Chobemaster wrote: thejeff wrote: Ragnarok Aeon wrote: Considering how many advocate that elves are slow and have a learning disability, should they really have that +2 to Intelligence? ;) Very few people claim that "elves are slow and have a learning disability". They claim that elves have an extended childhood which is an entirely different thing.
I also claim that elves, like humans, tend to plateau fairly early in their lives and do not go on gaining levels linearly with age.
Elves may top out slightly later than humans, or perhaps both go on learning much more slowly which allows elves to get a bit farther.
In the real world, extended childhoods are linked to greater intelligence, not less. Humans are immature for longer than (almost?) any other species. A wolf raising a human baby (a common mythological/fantasy trope) would think the human was hopeless. Can't walk at 6 months? Can't fend for itself after a year? After 5 years? That's mainly a function of the size of our heads relative to our mothers' pelvises, though. Which is not meaningfully different for Elves. What about for orcs? They have wide birthing hips don't they? I'm not even sure how that translates into orcs being naturally a bit dumber. Is it more like animals? They come out with almost completely developed (or completely developed) skulls, so their brains don't have time to become as complex as other species of humanoids? What about kobolds? They come out of eggs...
mdt wrote:
C) The assumption that all the villagers are level 1 and 2, and need 4 level 1's to save their village means that paying them even 100 gp to chase off to goblins would require that the village give up not a week of pay, but a month of pay. That's a HUGE hit to the village's economy.
That farming or other peasant/laborer activites are 4x more productive if the peasant is higher level is pretty goofy, IMO.
MendedWall12 wrote:
What about for orcs? They have wide birthing hips don't they? I'm not even sure how that translates into orcs being naturally a bit dumber. Is it more like animals? They come out with almost completely developed (or completely developed) skulls, so their brains don't have time to become as complex as other species of humanoids? What about kobolds? They come out of eggs...
I think you'd be wise to assume that Orcs have less gray matter, pound for pound, and their mothers ARE more robust. Orc society as normally presented can't tolerate a lengthy young childhood comparable to humans. I would be logical to presume they are more like many animals that are "ready to go" fairly soon after birth. Note, however, that it's mainly herbivores that have young who can run and carnivores w/ helpless young, so even Orcs shouldn't be "coming out swinging" as it were.
I don't know how much a reptile egg can grow after being laid, if at all. Obviously bird eggs can't meaningfully do so.
thejeff wrote: mdt wrote: My own take on it :
In my own world, I tend to taper off NPCs after level 10. Most people who are in their 30's and 40's (human/halfling/etc) tend to be in the 5 to 10 range. Exceptional people in the 11 to 15 range, and a small cadre of elites in the 16 to 20 range. Most people in the 16 to 20 range have heard of each other, at least in passing.
The problem with this is that starting adventurers are now fragile and incompetent compared to everyone they meet. Why are they off to save the village, when a couple of 7-8th level commoners could do a much better job despite the lack of specialized skills? I think those numbers may be a little on the high end, but an example year old barkeep in the GMG is shown as a Human expert 4/warrior 1. That makes a ton of sense to me. Are you telling me the big guy tending bar down at your local roadhouse doesn't have a few fights in his past to give him some experience? Maybe he did his four years of service to the Marines. I believe it is more common, rather than less common, for the average person to have had lives with experiences that help them get through tough situations.
But just because they can fight, doesn't mean they fight well or they perceive themselves as "war-like". That's for those who like to risk life and limb, that's for the young aggressive pups.
Chobemaster wrote: mdt wrote:
C) The assumption that all the villagers are level 1 and 2, and need 4 level 1's to save their village means that paying them even 100 gp to chase off to goblins would require that the village give up not a week of pay, but a month of pay. That's a HUGE hit to the village's economy.
