Post/Author/DateTime	Post
pjackson 12-31-04, 09:06 AM	Sean K Reynolds wrote it's perfectly acceptable for a 20-year veteran soldier to still be 2nd level (article) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebug/20041227a) I disagree. If you use that description for a character then the players will expect him to be higher level than an average soldier. Keith Baker wriote the average soldier is a 2nd-level warrior (source) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20040712a) That is the level I like for an average soldier. It allows for young soldiers being less able than average. But a 20 year veteran should be at least 3rd level warrior, unless you (as DM) have some excuse prepared.
polt 12-31-04, 09:19 AM	Wll, the difference between a lvl 2 and lvl 3 warrior isn't that big. So if a veteran is lvl 2 or lvl 3 warrior, it's a very small deal :D
ESP 12-31-04, 09:44 AM	Wll, the difference between a lvl 2 and lvl 3 warrior isn't that big. So if a veteran is lvl 2 or lvl 3 warrior, it's a very small deal :D Well on the PC grand scheme of things I agree with you, but for an NPC class that doesn't get class features as they rise in levels I think that extra feat for 3rd level is probably a pretty big deal to them.
therazoreater 12-31-04, 10:00 AM	I don't see why a veteran could not achieve third level, but you could destinguish a veteran soldier of 2nd level by giving him a higher intelligence and more skill points than your average 2nd level warrior. Combine with a feat or two (if human) like toughness, great fortitude or endurance instead of weapon focus and power attack, and you have a skilled soldier with the experience to fight over a long campaign. It doesn't matter if your 2nd level veteran NPC is statistically tougher than any other soldier. It's the respect and reverance younger soldiers will pay to a 20 year veteran that makes them stand out.
Gurv 12-31-04, 10:37 AM	The point being made is that NPCs do not gain levels the same way as PCs. Someone who has been fighting in wars for 20 years should not automatically be considered to be high level because of it. The veteran might still be 2nd level, or might have 3 or 4 levels; the example was just that. A PC could gain 10 levels in the course of a year or two, and without being involved in daily battles or war encounters. An NPC does not have this potential, and that is what both writers were talking about.
Streamweaver 12-31-04, 10:51 AM	Sean K Reynolds wrote (article) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebug/20041227a) I disagree. If you use that description for a character then the players will expect him to be higher level than an average soldier. Keith Baker wriote (source) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20040712a) That is the level I like for an average soldier. It allows for young soldiers being less able than average. But a 20 year veteran should be at least 3rd level warrior, unless you (as DM) have some excuse prepared. Yes the 20 year vet quote was interesting but not really reflective of my game. I generally make a 20 year veteran a 5th level Warrior on average and if they did any serious fighting they may even get a level or two of fighter. Of course I'm also unlikely to make 20 year veterans (footsoldiers anyway) very common since I want to toll of the war to be evident, he's also likely to be missing a body part or two. The average soldier I have no problem with at 2nd level warrior.
Beleriphon 12-31-04, 01:20 PM	Yes the 20 year vet quote was interesting but not really reflective of my game. I generally make a 20 year veteran a 5th level Warrior on average and if they did any serious fighting they may even get a level or two of fighter. Of course I'm also unlikely to make 20 year veterans (footsoldiers anyway) very common since I want to toll of the war to be evident, he's also likely to be missing a body part or two. The average soldier I have no problem with at 2nd level warrior. I think the best example of this that I can think of is a modern career soldier. If they don't eventually become and officer most people that make a career in the military end up as some high ranking enlisted (in the US Marines a gunnery sergearent is common). In Eberron I could see a veteran of the Last War being 5th to 6th level without too much trouble, but at the same time in the last 5 to 10 years of their career they would spend less time fighting, more time training new troops, or actually planning battles. At that point they are far more valuable for their experience than for their ability to fight.
Streamweaver 12-31-04, 01:41 PM	As an ex soldier I don't think the analogy of level and enlisted/officer is very applicable, but really none of this is. Though this is an interesting exercise in reasoning I'm not sure much of it has practical application in a game. The truth is NPCs will be whatever the GM needs them to be at the time they pop up. The other thing to realize is there are really two things going on here that don't always mesh together well, the narrative and the rules. DnD isn't a system for modeling reality, it's an abstract system for running adventures. That is to say most everything in the rules only exists within the context of creating adventures and reality take a back seat, while the narrative serves he story and world a bit more. The two don't always have to match and the GM often fills that gap as best he can. In this way you end up with the Einstein Effect as I like to call it. Basically in DnD terms Einstein wouldn't just be a guy who knows everything there is to know about physics. He'd be a 20th level expert with max ranks in the knowledge and feats to augment it even further, but that wouldn't just leave him as an expert on the field it would also leave him about 50 hit points and a +10 base attack bonus. So not only would he be impressive mentally, but he'd lay the smack down on some serious Orcish butt as well. This of course is a bit silly but it goes to show the rules wont answer everything that needs to be addressed in the course of a game, and shows that sometimes we need to get our head out of the rules and just concentrate on the narrative. That basically means when the DM describes a hard bitten veteran lf the Last war for story purposes, he doesn't have to be an X level warrior, he doesn't really even need a level at all sometimes and when it comes to rules you don't need to worry about specifics just generally apply them so they don't completely violate common sense and ruin a suspension of disbelief. That is really what the rules are for, not as a strict way to define everything but as a general guide to provide balance, a general method of resolving conflicts and succeeding in actions, and method of keeping internal consistency so as to tell a cohesive story.
Edymnion 12-31-04, 01:58 PM	What is that old saying? "War is hour upon hour of mind numbing boredom, followed by 5 minutes of utter terror", or something like that? I would agree that a 20 year vet would likely be more than a lvl 2 (Heck, the head of each Watch patrol in Sharn is a 3rd level Fighter!), but a case can easily be made that, not only do NPCs not gain xp like PCs, but that they don't really have the experience to warrent it. Out of 20 years of service, just how much time would you think they actually spent in the middle of combat? And of that, how much of it was actual hand to hand, sword to sword fight to the death? Just firing a bow into a crowd wouldn't even net PCs experience in my book. Would get story rewards for surviving, but just blindly firing into a crowd isn't really teaching you any more than shooting with your eyes closed.
