I've actually got a bunch of players who didn't kill their parents off in their backstory. Not only they, they made them relevant to the narrative.
So I need to stat them up. But I'm having trouble getting the balance of age/level right.
I've got two warriors, a cleric, and either a ranger or warrior (not sure which way I'll interpret the last).
All are supposed to be middle age which for them is late twenties, early thirties since they hit adulthood at 12. There's all supposed to be notably accomplished at what they do, especially the latter two.
Does anyone have any advice or resources that could help me?
Why not let the players do it? They invented those NPCs after all, plus they're relevant to their PCs.
I'm a little confused. How are they hitting adulthood at 12, and why is 25 middle age? Are we talking social age here, or biological?
Doug M.
Might be non-humans?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, why do they need stats? Can't you just keep their contributions non-mechanical?
And yeah, there's no correlation between level and age.
Why not let the players do it? They invented those NPCs after all, plus they're relevant to their PCs.
I might end up doing that, but if I do, I'd need to give them guidelines to work within.
Might be non-humans?I'm a little confused. How are they hitting adulthood at 12, and why is 25 middle age? Are we talking social age here, or biological?
Doug M.
Exactly.
Also, why do they need stats? Can't you just keep their contributions non-mechanical?
And yeah, there's no correlation between level and age.
I could keep the contributions mechanical, but in this particular case they're likely to appear as allies and/or resources with mechanical effects.
And I guess I will use level as a general effectiveness meter, I was just trying to figure out how many levels seemed appropriate for a successful adult NPC. I think it's going to have to be one of the nods towards the system where they end up being lower than one might imagine.
Maybe go the other way around: Think of the best contribution or aid you want them to be able to give and build their stats according to that power level.
For example, you want your PCs to be able to get moderately healed by the cleric but not more often then once or twice a day. So stat your cleric up so that he is just able to cast cure moderate wounds twice a day.
Don't bother with stats, or simply make a character sheet for a generic low level commoner.
Maybe go the other way around: Think of the best contribution or aid you want them to be able to give and build their stats according to that power level.
For example, you want your PCs to be able to get moderately healed by the cleric but not more often then once or twice a day. So stat your cleric up so that he is just able to cast cure moderate wounds twice a day.
I believe this is the way I'm going to go. I tend to look for simulationist answers first, but this is probably the best way to make the game run well.
Don't bother with stats, or simply make a character sheet for a generic low level commoner.
That seems no fun, but it brings up a point. How high a level would be covered by "notably accomplished"? For most games, how high a level do NPC's usually get? A level 6 fighter could slaughter any level 1 commoner they meet, so that could qualify for most communities as 'skilled.' I mean, the number of enemies one would have to kill would make even that level prohibitive for most of the population. I assume you could have them gain levels in other ways such as general training, but it would still be a bit much.
So depending on your players' levels and the campaign, you might just want to put them at the lower end of 'mid level,' assuming the PCs are low level. Enough skill to fix problems if you realize you didn't balance correctly, low enough to keep players from asking "Why aren't they being sent instead if they are so good?" It also gives your players something to aim for RP wise since it would be relatively simple to surpass their parents, which would make a nice accomplishment.