That farming or other peasant/laborer activites are 4x more productive if the peasant is higher level is pretty goofy, IMO. Though it could easily be translated as periodic raises like any other employee has. Laborers that last with one company over extended periods will make more than new hirelings. The wage-raises themselves would have a correlation to level increases. This would also lend some credence to the idea of slower leveling based off of much less actual experience. It takes a long time to level up based off of how much grain you can reap. For farmers that own and work the land, it could be explained by learning better business practices, and smarter planting/harvesting through experience.
MendedWall12 wrote: Chobemaster wrote: mdt wrote:
C) The assumption that all the villagers are level 1 and 2, and need 4 level 1's to save their village means that paying them even 100 gp to chase off to goblins would require that the village give up not a week of pay, but a month of pay. That's a HUGE hit to the village's economy.
That farming or other peasant/laborer activites are 4x more productive if the peasant is higher level is pretty goofy, IMO. Though it could easily be translated as periodic raises like any other employee has. Laborers that last with one company over extended periods will make more than new hirelings. The wage-raises themselves would have a correlation to level increases. This would also lend some credence to the idea of slower leveling based off of much less actual experience. It takes a long time to level up based off of how much grain you can reap. For farmers that own and work the land, it could be explained by learning better business practices, and smarter planting/harvesting through experience. You can't "get raises" beyond the value of what you produce. Peasant farmers will know the conventional wisdom of how/when to plant by the time they are 10 years old. And even if they didn't, they can just copy what the old farmers do.
And of course, better or worse business practices don't exist in the game, margins are fixed. ;)
Chobemaster wrote: thejeff wrote: Ragnarok Aeon wrote: Considering how many advocate that elves are slow and have a learning disability, should they really have that +2 to Intelligence? ;) Very few people claim that "elves are slow and have a learning disability". They claim that elves have an extended childhood which is an entirely different thing.
In the real world, extended childhoods are linked to greater intelligence, not less. Humans are immature for longer than (almost?) any other species. A wolf raising a human baby (a common mythological/fantasy trope) would think the human was hopeless. Can't walk at 6 months? Can't fend for itself after a year? After 5 years? That's mainly a function of the size of our heads relative to our mothers' pelvises, though. Which is not meaningfully different for Elves. Not really. That might buy you another 6 months of development in the womb at most. You might get up to crawling at birth, if we didn't have pelvis/skull limitations.
It doesn't explain the 10+ years until you can even begin to fend for yourself: That's time to learn and to let the brain develop in response to the environment.
Many species close to our size reach their full growth in a fraction of the time, often with shorter gestation periods. Even carnivores, who as someone posted tend to have helpless babies, don't have them helpless for years. We need that time to fill our big brains with learned behavior, not instinct.
mdt wrote:
A) Why are they saving a village at level 1? Level 1 is not 'save the village'. Level 1 is 'go get rid of the rats in the sewer' or 'go chase off the goblins who are raiding our crops at night'. You work up to saving the village from the lizardmen or hobgoblins at level 5.
B) Why does anyone who's more powerful than the PCs hire them? Because they have better things to do. The barkeep, the mayor, and the town hunter might be able to go spend a week hunting down the goblins and killing them. In the meantime, they are not running the town, not running the inn, and not leading the hunts. Or, they spend a hundred gold to hire the PCs to go deal with it. A barkeep, at level 5, has a profession skill of 5 (Ranks) + 2 (Cha) + 3 (Class Skill) + 2 (Inn) = 10, with an average check of 20. That means he get's 10 gp a week profit. 40gp a month. It takes 10 people in the village donating 10 gp to pay for those adventurer's. If the village averages about level 4 or 5, then that's again about a weeks wages for most of them. Maybe 2.
C) The assumption that all the villagers are level 1 and 2, and need 4 level 1's to save their village means that paying them even 100 gp to chase off to goblins would require that the village give up not a week of pay, but a month of pay. That's a HUGE hit to the village's economy.
A) Because I'd rather play heroes from level 1, even if they're local small scale heroes, than spend six months of real-time playing errand boys and ratcatchers? That's work for the village boys, not adventurers. I've seen that kind of approach in video games but never in table top.