Docrailgun 12-31-04, 02:57 PM	I agree with you for the most part, but let's expand on your example. A 5-year veteran US Marine is not that much better a soldier than a newly-trained leatherneck. He's not much of a better shot, nor is he much tougher... but he has experience the green Marine doesn't. The same is true of a 10-year veteran Marine. He is probably a _worse_ shot that a newly-trained Marine (as he has other things to do than shoot at the range all day), and probably has slowed down a bit. On the other hand, he definitely has ecperience and guile on his side. I think this is what Keith is getting at: the average person (NPCs) isn't able to get much better than when he started, no matter how long he sticks at something. PCs, on the other hand, are superheroes. They have unlimited potential, where even the best NPC has trouble advancing far in their NPC class (let alone a PC class). Sure, some NPCs are brilliant or special, and gain a number of NPC levels. Those folks are few and far between, though. And even less gain PC-class levels... most of the ones that do in Eberron seem to mostly gain levels in the Dragonmark heir prestige class (a Dragonmarked character is special almost by definition, even an NPC). I can understand that the idea of an army's general only being a 2nd level warrior or a 5th level fighter, et cetera is a difficult thing to wrap one's brain around... I have the same trouble sometimes. I'm used to classic AD&D and such and thus I expect to see hordes of high-level NPCs. But, the lower levels make sense in Eberron. I think it's a great idea. I think the best example of this that I can think of is a modern career soldier. If they don't eventually become and officer most people that make a career in the military end up as some high ranking enlisted (in the US Marines a gunnery sergearent is common). In Eberron I could see a veteran of the Last War being 5th to 6th level without too much trouble, but at the same time in the last 5 to 10 years of their career they would spend less time fighting, more time training new troops, or actually planning battles. At that point they are far more valuable for their experience than for their ability to fight.
JBW 12-31-04, 03:37 PM	I prefer the model set up in the d20 Traveler game (T20), where the 'typical adult' rapidly rises to levels 3rd-5th then slows down considerably. Sure, your average 45-55 y/o human might be 7th-9th level, but that's also pushing into old age. PC can certainly exceed these age-based level limits and reach 10th-level (+) before even reaching middle age, but I still find it absurd to assume that the 'typical adults' of the world (any world) are rarely above level 2 or 3. Jay
Euangelion 12-31-04, 03:49 PM	Isn't that what's at the heart of the d20 XP system? A 20 year veteran who's only a 2nd level warrior is certainly possible if 1) the veteran only engages the enemy every so often, 2) the typical opponent is something like a goblin or kobold, 3) there's a heck of a lot of other warriors to share the XP with, 4) because they're only an NPC with the standard array, the warrior simply doesn't learn as much from each engagement as an elite NPC or a PC would. I'm in the middle of reading S:CoT, and it's a pretty dangerous place, so anyone who's involved in protection, law enforcement, or criminal activities is going to have far more encounters where their allies are fewer in number than in the army and against much more dangerous opponents than a typical grunt in the army would. Plenty of Roman legionaires spent 20 years in the army and never made the rank of centurion. For most soldiers in the Roman legions, once a grunt, always a grunt unless you're dead (and then you're just a dead grunt.)
JBW 12-31-04, 06:07 PM	A 20 year veteran who's only a 2nd level warrior is certainly possible if You forgot: 5) He spent his other earned levels on Commoner or Expert to reflect his non-combat experience that is still gained even of he only saw action "every-so-often". Sure, he might not be a great Warrior, but he doesn't necesarily learn less just because he's not in combat. This assumes that you're trying to simulate any level of realism. If not, then go with whatever you fancy. Jay
Euangelion 12-31-04, 06:53 PM	You forgot: 5) He spent his other earned levels on Commoner or Expert to reflect his non-combat experience that is still gained even of he only saw action "every-so-often". Sure, he might not be a great Warrior, but he doesn't necesarily learn less just because he's not in combat. This assumes that you're trying to simulate any level of realism. If not, then go with whatever you fancy. Jay If you are implying that one earns experience simply by being alive, I would disagree. Learning is as much an issue of attitude as anything else. That 2nd level warrior could have 4 ranks in Profession (cook), and no matter how many times he cooks a meal for the troops he never learns how to do it better. He's cooking the same slop the day he retires from the army as the day he started, just because he was either unable or unwilling to learn to do it better. Another way to put it is that armies historically haven't been to keen on wanting their grunts to do a lot of thinking and reflection.
Splendide 01-01-05, 01:46 AM	Thos familiar with the fourth Blackadder series would note that Edmund himself was a career soldier before being moved to the front - a veteran in fact. Men with rifles versus natives with spears for years and years...how many levels do you reckon he got out of that? Being described as a veteran soldier could simply mean that the guy has been around a long time and oozes military cynicism. When he's giving his advice on what to do, its not necessarily useful, its just what he, as an extremely cynical & dissatisfied soldier, would do. He might sound like he knows what he's talking about (he's a veteran!), but your PCs don't get to see his skill rolls, do they :D I know that I personally can give fairly believeable advice on a range of topics, but I don't know anything much about them. Int check every time. From `frontline' warriors that always lurked around the back and took down stragglers that broke through the lines, to quartermasters and signallers that have only seen minimal combat, there's plenty of room for low-level career soldiers.
