldn't pass a level 2 sword exam." Barry didn't have time to think about that before a blade was thrust in to him. Pain overwhelmed Barry as his baking world faded to black.

He awoke hours later. Flour had caked around his wound, preventing him from bleeding out. His shop was destroyed, his family lay dead before him. They had tried to stop the adventurers, and had been cut down for their efforts. Barry lay in the bloody flour and wept. He stayed like that until someone found him, their shouts of concern snapping him from his stupor. Barry paid no mind to the person attempting to help him. Barry merely grabbed his kitchen knife and ran, rage over taking his heart. He didn't know who these adventurers were, why they would do this...but he would.

Thus began the tale of Barry, the Legendary Baking Barbarian.

So if I'm creating a level 1 starting character, a 700-year-old elf who's been a baker since he was a youth of 70, why can't I start as a legendary baker? For 630 years, all he did was bake, bake and bake some more. Yet he can't make anything better than a 15-year-old human adventurer who was a baker for a few months. Both are trained, with a +1 from level, plus whatever their ability mod is.

You say this is better from a realism perspective, but there's still an obvious problem.

By choosing to play an adventurer, you're picking a different life progression. The issue is in assuming that the challenge level of an NPC or monster reflects their life experience; it doesn't. All it reflects is how hard it is for a group of PCs to overcome them.

The character you described is not a standard PC, it's an elf who outlived their normal lifespan by 100 years and then decided they wanted to go out in a blaze of glory. You typically wouldn't build that character like a core PC, because as you noted "They didn't go out and live an adventuring life and progress in that manner, but they did practice, master, and ultimately reach the highest degrees of functionality in that skill."

As a nonstandard character, you could build that elven baker as an NPC, or you could ask the GM to create a custom background for you that reflected your history of mastering your incredible baking prowess, like-

Premiere Baker Unique Background
For 630 years, all you did was bake, bake, and bake some more. While others lived more well-rounded lives, you dedicated yourself to the baking arts, until a pivotal event caused you to take up the adventuring life.
Choose one ability boost, which must be to Intelligence or Wisdom. When determining your proficiency bonus for Baking Lore checks, use 20 in place of your level.
You're legendary in the Baking Lore skill. You gain the Experienced Professional feat.

sherlock1701 wrote:

So if I'm creating a level 1 starting character, a 700-year-old elf who's been a baker since he was a youth of 70, why can't I start as a legendary baker? For 630 years, all he did was bake, bake and bake some more. Yet he can't make anything better than a 15-year-old human adventurer who was a baker for a few months. Both are trained, with a +1 from level, plus whatever their ability mod is.

You say this is better from a realism perspective, but there's still an obvious problem.

[...]

The character you described is not a standard PC, it's an elf who outlived their normal lifespan by 100 years and then decided they wanted to go out in a blaze of glory. You typically wouldn't build that character like a core PC, because as you noted "They didn't go out and live an adventuring life and progress in that manner, but they did practice, master, and ultimately reach the highest degrees of functionality in that skill."

I realized after this post locked that my quote above was a bit confusing. I was quoting myself saying "They didn't go out and live an adventuring life and progress in that manner, but they did practice, master, and ultimately reach the highest degrees of functionality in that skill" as an example of something I'd already said was best represented as an NPC and which was then pretty much exactly what was described in the response.

Though the unique background I went on to theorize about is also a possible solution. From an in-world perspective, your Background is essentially the mechanical representation of everything you were (sans ancestry) before you became an adventurer, so if you want an unusual adventurer, such as one who lived for over six centuries as an NPC before becoming a PC, Background has a lot of potential as the point in character generation to create that story. It's basically what we do with player guides, though I'd say a unique baker background representing the better part of a millenia's worth of baking training is probably even more unusual than most of what you'd see in an adventure path.

Michael Sayre wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

So if I'm creating a level 1 starting character, a 700-year-old elf who's been a baker since he was a youth of 70, why can't I start as a legendary baker? For 630 years, all he did was bake, bake and bake some more. Yet he can't make anything better than a 15-year-old human adventurer who was a baker for a few months. Both are trained, with a +1 from level, plus whatever their ability mod is.

You say this is better from a realism perspective, but there's still an obvious problem.

[...]

The character you described is not a standard PC, it's an elf who outlived their normal lifespan by 100 years and then decided they wanted to go out in a blaze of glory. You typically wouldn't build that character like a core PC, because as you noted "They didn't go out and live an adventuring life and progress in that manner, but they did practice, master, and ultimately reach the highest degrees of functionality in that skill."

I realized after this post locked that my quote above was a bit confusing. I was quoting myself saying "They didn't go out and live an adventuring life and progress in that manner, but they did practice, master, and ultimately reach the highest degrees of functionality in that skill" as an example of something I'd already said was best represented as an NPC and which was then pretty much exactly what was described in the response.

