One of the devices I most dislike about 3rd edition was the Demographics system. Among my problems with it were.
1-It was too Micro managed. that it to say, it dealt with population centres in a way that was too restrictive, and ignored building nations altogether.
2- A few of the PC classes made no sense in a city, or town setting. Druids for one, and Monks for another. Okay, maybe an argument can be made for Monks.
3- First level Bloat. This a problem with the NPC classes. All are excessively bloated at first level.
4-Prestige classes are ignored completely. As was the possibility of any classes that were developed after the DMG was released.
Mind you, I understand that they were intended to be used as a guide line. So I'm tinkering with a different version with two main premises.
1- No one stays at first level forever.
2- Not all PC classes are everywhere.
Keeping that in mind, I'm leaning toward a percentage based system, for NPC class levels. And a way to place Core/Base/Prestige Classes that's more reasonable. This is what I've worked out so far.
Adept________1
Aristocrat_____1
Commoner___85
Expert________3
Warrior_______5
PC Classes___5
1st_________10%
2nd_________15%
3rd_________20%
4th_________30%
5th_________10%
6th__________5%
7th__________4%
8th__________4%
9th__________1%
10th________1/2%
11th +_______1/2%
NPC Level chart is for NPC classes only. I still haven't worked out a way to determine PC class levels yet.
Core_________01-75
Base_________76-95
Prestige______96-100
This cart is intended for use when trying to determine weather an NPC with a PC class is either Core, base, or Prestige.
Comments and suggestion are welcome.
I sincerely beleive that level 1 commoners should be the base of the pyramid, otherwise that's fine, but the class level layout assumes the largest group is level 4, bye bye orc and goblin raiders in many ways.
Oh my, the waves of refugees in the areas of those raids. Terrible, just terrible! :) Second or 3rd level ok, but 8th? That might be evil.
I sincerely beleive that level 1 commoners should be the base of the pyramid, otherwise that's fine, but the class level layout assumes the largest group is level 4, bye bye orc and goblin raiders in many ways.
I think you may be right. 40% of the population being level 1 is still much better then the 90% you'd get with the 3rd ed system. In any case we'd end up with something like this.
1st__________40
2nd_________20
3rd__________15
4th__________10
5th__________10
6th___________5
7th___________4
8th___________4
9th___________1
10th_________1/2
11th +________1/2
Any other comments, ideas, or suggestion?
I sincerely beleive that level 1 commoners should be the base of the pyramid, otherwise that's fine, but the class level layout assumes the largest group is level 4, bye bye orc and goblin raiders in many ways.I think you may be right. 40% of the population being level 1 is still much better then the 90% you'd get with the 3rd ed system. In any case we'd end up with something like this.
** spoiler omitted **
Any other comments, ideas, or suggestion?
Yeah, I think thats a good jot better, a pyramid of level distribution seems right to me.
Sorry, no helpful comments at this point but there is a discussion on population totals for countries going on in a thread up in General Discussion if you're interested and have the time to read it through: *link*
(I did post a link up there to this thread, but nobody seems to have followed it to chip in down here.)
Edit:
Sort of helpful, maybe, comment; I believe that James Jacobs has commented in a discussion on high level NPCs something along the line that there aren't that many around, and that 9th level is about the limit.Further Edit:
(From another thread)
Of course, this doesn't mean that we won't have characters above 20th level now and then... but yeah, for the most part characters above 9th level are going to be relatively rare overall, even if they "feel" more common in high level adventures (remember that a high-level adventure gives a skewed perspective)...Yup... James has said in the "populations of countries" thread that (paraphrased)while the absolute cap for PCs is 20... the normal cap for most NPCs is 9. The PCs are made to represent those top 5-10% that achieve greater than normal deed and abilities. While there are NPCs higher than 9, they are spread pretty thinly, mostly retired adventurers that are now king's advisers or hermits or the like
I think impressions on what percentage of the world is or should be high level (and not neutral) might be part of the disconnect between campaign-world-views here.
Interesting thread. (Starts taking notes). Thanks for pointing it out.
I sincerely beleive that level 1 commoners should be the base of the pyramid, otherwise that's fine, but the class level layout assumes the largest group is level 4, bye bye orc and goblin raiders in many ways.I think you may be right. 40% of the population being level 1 is still much better then the 90% you'd get with the 3rd ed system. In any case we'd end up with something like this.
** spoiler omitted **
Any other comments, ideas, or suggestion?