Wolfwood2 01-01-05, 01:23 PM	Sure, he might not be a great Warrior, but he doesn't necesarily learn less just because he's not in combat. This assumes that you're trying to simulate any level of realism. If not, then go with whatever you fancy. Ah, here's one of the basic levels of disagreement. I would say that in Eberron, "experience points" are only for player characters. NPC's don't necessarily earn xp, and if they do, they don't necessarily get the same amount as player characters. An NPC 1st level warrior could start off fighting alongside starting PC's. He could participate in all the same adventures, fight all the same foes... and end up still being first level while all the player characters are 3rd level whatevers. Because PC's are "special". This becomes easier if you regard the whole concept of experience points as purely a metagame concept. That is, not supposed to really represent anything in the game world. More along the lines of, how quickly do we want the PC's to level?; how many magic items do we want the PC's to be able to make?
JBW 01-01-05, 01:34 PM	Ah, here's one of the basic levels of disagreement. I would say that in Eberron, "experience points" are only for player characters. NPC's don't necessarily earn xp, and if they do, they don't necessarily get the same amount as player characters. You're right - we disagree. The rules in the D&D game don't support the notion that only PCs utilize XP as described in the book. Any simple comments from any of the authors that go against the rules as written in the core rules are worthless to me. NPCs and PCs both gain XP. They both utilize XP in the same manner (level advancement, spell component, and magic item creation) since there are no rules that suggest otherwise. As far as wehter they gain the same amount, that depends upon if they are an independent NPC or a Cohort. Independent NPC allies and adversaries gain XP at the same rate as PCs would for any given activity. If PCs are gaining XP faster, it is only because they are doing more, not because they benefit more from doing the same thing. Jay
Wolfwood2 01-01-05, 01:51 PM	You're right - we disagree. The rules in the D&D game don't support the notion that only PCs utilize XP as described in the book. Any simple comments from any of the authors that go against the rules as written in the core rules are worthless to me. NPCs and PCs both gain XP. They both utilize XP in the same manner (level advancement, spell component, and magic item creation) since there are no rules that suggest otherwise. As far as wehter they gain the same amount, that depends upon if they are an independent NPC or a Cohort. Independent NPC allies and adversaries gain XP at the same rate as PCs would for any given activity. If PCs are gaining XP faster, it is only because they are doing more, not because they benefit more from doing the same thing. Yeah, I used to be of that mindset. It was a real pain, trying to figure out how various NPC's 'deserved' or didn't deserve their xp. Eberron was one of the things that inspired me to let go of that stulifying assumption from the core rules. If you're already treating PCs and NPCs separately with regards to Action Points, why not experience points? You say, the core rules support treating PCs and NPCs the same in regards to dealing with XP. I say, what is the benefit in doing so? Does it make the game more fun? Somehow increase 'realism', when the very concept of experience points isn't realistic to start with? Heck, look at the core rules themselves. As soon as treating NPCs the same became inconvenient, that is with cohorts and player complaints that they were 'sucking down our shares of xp', bam-zoom we got in 3.5 special experience point rules for cohorts. You think those are somehow justified in the game world? Try, just as a thought experiment, treating XP as a metagame measuring stick. And ask yourself if you're losing anything by doing so.
Hellcow 01-01-05, 02:02 PM	You're right - we disagree. The rules in the D&D game don't support the notion that only PCs utilize XP as described in the book. Any simple comments from any of the authors that go against the rules as written in the core rules are worthless to me. *Shrug* It's a fundamental difference in opinion. Frankly, I don't feel that it was something that we on the Eberron design team felt that we had to make new rules for; it's dealt with by the fact that we *haven't* made many high-level NPCs, and it's why we haven't made many high-level NPCs. I look at Lord of the Rings. The Rohirrim spend their lives hunting and fighting orcs. But just because a Rohirrim rider has killed as many orcs as Eomer or Aragorn, I wouldn't make him the equal of either of them. It is the concept that the game is a story, and that in a story there are heroes: people who rise above the limitations of everyday folk. Not every warrior can be an Aragorn, a Doc Savage, a d'Artagnan. Not every musician can be a Beethoven, or every scientist an Einstein. This is not a matter of "Darn it, if I only killed a few more goblins I could come up with a better theory of Relativity!" It's the case that this is a fantasy world and it contains people who are larger than life, who can break the limits of what an everyday person can do. So no, we didn't feel a need to spell it out in the rules, because when it comes down to it, there's no one rule that could encompass it. It's not the case that NO NPC can gain experience and rise in level; you have remarkable NPCs like Lhesh Haruuc, King Boranal, Banarak Titheron. So it's up to you as a DM. If you want a high level NPC, fine; that guy's exceptional. But the fundamental principle of Eberron is that the PCs are pulp heroes, that they quickly rise above the masses - and that this is not simply because the masses are lazy, but because the PCs are extraordinary. Another key issue here is expectation and escalation. My point is that in my view, a 3rd level warrior is a highly trained and gifted warrior. My squad of 3rd level warriors will do quite well against your squad of 1st level warriors. Yes, when they run up against the 6th-level fighter, they'll be in trouble: but that's the point. In my view, 1st-4rd is the bulk of the population; 5-8th are people of exceptional talent; 9th-12th are heroes and champions; and beyond 12th level, the bards sing songs of your exploits. The 14th level fighter should be renowned as one of the deadliest blades in Khorvaire. So being a 3rd-level warrior is nothing to be ashamed of; being a 6th-level fighter makes you a heroic adventurer, someone people will want to hire because of your unusual and remarkable talents. So sure, these are just simple comments from one of the authors that go against the rules as written. But they've been part of the design philosophy of Eberron from the begining, and frankly, we didn't see the need to write special rules to address them (although it's part of why I did present the altered demographics Dragonshard). If you don't like it, make higher level NPCs! But it's this philosophy that will be driving future Eberron sourcebooks, so that's the thought behind it. Just for the heck of it, here's a cross-posting related to this from ENWorld... I can understand the reasoning behind the elven cook reaching 17th level. But would this not result in the situation that the average elven commoner should be around 10th level? Well, first is the issue of whether you believe that every character in the world has unlimited potential -- which, as I've said, I don't. Could every classical composer rival Beethoven if he just tried hard enough? Second is the question of how devoted the elf in question is to his task. Does the elf farmer strive every day to improve his technique, to approach farming in new ways? If so, then yes, I'd say after a few centuries he should be pretty good at it. If he says "It's a field, I've got a hoe, what I did yesterday worked just fine, I'm going to do it again today" -- I'd be happy saying he sits at his current level. Most likely, the bulk of the low-level population are people who have reached a level where they can perform their daily work and are no longer trying to advance. In the case of this chef, I'm saying that a) she has an amazing innate talent; and b) she has spent centuries honing that talent and challenging herself.