And unless those hobgoblins & lizardmen all have multiple class levels or come in huge numbers they're going to be ripped apart by the villagers - all 5th-10th level, some with warrior, adept or even PC class levels.
B) Having a handful of mid level NPCs around is fine. Important people in even a small town could well be around 5th level. Mayor, priest, sheriff, even the barkeep. Just not the average guy at 5 and others up from there.
You can come up with reasons, even good reasons, why the town's elite don't go off and deal with the threat. The most obvious being that they and the town guard don't want to leave the town unprotected while they're away. If practically anyone in town could handle the problem by themselves it's more like: "I'd deal with it myself boys, but I've got knitting to do."
And it breaks my sense of disbelief if the average yokel can take on a bear with a hunting knife
C) Yes, a huge hit to the town. Less if it's mostly financed by the higher level wealthier few. But if it's to deal with something that's a real threat not a nuisance that could be handled by someone's grandma, then it's worth it.
thejeff wrote:
Not really. That might buy you another 6 months of development in the womb at most. You might get up to crawling at birth, if we didn't have pelvis/skull limitations.
It doesn't explain the 10+ years until you can even begin to fend for yourself: That's time to learn and to let the brain develop in response to the environment.
Many species close to our size reach their full growth in a fraction of the time, often with shorter gestation periods. Even carnivores, who as someone posted tend to have helpless babies, don't have them helpless for years. We need that time to fill our big brains with learned behavior, not instinct.
For most of human history, 10 year olds have been much less helpless than our culture treats them today, but then we're just quibbling about where the line is, it's certainly a protracted period compared to other carnivores about our same size (that was me that pointed that out :)). And yes, it's learning, since that's our species' survival mechanism, we're slow, squishy and unarmed.
As it is for elves...so we're back to either they learn way slower because of a mental deficiency, which makes their race very vulnerable, to the point that they'd probably already be extinct in most gameworlds that presuppose an extensive historical period.
Or they don't have a temporary mental deficiency that is cured at level 1, but somehow also don't know any more than humans with much less learning time. Fluff-based mechanics to justify this are very restrictive on PC's...ALL elves CHOOSE to just learn slower, but they COULD learn faster,...but the PC is prevented from have chosen to learn faster in his background. Even if raised by humans. Which is pretty bogus IMO.
Which is why my 1st take on the issue remains my overall position. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." :)
Chobemaster wrote: thejeff wrote:
Not really. That might buy you another 6 months of development in the womb at most. You might get up to crawling at birth, if we didn't have pelvis/skull limitations.
It doesn't explain the 10+ years until you can even begin to fend for yourself: That's time to learn and to let the brain develop in response to the environment.
Many species close to our size reach their full growth in a fraction of the time, often with shorter gestation periods. Even carnivores, who as someone posted tend to have helpless babies, don't have them helpless for years. We need that time to fill our big brains with learned behavior, not instinct.
For most of human history, 10 year olds have been much less helpless than our culture treats them today, but then we're just quibbling about where the line is, it's certainly a protracted period compared to other carnivores about our same size (that was me that pointed that out :)). And yes, it's learning, since that's our species' survival mechanism, we're slow, squishy and unarmed. A 10 year old can survive in civilization, stealing, begging or working for adults, though he's likely to be preyed upon and abused by those adults, if they aren't family. A 10 year is not likely to survive alone in the wilderness for any length of time. Or a group of 10 year olds, since single humans don't do too well either, unless they've spent a long time learning. But I suppose that's quibbling, as you say.
My point remains that from our small samples, more intelligent creatures tend to mature slower than less intelligent ones. That could analogize over to elves with their +2 int bonus. You would expect them to mature slower, not faster, even if that's counter-intuitive.
Chobemaster wrote: As it is for elves...so we're back to either they learn way slower because of a mental deficiency, which makes their race very vulnerable, to the point that they'd probably already be extinct in most gameworlds that presuppose an extensive historical period.