Actually, whoops, you have over 100% there, at the point where it hits 5%, you have reached 100. Otherwise its working out about right.
Actually, whoops, you have over 100% there, at the point where it hits 5%, you have reached 100. Otherwise its working out about right.
Your right, The first number should be 30%.
Personally, I feel that there should be a bit higher assumed average for npc levels in the game, especially when assuming pathfinder pc classes.
When we assume that the majority of the world is level 1-2 in their class, that means that the majority of social interactions the characters have, past the very initial part of the game, will be irrelevant to them in a numeric sense. This seems silly.
Some things to consider:
1)NPC classes are not even with PC classes. They are also judged at a lower CR than those with class levels.
2)NPC's grow in their given domains, or should if the goal is to create a realistic play setting. And the only way for this to occur is to increase character level.
3)To provide continuing challenge, the most important aspect of NPC design is not class abilities (which tend to just clutter up paper and not get used) but rather the raw numbers, i.e. can an NPC possibly hit without rolling a 20, can it save vs. spell, etc. NPC classes taken to higher levels deal with this well, as they have few abilities, but numbers stay at parity with the PC classes.
4)The shortest amount of time is spent at level 1-2. The 4-8 sees the most play. Assuming that a large chunk of NPC's fall into this level range gives good challenge fodder for PC's (they can actually hit and last a little while), while also showing how much better the PC's are (better class abilities and all).
5)Most stories that occur outside the 10+ range assume that the characters are mortal, if exceptional, warriors. Thus a group of 5-10 people still presents a challenge to them, especially if those they are fighting have any training. However, when we assume a low level for NPC's, suddenly a 4-8 level PC can wade into a fight with virtually an entire city block and not be threatened (they won't hit except on 20's). This makes it nearly impossible to tell classic stories with D&D ("The city guard blocks your path to the princess" "Dude, they're all like level 1, except the captain who's lvl 4... I waste 'em with my longsword").
Actually rydi123, I agree with many of the points you've raised. This was largely the reason I started working on this project.
On the other hand, vagrant-poet, also raised some valid points as well. If you place the base level too high, you can rob the impact of weaker monster types. Orc, and Goblin raids are no longer quite the threat they used to be. Also if the base NPC level is too high, why would a King call for adventurers? Especially, if sending an army of a few hundred level 5 or 6 warriors would do the job just as well, and at a lower cost?
What I'm working toward is a usable guide line. Something that can be applied at both the Mico (ie. individual town, village, or city), and the Macro (National, or regional level) without feeling broken.
Actually rydi123, I agree with many of the points you've raised. This was largely the reason I started working on this project.
On the other hand, vagrant-poet, also raised some valid points as well. If you place the base level too high, you can rob the impact of weaker monster types. Orc, and Goblin raids are no longer quite the threat they used to be. Also if the base NPC level is too high, why would a King call for adventurers? Especially, if sending an army of a few hundred level 5 or 6 warriors would do the job just as well, and at a lower cost?
What I'm working toward is a usable guide line. Something that can be applied at both the Mico (ie. individual town, village, or city), and the Macro (National, or regional level) without feeling broken.
I agree totally, though there are two things that I think get overlooked with those arguments:
1)Racial Hit Dice2)Monsters with class levels
Unless you are running monsters as homogeneous groups, then you are already varying some of things, adding in goblin shamans, orcish heroes, etc. Just extend it a little further and scale up portions of your Orc and Goblin Horde(tm) to higher levels; really not even very much math, as a few warrior levels just add a few BAB bonuses, and better saves.
One of my biggest irritations is how quickly orcs and goblins become obsolete, and it seems like the easiest solution is to scale up their levels... at that point they can stay valid threats as long as your storyline needs them.
Granted, savage Humanoids would require a greater degree of specialization, just to survive. Given their lack of resources, and for the most part technology. However, it sounds as though your talking about a society made entirely of PC Classes.
The PC classes will not be using the same percentages as the NPC classes. Nor will they have the same base level. Given that in any race, very few NPCs having NPC classes should reach tenth level. What do you think should be the base level then?
hmm. What about a modification of that?
Level by time spent DOING a particular thing, and level of motivation/talent? Doing it this way would also have the advantage of accounting for multiclassing. The only flaw to it is that it requires a tiny bit more though... but that would also improve the RP aspects of a game. And really it's not a lot more effort.