ThanisKartaleon 01-01-05, 03:23 PM	I know that I personally can give fairly believeable advice on a range of topics, but I don't know anything much about them. Int check every time. Technically, a bluff check, so charisma based. This would be my knowledge check... :P
Streamweaver 01-01-05, 03:30 PM	Damn has nobody read my reply here?
Hellcow 01-01-05, 03:35 PM	Another thing that the RAW do not address is loss of skill through disuse. I'm a experienced fencer who hasn't touched a sword in five years. I'm confident I could beat a complete novice, but I have no doubt that my skills have atrophied. If I was a 3rd-level warrior in my prime (a fairly generous assumption), I'm at best 2nd-level now. D&D doesn't have rules for this. Once you're a 10th-level fighter, you're going to stay a 10th-level fighter forever (or at least until the succubi twins show up at your bachelor party). In my opinion, this is a good decision. D&D isn't about realism; it's about what makes a fun game. Docking XP because it's been a slow month would be very frustrating. And yet, there are a lot of good character concepts that can be based off of this. For example, I'd love to play a dwarf fighter who fought for Breland for thirty years before being discharged from the army for a crime he didn't commit, over forty years ago. In his heyday, he was a legend, but that was long ago and most of his human comrades are dead. Now the son of one of his old comrades (another PC) has tracked him down. She has proof that it was the Aurum who killed her father and framed my dwarf, and she wants vengeance. As an old veteran, I get to talk a lot of trash. I can reminisce with other soldiers. I can say "I remember when I held off a battaleon of Cyran warforged at Dalia Pass..." But the fact of the matter is that I'm old and my skills have been worn down. But, give me a few months and I'll be back in top form - one of hte finest axes in the land. The translation? I'm a first level fighter. But my PC class, elite stats, max hit points, and action points will make me the equal of a second level warrior. Ina few adventures, I'll be a 3rd-4th level fighter, a match for a mess o' 2nd-level warriors. In a few months, I'll be an 8th-level warrior, and have fully regained my skills of old. In time, I may surpass my former skills - "Never underestimate an old dwarf!" Saying "You can't play a low-level character and still be a veteran" destroys this and many other interesting ideas. There's dozens of reasons a veteran could have lost levels or never had them, if you are willing to look beyond the RAW. Perhaps a crippling injury took him out of commission - he's finally recovered, but he's not the man he once was. Perhaps the horrors he's seen have so scarred his psyche that it is difficult for him to raise a sword in battle. He has fought for years, yes - but that doesn't mean he's a match for the heroes. The crusty veteran has the knowledge the party needs to find the old Cyran fortress. He's seen more war than they can imagine, and he scoffs at their green naivete. But he's old and worn down, and even in his prime he was never a match for the young heroes - and that's why he needs their help.
Hellcow 01-01-05, 03:41 PM	Damn has nobody read my reply here? Certainly, and I agree with it. Although I'd make Einstein a commoner with the Education feat. Just because he's good at one thing doesn't mean that he needs to be an expert. That would reduce his hit points, BAB, saving throws, and overall skill points to more managable levels, while still allowing him to be truly exceptional with his Knowledge skills. That's the reason Maza Thadian in Sharn is an commoner instead of an expert (I think I gave full stats for her in the Ask Keith FAQ). She's an astonishing cook. But beyond that, she's picking up things as cross-class and such - so even though she's a 17th-level commoner, an 8th-level expert can be a more effective diplomat. I think that people often use Experts instead of Commoners because of the assumption that Commoners can't be experts in a field - whereas the fact of the matter is that with a Craft, Profession, or Knowledge skill (with Education) the commoner *can* be an expert - just an expert in ONE field. The Expert class makes you far more versatile, and gives you the better BAB and weapon proficiencies to boot.
ThanisKartaleon 01-01-05, 03:43 PM	Damn has nobody read my reply here? I read it, and didn't really have anything to reply about it. It's pretty much my stance on things of that nature. The players aren't going to know that they're talking to a 2nd lvl Warrior, because they won't see any stats, won't see the modifiers on her rolls, and unless they want a price on their heads, they won't test to see how many hit points she has. One of the most powerful things about D&D is the power of illusion. This is true in game and metagame. If the players believe it, there's no need to roll. That work for a reply?
JBW 01-01-05, 05:29 PM	I look at Lord of the Rings. The Rohirrim spend their lives hunting and fighting orcs. But just because a Rohirrim rider has killed as many orcs as Eomer or Aragorn, I wouldn't make him the equal of either of them. Yet you also have noted that the typical Valenar warrior is a Ranger 6. How difficult would it rally be to accept that the typical Rohirrim is a Fighter 3-5? How hard to accept that typical 'veteran' troops are Warrior 3-5? I would place the heroes of the LotR even higher, with no members of the Fellowship begining below level 5 or 6. This includes the hobbits, but most of their levels would be in Commoner while the other "more heroic' members would start with PC classes. As an aside, I hate the PC Classes/NPC classes division. I would prefer different terms since I find it equally likely for a PC to have NPC class levels as for an NPC to have a PC class depending upon the background of the particular character. Jay
Ricohard_Draconis 01-01-05, 05:34 PM	maybe you could retitle the PC classes 'Adventurer' classes. and the NPC classes could be 'worker' or 'civilian' classes.