Though the unique background I went on to theorize about is also a possible solution. From an in-world perspective, your Background is essentially the mechanical representation of everything you were (sans ancestry) before you became an adventurer, so if you want an unusual adventurer, such as one who lived for over six centuries as an NPC before becoming a PC, Background has a lot of potential as the point in character generation to create that story. It's basically what we do with player guides, though I'd say a unique baker background representing the better part of a millenia's worth of...

My overall point was that this doesn't make any difference from a realism perspective. In the section on age, there is a segment that says:

"...you can play a character of whatever age you like. There aren’t
any mechanical adjustments to your character for being particularly old"

This is a pretty significant break in terms of verisimilitude. It might be better to provide a table of minimum/maximum age by ancestry and level.

My overall point was that this doesn't make any difference from a realism perspective. In the section on age, there is a segment that says:

"...you can play a character of whatever age you like. There aren’t
any mechanical adjustments to your character for being particularly old"

This is a pretty significant break in terms of verisimilitude. It might be better to provide a table of minimum/maximum age by ancestry and level.

That sounds, to me, like bookkeeping for no reason. Why would you put arbitrary limitations on the concepts people can play when there's no reason to do so?

If you're very old and didn't really do very much, then there's no reason you should be better at things. That's essentially the case with the iconic wizard Ezren, who is much older than his peers but at roughly the same level across various tasks as everyone else because his early life was being a spoiled rich kid with little drive or responsibility who wallowed in mediocrity. Some variation thereof is essentially the "default" for what happens when you're a very old character taking their first level as an adventurer and using a background from the CRB; you did enough to get by up to this point, but not enough to really excel or rise up.

If you're very old and did apply that time productively, then you've likely chosen an alternate route to advancement that should be reflected by an unusual background or by being built as an NPC. The mechanical adjustments in the theoretical unique background I proposed aren't for being very old, they're for being someone who practiced baking for centuries until they were the very best at the craft. Age and experience are not the same thing; if you spent six centuries doing the medieval equivalent of sitting on your couch watching TV, then you shouldn't be at any particular advantage over someone who actually used their time productively and leveraged it towards learning or mastering a craft. If you had a rich and full six centuries, than that could be reflected by either A) being built as an NPC with emphasis on the things you spent that time doing or B) having a unique background that accounts for those things and brings them into your class chassis. There's also mechanical elements like Ancient Elf from Lost Omens Character Guide or Ancestral Longevity from the CRB that are solid mechanical representations of characters who did live more robust early lives and have some benefits as a result, though they've become rusty with age.

YMMV, but I think this is significantly better from a realism perspective in that the tools do exist to account for these things. A background accounts for a pretty basic life where you practiced a trade and learned some tricks thereof. It also provides the mechanical framework to homebrew more elaborate and involved stories if that's what you want. An NPC not needing 18 HD to be an excellent baker is a notable improvement IMO, because the framework of PF1 had really hard stipulations that if you wanted to be "the best" at something, you could also inherently swim in lava and wrestle dinosaurs due to a fixed tie between skills and HD that didn't have much modularity to manipulate.

Question, isn't physical ability very much determined partly by age? Afterall even the most active old person can't reach the same ability as the most active young person.

Mental abilities are a different problem.

Besides that, wow even more reasons to like the background system.

Question, isn't physical ability very much determined partly by age? Afterall even the most active old person can't reach the same ability as the most active young person.

Mental abilities are a different problem.

Yes, and if you want to play an elderly character you're free to apply whatever voluntary ability flaws you think are appropriate at character creation, depending on the character's actual age and lifestyle up to that point. There's just not a hard-and-fast mechanic for it.

So yes, by RAW you could choose to make a human PC with 18 DEX and 16 STR and no voluntary flaws, and then say he's 105 years old if you wanted to... but at that point the "break in verisimilitude" is on you for deciding to make an unrealistic character. It's not Paizo's fault if you choose to do dumb stuff.

Pathfinder just flat isn't designed to handle player-characters having non-combat abilities at different rates of progression to their adventure-prowess, so can't be used to compare with the average person of any ancestry of any age-group.

Well it can certainly be done, at least if non combat item levels and bonuses to skills are more loosely regulated. (Certainly possible before where it was standard, but "math buffs are bad", so meh.)

I’m a fan of ancestry plus background as a quick minor NPC building technique (plus some basic trained proficiencies with 0 for level). Need a little more? Throw on a multiclass dedication.

I actually love how PF2 is handling long-lived elves. Being able to recall a different trained skill daily is great for dabblers, and we’re eventually getting a heritage for a level one multiclass dedication.

Yes, and if you want to play an elderly character you're free to apply whatever voluntary ability flaws you think are appropriate at character creation, depending on the character's actual age and lifestyle up to that point. There's just not a hard-and-fast mechanic for it.

Though the Voluntary Flaws sidebar on page 26 of the CRB that allows you to take two additional flaws in exchange for an extra boost is a pretty handy way to quickly say "Well, I'm older and physically declined a bit but with age comes wisdom, so I'm going to take a -2 flaw on my Strength and Con to apply a +2 boost to my Wisdom."