Or they don't have a temporary mental deficiency that is cured at level 1, but somehow also don't know any more than humans with much less learning time. Fluff-based mechanics to justify this are very restrictive on PC's...ALL elves CHOOSE to just learn slower, but they COULD learn faster,...but the PC is prevented from have chosen to learn faster in his background. Even if raised by humans. Which is pretty bogus IMO.
They don't have a mental deficiency, temporary or otherwise. A 30 year old elf isn't a mentally deficient adult, he's a bright elven child. That's why he's doesn't know as much as a human. He's a kid. His brain isn't ready to have learned what an adult human has learned yet. It's still developing.
I still like my idea of a elf raised by humans. 4-5 generations of humans descended from friends of his parents. The first "parents" he knew died of old age before he was the equivalent of a teenager.
Chobemaster wrote: Which is why my 1st take on the issue remains my overall position. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." :) That's probably the best approach. It's fun to think about and analyze these things, but don't let them get too much in the way of your world design. My worlds have long-lived, slow growing elves because that's a fantasy trope I like.
They start their careers ~100+ years in because what's the point of playing a long-lived race if you're no older than any one else to start with and you won't play long enough for it to come into play.
most of the time a lvl 5 elf thats lived for 75 + years might not come into play anyway.
as I said rule 0: pcs are and can be the exception to this.
yah and I do have a decent thing to say here.
the pfsrd20 site says adulthood is at 110.
it does not say when one is considered a young adult or a teenager by elven standards.
nor does it say one cant go out an adventure sooner....
Steelfiredragon wrote: most of the time a lvl 5 elf thats lived for 75 + years might not come into play anyway.
as I said rule 0: pcs are and can be the exception to this.
yah and I do have a decent thing to say here.
the pfsrd20 site says adulthood is at 110.
it does not say when one is considered a young adult or a teenager by elven standards.
nor does it say one cant go out an adventure sooner....
pfsrd wrote: You can choose or randomly generate your character's age. If you choose it, it must be at least the minimum age for the character's race and class. Obviously Rule 0 applies, but it also applies to human characters < 16.
Yes, it is possible within the letter of the rules that all the long lived races actually mature at the same rate as humans but just aren't considered adults to the listed ages by their cultures. However, the most obvious reading of that table is that characters of the listed ages for each race reach the same approximate physical and mental maturity of a human 15 year old.
Yes, more intelligent creatures may have a longer childhood, but I'm under the impression that a 7 year child is quite often still more intelligent than a 7 year old dog. If anything that's not fit for survival, it has more to do with the lack of physical prowess than a mental inefficiency. Following that train of logic, an elf who spends a hundred years maturing should know much more than a fifteen year old human. That is not something that's reflected very well in game mechanics. Heck I'd be much more willing to believe that elves don't come out of maturity without mastering a single skill if the fluff is that they are lazy and spend all their time sleeping and relaxing; the fluff says they don't really sleep... I just find it difficult to swallow a race so inclined to learning (long life, more intelligent, don't have to sleep) can be content living in the woods not really accomplishing much, not really mastering anything, not really inventing things, just watching trees grow... That kind of lifestyle much better suits a wise race.
jupistar wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: MendedWall12 wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: Honestly, I think levels are a metagame construct and should not be dependent on age. :) They aren't, But people think they should be. I think it makes sense to see a correlation there. No causation, sure, but correlation. Age won't give you levels. If all you do for the entirety of your life is plow the soil, you're only going to improve yourself to a certain degree; your self-growth will be slow.
But with age comes the time, the events, and the opportunities to be more than you are. And everyone who doesn't lead a life of dull mediocrity will learn and grow. Anyone who wants more for themselves will be able to find growth opportunities with time.