Streamweaver 01-01-05, 05:38 PM	That's the reason Maza Thadian in Sharn is an commoner instead of an expert (I think I gave full stats for her in the Ask Keith FAQ). Thanks. I was just struck that I seemed to say pretty much the same thing but it didn't seem to register. Was thinking I was way off. Maza is actually one of my favorite NPCs in the book simply because he's a commoner and nothing more than really a baker. I don't know why I just thought that was cool.
Euangelion 01-01-05, 08:48 PM	Certainly, and I agree with it. Although I'd make Einstein a commoner with the Education feat. Just because he's good at one thing doesn't mean that he needs to be an expert. That would reduce his hit points, BAB, saving throws, and overall skill points to more managable levels, while still allowing him to be truly exceptional with his Knowledge skills. I'd even go a step further and give him the feat Skill Focus-Knowledge (Physics) as well with an Int score of 18. So even if he were only a 1st level commoner, his Knowledge (Physics) score would be 4(skill points)+4(Int bonus)+1(Education feat)+3(Skill Focus) for a skill rank of 12, which would put him the league of the most knowledgeable in the land, and that's just as a 1st level commoner. I think it's sometimes easy for lot of players and even GM's to forget that even one or two ranks in a knowledge skill represents a high degree of learning. Just another 7 levels of commoner, and the knowledge ranks could be improved another 8 points (including Int increases at 4th and 8th level) which would make a Knowledge (Physics) check of 40 a 1 in 20 proposition. If he takes Research as another feat at 3rd level the 20 becomes automatic with enough time in a library, and that's not even counting the bonus from the library! Not too shabby. So even a 1st level commoner isn't necessarily something to sneeze at, and a 3rd level commoner with access to the right library could be one of the greatest sources of knowledge on a subject in the land, just as you have pointed out.
Edymnion 01-01-05, 11:31 PM	There's also this artical that Sean did a while back. Its geared towards normal D&D, but it could still be useful to some: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/theoryaboutpeasants.html
Hellcow 01-02-05, 01:33 AM	Yet you also have noted that the typical Valenar warrior is a Ranger 6. Well, to look at the actual quote: The Valenar are peerless warriors; per capita, they have no equals in Eberron, and their low population is the greatest factor that holds them in check. This skill is represented by the use of PC classes and high character levels. Most veteran Valenar soldiers are rangers of 4th-6th level; with this level of skill, even a band of eight to twelve elves can pose a significant threat. So first off, I said "4th to 6th." Second, "they have no equals in Eberron" is a pretty relevant statement here. I'm saying that an army in which many of the soldiers are 6th level is one of the deadliest forces that can be found on Khorvaire. How hard to accept that typical 'veteran' troops are Warrior 3-5? Well, the point of the Valenar is that they have devoted their entire lives to the art of war, with an intensity most human soldiers just don't have. Their entire culture is geared around war. The median age for an elf fighter is 128 years, longer than a human can hope to live - and the elf spends every spare moment trying to find ways to hone his skill. The typical Brelish soldier is a conscript who hopes he won't have to see much action and prefers to spend his off hours drinking and dicing. "Veteran" doesn't necessarily equate to "dedicated to the task" - though it can, as noted below. With that in mind, I said "1st-4th for the bulk of the population": 1st for the people who scrape by without really applying themselves to their task; 2nd-3rd for competant, hard-working folk; 4th for truly dedicated people. I then said "5th-8th for people of exceptional talent" - and that's what it comes down to. I have no problem with a 6th-level veteran: but I feel that he is an exceptionally skilled and gifted individual. I am equally content with a 2nd-level veteran who has served the same time: he may not have applied himself to the task equally, he may be struggling with a mental block, or he may just not have the natural gifts of the 6th level character. I have no problem with a 3rd-5th level veteran; I have a problem with saying you can't be a veteran and not be 3rd-5th level. Pointing to Sharn, members of the Redcloak Battaleon are typically 9th level, a far cry from the 2nd level warriors I'm assigning to the bulk of the army. Captain Khandan is 16th level! But the point is that these are not just veterans, they are the best the army of Breland has to often: the most gifted, dedicated, and well-trained veterans, and a legend within the army. Khandan is "considered to be one of the deadliest men in the kingdom." So a veteran CAN be that good - but it's not a given.
motorfirebox 01-02-05, 01:36 AM	Yet you also have noted that the typical Valenar warrior is a Ranger 6. poor choice of example. the Valenar, with a population of only 70k, is noted as being one of the premier military forces on the continent. by comparison, no other Khorvarian nation in the book (edit: not counting the Mournlands) has a population of less than 250k, occasionally ranging into the low millions. if the average soldier in the armies of other nations were lvl 3-5, the Valenar would not be noted as being the war-changing force that they are; they'd just be slightly better, on an individual level, than other armies. and, in that case, they'd have likely been wiped out by now, since they wouldn't have had the military strength to back their claim to a piece of Khorvaire.
Hellcow 01-02-05, 01:42 AM	if the average soldier in the armies of other nations were lvl 3-5, the Valenar would not be noted as being the war-changing force that they are; they'd just be slightly better, on an individual level, than other armies. and, in that case, they'd have likely been wiped out by now, since they wouldn't have had the military strength to back their claim to a piece of Khorvaire. Precisely.