Start with "Time in Class":
<1yr: lvl 1
2-3yrs: lvl 2
3-5yrs: lvl 3
5-7yrs: lvl 4
8-10yrs: lvl 5
>11yrs: lvl 6
motivation/talent:
lazy: -1 lvl
normal: +0 lvl
motivated: +1 lvl
extremely motivated: +2 lvl
untalented: -1 lvl
average: +0 lvl
talented: +1 lvl
extremely talented: +2 lv
Past a certain point, people don't learn with time, and learning curve shows diminishing returns. I've seen "experts" in real life that haven't progressed in 20 yrs... But I've also seen those that have made a lot more progress in the same time period, and its usually come down to talent, and motivation.
All well and good, but that seems more suited for creating specific NPCs, rather than a large population.
What then needs to be done is then running the numbers and getting relative proportions of people at each "level".
All well and good, but that seems more suited for creating specific NPCs, rather than a large population.
What then needs to be done is then running the numbers and getting relative proportions of people at each "level".
Well, you can still apply that to a given population. How many 10yr veterans are there in an orc horde (probably pyramids up, so not many)? How many are motivated (a lot), and have talent (probably quite a few, assuming we are talking about "warrior" classes). You can make a rough guesstimate at levels in the hoard based on that model.
Even better, you can make an immediate snap decision on virtually any npc you meet, look at town demographics, pretty much apply it to any npc situation.
Now that's an Idea I haven't considered, nor encountered before. But, it seems a little complex for many to use. How about this instead.
Age Level Range % of pop.
Adulthood 1-7th 40%
Middle Age 5-10th 35%
Old 8-10th 25%
Venerable 10th 10%
Now, how dose that look. NPC's younger then Adults are not counted toward population totals. So they are not included in this chart.
The biggest modifiers I can see for this kind of chart are, what % of the population make it from one age group to the next? Lots of factors can come into play such as environment, technology/Magic, and stress.
Environment
Ideal -5% Adult +5% Venerable
Neutral No changes
Hostile +10 Adult -5 Old, and -5 Venerable
Tech/Magic
Low +10 Adult -5 Old, and -5 Venerable
Normal No changes
High -10 Adult +5 Old, and +5 Venerable
Other Stresses
War -20 Adult +10 Middle, +5Old, +5 Venerable
Plague/Famine -5 Adult, -5 Old, -5 Venerable, +15 Middle
Relative peace No change
other Up to GM.
Mind you I think there is room for both ways of thinking about NPC's. One GM may feel more comfortable with a pyramid system, while another might prefer the Ageing chart.
As with anything YMMV.
Apparently, I shouldn't take an hour to compose my post.
Apparently, I shouldn't take an hour to compose my post.
Always highlight and hit Ctrl-C before submitting your post. That way, if the Pathfinder board has timed you out, or is having some other temporary glitch, you won't lose your work.
Or Ctrl-A and Ctrl-C. I completely support Kevin's comment, as it's saved my arse more than once :)
Now that's an Idea I haven't considered, nor encountered before. But, it seems a little complex for many to use. How about this instead.
Age Level Range % of pop.
Adulthood 1-7th 40%
Middle Age 5-10th 35%
Old 8-10th 25%
Venerable 10th 10%Now, how dose that look. NPC's younger then Adults are not counted toward population totals. So they are not included in this chart.
Do not forget to include them in the total count of the population however. So that once children and the rest of the "inactive" population is taken into account, 40% would NOT equal 40 people out of a village of 100.
Alternatively, a population's breakdown could only count the ACTIVE population, at which case the % for middle age, old and venerable should be a lot less than what you stated. (i.e. only few venerable people would still be part of the active population).
'findel
(edit)
Do not forget to include them in the total count of the population however. So that once children and the rest of the "inactive" population is taken into account, 40% would NOT equal 40 people out of a village of 100.
Alternatively, a population's breakdown could only count the ACTIVE population, at which case the % for middle age, old and venerable should be a lot less than what you stated. (i.e. only few venerable people would still be part of the active population).
'findel
Actually, 3.0/3.5 only counts Adults in population figures. It dose note the number of non adults is 10-40% of the population figures.
I do see your point. Maybe it should look something like this?
Age % Level Range
Adult 60% 1-6
Middle Age 29% 5-10
Old 10% 9-10
Venerable 1% 10
Actually, 3.0/3.5 only counts Adults in population figures. It dose note the number of non adults is 10-40% of the population figures.
I do see your point. Maybe it should look something like this?