So, we're talking about Elven children living for 100 years. In most fantasy worlds I've read about, elven communities are about old wisdom, self-enlightenment, and communing with nature -- sort of like sylvan monasteries. We assume their parents encourage their self-enlightenment as does their community and, presumably, they want it themselves. Otherwise, they're not interested in learning about the world, just frolicking in the treetops all day long for a century? Consider all the living a human does in 100 years... that's a lot of treetop frolicking. :) All quite sensible. The problem with elves and their earning of levels is how they are described in the fluff. For instance, as an actual fencer, I can tell you that "playful fencing" won't teach you sh*t. That is how the elven approach to swordplay is described, they do it sometimes as a past-time, and like playful matches, it is not serious, they don't like lots of serious bouts and duels, they prefer maligning their opponents, intrigue etc. To get good you need at times harsh training, a lot of application, matches, a consistent focus on fencing, till your parries are good, your attacks are good and you can adapt. If you don't focus a bit, people learn the basics, but they don't get much better, low confidence, shaky morale and technique.
This whimsical fancy approach is why I and a friend have argued long and hard against all elves being high level. Simply not enough dedicated time and investment described as being put into the many areas of the elf. Others have said they are fickle or short of attention span. :)
Ragnarok Aeon wrote: Yes, more intelligent creatures may have a longer childhood, but I'm under the impression that a 7 year child is quite often still more intelligent than a 7 year old dog. If anything that's not fit for survival, it has more to do with the lack of physical prowess than a mental inefficiency. Following that train of logic, an elf who spends a hundred years maturing should know much more than a fifteen year old human. That is not something that's reflected very well in game mechanics. Heck I'd be much more willing to believe that elves don't come out of maturity without mastering a single skill if the fluff is that they are lazy and spend all their time sleeping and relaxing; the fluff says they don't really sleep... I just find it difficult to swallow a race so inclined to learning (long life, more intelligent, don't have to sleep) can be content living in the woods not really accomplishing much, not really mastering anything, not really inventing things, just watching trees grow... That kind of lifestyle much better suits a wise race. "And these are the magical elves?!" As dm of the rings put it.
Chobemaster wrote: thejeff wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: How does a race who remain children for a hundred years survive compared to races that mature quicker? That is the question, isn't it?
Part of the answer may be that they don't. Elves are usually portrayed in fantasy as a race in decline, making way for the younger races. In Golarion, the height of elven civilization was before the rise of humanity. Yep, but their decline would be fast if it was driven by a near-complete inability to replenish losses. Which is a decent 3rd Age of Middle Earth feel, for those of us who have bothered to read the primary foundation for our avowed hobby ;)...the Elves get involved in the wars of men at GREAT cost, not just personal cost, but essentially sealing the fate of their race in Middle Earth.
Since they are ultimately just on vacation in Middle Earth anyway, that's not as sad as it seems. Drow dont seem to folow the same reproductive patern that other elves do. it doesnt really say this in any "rule" book that i could find but i think the way drow/elves breed is more social behavior than it is biology. Drow, are always killing each other off. That creates a social need AND a biological need to keep the species going. Elves on the surface live relatively peacefuly so ther is no social need for faster breeding.
Its kind of like the baby boomer scenario after WW2. After events that reduce populous birth rates increas. This likely happens to elves as well.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ok here is my 2 cents.
instead of looking at humans as the standard lets look at elves as the standard. lets also say that elves might have more stages to their life than our species. were we have infancy, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, maybe elves have multiple "mini" steps along the way. Maybe they mature to adolescence at the normal rate but then between adolescence and phisical adult hood theres a middle step in which their maturity finishes developing. So an elf coould be physicaly mature at 20, but then have the mind set of a 15 yr old for a few more years. then factor in the social age of maturity difference. elves are probably as adult aas they will ever be at like 20 but have the same restlessness as human young adults do. So to an elf that person is still a kid, restless, young, brash.
on the other hand humans only live to be like 100 (optomisticly). So in humans the young restlessness suits their social and biological structures. they are an adult at 20 because they dont have the luxury of babying people till their 100 cuz they dont live that long and things need to get done.
now to cover the learning curve. once again lets use elves as the standard. The learn "slower" because they CAN...they have forever to learn things, there is no hurry. humans are born with and live with a constant sense of urgency knowing they only have 80ish years to acomplish anything. Realisticly only 50 healthy years. So their need to advance faster makes them restless and strive harder than the longer lived races.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