Streamweaver 01-02-05, 10:24 AM	poor choice of example. the Valenar, with a population of only 70k, is noted as being one of the premier military forces on the continent. by comparison, no other Khorvarian nation in the book (edit: not counting the Mournlands) has a population of less than 250k, occasionally ranging into the low millions. if the average soldier in the armies of other nations were lvl 3-5, the Valenar would not be noted as being the war-changing force that they are; they'd just be slightly better, on an individual level, than other armies. and, in that case, they'd have likely been wiped out by now, since they wouldn't have had the military strength to back their claim to a piece of Khorvaire. I disagree with both you and Keith on this point having to be true, I think it's a valid point but there are also other ways to see it that doesn't mean this has to be true. Other nations can be 3 to 5th level on average but Valenar can still stand far above them if those are warrior levels and you reason Valenar are much better supplied. An army of 4th level warriors with minimal equipment wouldn't be much of a match for an armor of 6th level rangers with appropriate feats for horseback combat and good equipment. That becomes true just based on level and item comparisons but there are a number of other factors as well that means the above quote need not be true. Cultural psychology is also something that would play a huge role. Normal soldiers may take some damage and mentally be done fighting for the day while a Valenar could easily be seen as fighting to disabled without batting an eye. I think it's also misleading to just compare populations of nations to talk about their relative power and effectiveness. History is full of stories about smaller populations terrorizing large swaths of the world. It is heavily depended on how the culture is set up. This is one of the reasons I'm really looking forward to hearing more on Valenar and how the culture works. Are they like the Spartans where pretty much all of the population are soldiers with work and support only being done by slaves? Is their economy and life mostly raid based like many Mongol tribes? There are all kinds of examples of relatively small populations being considered very strong military powers in the world so the number of people in Valenar does not obligate the rest of the world to have a particular level disbursement. EDIT ADDITION: I also want to add that this is just a though exercise for me. On very large scales like that I don't concentrate or declare average levels or even deal with nations and armies on a rules basis. I use the narrative basis I talked about earlier and in practice don't define what the whole world has to be. I talk more about general cultural psychology, supplies, and the effectiveness of military organization when I discuss how good an army is I don't really make the conversation about levels other to say Valenar are generally better fighters than the other armies. While these conversations are fun, I think you can lose the point of cultural contexts within the world if you spend too much time thinking about or justifying levels. I think there is also a danger of emphasizing ideas of levels on this scale to the players because it roots their thinking of the world in terms of the rules rather than in terms of the narrative.
JBW 01-02-05, 11:46 AM	poor choice of example. Actually it's the perfect example. If the Valenar are an average of 6th level Rangers, then they each have at least 15,000 XP. They are elite because they have spent all of it in a PC class. If the typical soldier of another nation is a Warrior 4, then they have 6,000 XP in an NPC class. This does not make the Valenar only slightly better - the Valenar have 250% the experience and have utilized it for superior training (PC class levels vs. NPC class levels). As was also pointed out, in D&D, higher experience goes hand-in-hand with superior equipment. As to the numbers, one Valenar Ranger 6 (CR 6) should be close to a match for three Warrior 4 (CR 6). This acounts for the population discrepency and for why the Valenar are considered a force to be reckoned with. In reality, the high mobility of the Valenar should act as a force multiplier assuring that they would be facing lesser concentrations of foes at any given time unless they allow themselves to be caught or their opponents are more capable than simple Warrior 4. However, we are only considering each side's standard troops. Sorry, but if Hellcow and friends want to just use hand waves and fluff talk to avoid a mechanics issue, that's "precisely" a "poor choice of example"... Jay
Streamweaver 01-02-05, 12:12 PM	Sorry, but if Hellcow and friends want to just use hand waves and fluff talk to avoid a mechanics issue, that's "precisely" a "poor choice of example"... Jay Sorry but your inability to recognize or appreciate there is more to a gameworld than rules doesn't amount to hand waving or fluff talk.
JBW 01-02-05, 12:29 PM	I certainly recognize that there is more, but I also recognize that the fluff must support the numbers, and that thte numbers should likewise compliment the fluff. Seperating the two unnecessarily - when a solution within the rules works just fine - and then dismissing the inconsistancy is simply a poor choice. Jay
Hellcow 01-02-05, 12:54 PM	Actually it's the perfect example. If the Valenar are an average of 6th level Rangers... You've said this twice now, Jay, when it's not true. They're an average of 4th to 6th level rangers. Which, if you follow typical D&D demographics, probably means that there are twice as many 4th as 6th. As was also pointed out, in D&D, higher experience goes hand-in-hand with superior equipment. And you really feel that you have to apply this in all situations? That a shopkeeper, city guard, or soldier will always have the full equipment assigned to NPCs? In my opinion, most soldiers will be equipped with the gear they have been issued - and if you've got an army of 5,000 2nd-level soldiers you're probably not throwing 2,000 gp of equipment at each of them. Looking to the Sharn sourcebook, James Wyatt - an on-staff WotC employee - made the stats for the royal guards presented on page 143. The captain has a total gear value of 545 GP - almost a fifth of the value listed on table 4-23 of the DMG. The base-level guard listed has 74 gp worth of equipment - 1/27th the value given in the DMG. This was approved by the head of WotC RPG and by the editors and playtesters who reviewed the book. Are they all just rule-breaking idiots? Now, it's possible that they are all just supposed to be carrying the extra gold as cash on hand, as suggested by the RAW - but if every guard has 1926 gp in his pocket, well, that puts an entirely different perspective on bribery... Sorry, but if Hellcow and friends want to just use hand waves and fluff talk to avoid a mechanics issue, that's "precisely" a "poor choice of example"... And here I was trying so hard to keep my hands at my sides. Since you do seem bound by the rules as written, JBW, I do have a few questions. Let's take the demographics table on page 139 of the DMG and generate a metropolis of 200,000 people. On average, we will have four 20th level commoners. If NPCs ONLY follow the experience rules for PCs, what is the story with these people? Did they really have to kill monsters, disable traps, and complete quests to get that 190,000 XP? Ditto for the 4 19th-level experts. Beyond that, let's look at the warrior breakdown: 4 17th-level, 8 8th-level, 16 4th-level, 32 2nd-level, and around 10,000 1st-level. So what's the deal there? Are there really only 60 people in this city with any military experience - heck, only 28 if you say that you have to be 4th-level to be significant? Who ARE those 10,000 1st-level warriors, if not the city militia and any soldiers stationed in this metropolis? And let's face it, you only need four CR 1 encounters to get the 1,200 XP you need to advance to second level (oooh, look, I'm using actual numbers...) - yet we still have 10,000 1st-level warriors. Whether they're guards, soldiers, or thugs, strangely they haven't put their skills to much use. And there are no rules stating "If the nation is at war, make the population 5% 1d4th level warriors." So in the world of perfect rules, where do you find enough 3-5th level soldiers to make up this highly skilled army? This was my point from the begining. The bulk of the population is 1st-level because regardless of what they do, they don't have the talent or drive to rise above it. Apparently I'm being fairly generous - and breaking the RAW - to suggest that the average experienced soldier is a SECOND level warrior, because the DMG doesn't include demographic rules supporting this. We also break this rule in the Sharn sourcebook, where we suggest that the royal guard is mostly composed of 2nd-level warriors but includes 100 3rd-level warriors, over three times what the standard demographics table would suggest. Curse WotC with their hand-waving and blatant ignorace of game mechanics!