Age % Level Range
Adult 60% 1-6
Middle Age 29% 5-10
Old 10% 9-10
Venerable 1% 10
What I don't get with this model, is why everyone that is old is automatically powerful. Sometimes in RL, or in fiction, the venerable old man is an awesome warrior/expert/sage/whatever. Usually, he's just an old man with some extra knowledge. But by this system, every warrior that lives a long time will be a great combatant, every crafter will be a master, and so on. After a while though, skills plateau and people move on to other things, or continue what they were doing without significant improvement. It just seems to me there isn't enough correlation between age and level, or that there needs to be some other set of factors that further influence things past the 1-6 point.
What I don't get with this model, is why everyone that is old is automatically powerful. Sometimes in RL, or in fiction, the venerable old man is an awesome warrior/expert/sage/whatever. Usually, he's just an old man with some extra knowledge. But by this system, every warrior that lives a long time will be a great combatant, every crafter will be a master, and so on. After a while though, skills plateau and people move on to other things, or continue what they were doing without significant improvement. It just seems to me there isn't enough correlation between age and level, or that there needs to be some other set of factors that further influence things past the 1-6 point.
Actually, 3.0/3.5 only counts Adults in population figures. It dose note the number of non adults is 10-40% of the population figures.
I do see your point. Maybe it should look something like this?
Age % Level Range
Adult 60% 1-6
Middle Age 29% 5-10
Old 10% 9-10
Venerable 1% 10
Okay then let's scale back the level ranges to 6-10 for Old and Venerable age ranges. Also, this table represents active members of a population. This was one of the factor in scaling back the middle, old and Venerable age %.
My only real problem with this idea comes with the concept of power levels in relation to RL. The reason why so many people are lvl 1 commoners? Because you, me, and the vast majority of the general population would be about the same. Obviously, there are exceptions, but (in theory) nobody in real life would ever really pass about level 5. I wish I could find the link, but there are several good articles referring to relative power levels out there...
Of course, in a fantasy world, where people likely have to deal with threats on a regular basis, I can see the average being a bit higher... but I'd put most of them at level 3, at best. Lieutenant of the guard? 5. The captain? Probably 7. The general of the king's army? Probably 9-12, depending on the strength of the kingdom, but that's one guy out of the whole country. Most of the smaller villages would probably not have a 'general populace' containing people of above third level, so creating a percent leading up that high seems a bit of a stretch.
As for dealing with the power-crazed PCs, well, chances are the town guard is better funded (what with the taxes and such), and so can probably afford to better equip their men (assuming it isn't some backwater hamlet, which probably wouldn't have guards to begin with). If your PCs are thrashing guards on a regular or even semi-regular basis, they are probably the threat for which the king is seeking help with in the first place!
And for goblin/orc mobs, considering the violent nature of the tribes, I'd say they are more likely to take the warrior class than commoner (which seems to mean farmer), which would explain their fighting tendency. Would also explain why more of them are slightly higher level (3-5) than the peaceful townsfolk (who would still stand a chance of defending themselves).
In the same vein, I'd say making age relative to class level isn't necessarily a good idea, even for NPCs. Or at least, again, drastically scaling back the level to which they naturally grow. I doubt they would grow past level 3 without some serious investment of effort (at which point they'd likely be taking a level in a PC class).
Exceptions would still apply, of course. Perhaps one village has an exceptionally skilled healer (lvl 5-8 adept). And those in the major cities might have more experience in both self-defense and their skills.
As someone else stated upthread, a level 8-10 PC can wade through a crowd of level one commoners with ease. This is because these PCs have been training, and fighting, and often have access to powerful magic and weapons. They are powerful, and unusual, and the kingdom probably has their eye on them by that point. I don't think the answer is to make Average Joe suddenly able to reach that same level of power (even if it is in a commoner class) just through daily hard work.
While I respect you views Stalchild, I have to disagree. As people work, they learn.
Besides, as i stated above, if you don't approve of the Ageing levelling chart then use the percentage chart above. Since I've received no further comment on that chart then I plan on leaving it where it stands. I believe it can be argued either way.
My only real problem with this idea comes with the concept of power levels in relation to RL...
While I don't necessarily agree that age and level exactly correlate, I also don't agree with this. NPC classes exist to show advancement and keep "norms" viable participants in the action. I wholeheartedly agree with using a higher level scale. An average level somewhere in the 4-6 range makes a great deal of sense.
Interesting, but not for me. I like lots and lots of level 1-2 commoners and experts, and very few NPC wizards and clerics.