motorfirebox 01-02-05, 01:32 PM	They are elite because they have spent all of it in a PC class. you're talking as if xp expenditure is the issue here; it's not. the issue is whether or not 200 Valenar rangers can take on 800 Breland warriors. if the rangers are 4-6, and the warriors are 3-5, the answer is not only "no", but "hell no". if the warriors are 1-2, the fight will be a bit more even.
Hellcow 01-02-05, 01:32 PM	Which, if you follow typical D&D demographics, probably means that there are twice as many 4th as 6th. Whoops, my bad: this isn't *typical* D&D demographics. It's following the example of Eberron demographics set in the Demographics Dragonshard. So in a band of 12 skilled Valenar, you'd see a breakdown along the lines of three 6th, three 5th, and six 4th-level rangers.
Wolfwood2 01-02-05, 02:21 PM	Whoops, my bad: this isn't *typical* D&D demographics. It's following the example of Eberron demographics set in the Demographics Dragonshard. So in a band of 12 skilled Valenar, you'd see a breakdown along the lines of three 6th, three 5th, and six 4th-level rangers. Which means that all of them who can meet the Wisdom requirement (12 for the 4th and 5th, 11 for the 6th) can cast Entangle, the single most devasting 1st level spell there is for fighting on a grassland. Say anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of them. They could encounter a force 5 times their size, Entangle 2/3 of them from long range, kill the remaining 3rd, and then begin to pick off the rest of them with archery. No _wonder_ these guys are so feared!
Edymnion 01-02-05, 04:01 PM	And here I was trying so hard to keep my hands at my sides.Ah, I've been looking for this side of the Bovine Blood Beast for months now. I think I like it :D
JBW 01-02-05, 07:27 PM	Since you do seem bound by the rules as written, JBW, I do have a few questions. Let's take the demographics table on page 139 of the DMG and generate a metropolis of 200,000 people. On average, we will have four 20th level commoners. If NPCs ONLY follow the experience rules for PCs, what is the story with these people? Did they really have to kill monsters, disable traps, and complete quests to get that 190,000 XP? Ditto for the 4 19th-level experts. I have just as much of a problem with high-end level distribution as I do with the low-end. I have contended that the 'average adult' should be in the 4th-6th range. Levels 1-3 are for very young and/or inexperienced characters and levels 7-9 are for highly experienced characters. Levels 10+ are for true exceptions, such as PCs (if they make it that far) and specific high-end NPCs. you're talking as if xp expenditure is the issue here; it's not. the issue is whether or not 200 Valenar rangers can take on 800 Breland warriors. if the rangers are 4-6, and the warriors are 3-5, the answer is not only "no", but "hell no". if the warriors are 1-2, the fight will be a bit more even. I still contend that 200 Ranger 6 - built with the elite array (that's another benefit of having PC classes) and appropriate equipment - will have a fair shot at overcoming 600 Warrior 4 with the standard array and appropriate equipment. Against 800 Warrior 2, the 200 Ranger 6 are looking at a cakewalk. Which means that all of them who can meet the Wisdom requirement (12 for the 4th and 5th, 11 for the 6th) can cast Entangle, the single most devasting 1st level spell there is for fighting on a grassland. Say anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of them. The rules for using PC classes grants the elite array as part of the CR. This means that virtually all of them could have the required Wisdom. And here I was trying so hard to keep my hands at my sides. Where you keep your hands is no concern of mine, especially when you're sitting in front of a monitor. Jay
Edymnion 01-02-05, 07:50 PM	I have contended that the 'average adult' should be in the 4th-6th range.And, as everyone essentially keeps saying, this isn't Faerun, not everybody is running around with a half dozen levels under their belt. The premise for the setting is that common people are lvl 1, maybe level 2. Its not something thats really up for discussion without turning Eberron into a Forgotten Realms clone where every corner shop has a 15th level wizard in it hawking vitamin pills. And really, show a bit more respect there man. Keith doesn't have to be here, he's essentially volunteering his time to the community because he wants to do it. He's not getting paid for this. And you know, ******* off the man that revitalized Dungeons and Dragons for almost everybody reading this isn't exactly the best way to win friends and influence people, if you catch my drift.
Hellcow 01-02-05, 07:59 PM	I have just as much of a problem with high-end level distribution as I do with the low-end. OK, so I think I've been misunderstanding your concern here. My belief was that you thought that Eberron was faulty because it didn't follow the rules as written. But what you're saying is that you disapprove of the rules as written - specifically the demographics section, which does not conform to your opinion of sensible spread. Is that correct? I have contended that the 'average adult' should be in the 4th-6th range. And with that in mind, your views make sense. As I said in an earlier post, it's all about expectation and escalation. If most people are 4th-6th level, I have to get to 8th or higher before I start to stand out. In Eberron, we want PCs to stand out very quickly, so that by the time you're 6th level you are a remarkable person. If that's not the goal of your campaign - if you want a broader spectrum of "normal" - the higher level NPCs make sense. In our case, we don't; the want most people to be low level so the people who stand out are heroes. It's not intended to be realistic: it's intended to be heroic fantasy. The rules in the D&D game don't support the notion that only PCs utilize XP as described in the book. Are you sure? I just opened up the DMG again. Look for experience awards, and you'll find: experience awards (for PCs) 36 Go to page 36, and you'll multiple references to PCs. "The PCs split the XP between themselves", "You don't give PCs more XP if...", "A party of five PCs defeats two CR 2 monsters...", "should the PCs accomplish their goals, that may get a story award." There's no need for this. They could say "characters" or "the party." They certainly didn't need to say "for PCs" in the index - and yet they did. The only mention of NPCs is how to calculate the CR of an NPC - and later, rules for giving XP to NPC cohorts, who have to be able to level so they don't become useless to their PC companions. On top of this, on page 105, they note followers don't earn experience points and thus don't gain levels. Perhaps I'm missing something - but to me this, along with the phrasing "experience awards (for PCs)" pretty clearly support the notion that only PCs utilize XP as described in the book. Where are the rules supporting the idea that most NPCs DO gain experience just as PCs do? If there's something that specifically says "Independent NPCs should be considered as PCs for these purposes," I've missed it.
Streamweaver 01-02-05, 08:02 PM	Well I definitly hope nobody is getting offended or upset. This is kind of turning into a fruitless argument though. The progression, or lack of, is a very common dead end. Someone swings and in presents a premise, people point out that the premise isn't valid, they reply with a "yes it is, and now you have to argue with me based on my (false) premise". People try occasionally to humor the person and talk about the premise but it's still a dead end argument. I go back to what I said before here, that JBW isn't being unreasonable if he wants to run his own world this way but any notion that every world has to be this way to be logical is plain silly. He is unable to realize particular elements of game worlds outside of rules, so much so that he can't even recognize the fact that he can't realize it.
JBW 01-02-05, 08:37 PM	But what you're saying is that you disapprove of the rules as written - specifically the demographics section, which does not conform to your opinion of sensible spread. Is that correct? Correct. I even proposed early in the thread that I prefer the Traveler (T20) system. Even withthe variable awards, you can use the minimum values for "truly unexceptional" individuals, and you'll be hard pressed to have a 25-35 y/o at less than level 3 or 4. The previously mentioned - by Edyminion - SKR article follows a similar line and suggests that 4th-level commoners are not uncommon. This utilizes the premise that NPCs also gain experience, a concept that I favor and one that can fit well into the rules. It's not intended to be realistic: it's intended to be heroic fantasy. I prefer a blend of the two and I don't see them as being exclusive to one another. He is unable to realize particular elements of game worlds outside of rules, so much so that he can't even recognize the fact that he can't realize it. Are you sure that we're talking about the same person? It sounds like you're describing yourself. Jay
JBW 01-02-05, 08:55 PM	And, as everyone essentially keeps saying, this isn't Faerun, not everybody is running around with a half dozen levels under their belt. Maybe, maybe not. The premise for the setting is that common people are lvl 1, maybe level 2. Its not something thats really up for discussion without turning Eberron into a Forgotten Realms clone where every corner shop has a 15th level wizard in it hawking vitamin pills. It can certainly be discussed, and simply sliding the scale does not make a "Forgotten Realms clone". Eberron has many fine elements that can stand up perfectly well with the level scale altered. Whether *you* like it or not with such a shift in perspective is not my concern. And really, show a bit more respect there man. I show everyone respect, but I don't really care who is on the other end of my replies. The only thing that matters to me is what thoughts these discussions might provoke within my mind. I am not here to "win friends and influence people' as you put it. Still, I have no overwhelming desire to offend anyone. Keith doesn't have to be here, he's essentially volunteering his time to the community because he wants to do it. He's not getting paid for this This pretty accurately describes everyone on these boards excepting the few WotC employees that are paid to be here. I don't play favorites the way so many others do. I am essentially volunteering my time, and I get few words of encouragement and little respect. If he can't take being treated as an equal, then too bad for him...and you. Jay
Ricohard_Draconis 01-02-05, 10:25 PM	This pretty accurately describes everyone on these boards excepting the few WotC employees that are paid to be here. I don't play favorites the way so many others do. I am essentially volunteering my time, and I get few words of encouragement and little respect. If he can't take being treated as an equal, then too bad for him...and you. yes but this is Keith's baby, so to speak. This is his creation we're dealing with when we deal with Eberron. He doesn't have to be here, he could be off writing lots of books to make him lots and lots of money with the brains he has Instead he chooses to give us this information for free in a public and open setting. This is amazing. I know of no other roleplay system or setting that is as supported as eberron is. When walking over eberron, we're free to do what we like with it, Rule Zero exists here too. however to retain the feel of Eberron we listen to the man who created it and thence has a certain weight behind his arguements whether we individually agree with them or not.
slainethehornedgod 01-02-05, 10:32 PM	Check out here (http://p222.ezboard.com/fokayyourturnfrm9.showMessageRange?topic ID=2895.topic&start=1&stop=20) for a post I made on it on Monte Cooks boards. I think that age is often not taken into account for NPC's. Things like the 'Einstein effect' come more into control once you start to consider what the actual physical stats of a 60+ year old human might be. A 20th level commoner, or expert, is alot less impressive with a STR, DEX and CON all below 8. And it is a valid question to ask about the people that populate the world around the characters. DM's shouldn't always depend on the 'whatever level I deem needed' out. PC's should have a certain expectation of the skills and attributes of the NPC's around them. Whethers its 1st level only or an average of 3rd (depending on what the DM decides) PC's should know what average individuals are capable of. Once this is established then the players will be able to answer questions like: Will a group of city watchmen be able to handle a renegade troll? Or would it be impossible without the help of the PCs? Will the PCs be able to sneak into a rich nobles mansion? Or will his guards likely have high ranks in spot/listen? Will the PCs be able to stop a fight at a bar? Or can the PCs dependably beat up the local toughs? One might say that there is no way a PC should know any of this. Well, how would a black belt answer these questions? Or a member of a military special forces? Or an ex-fencer who hasn't touched a foil in years? I think that characters should very much have a sense of their personal abilities and how they might compare with the norm of the sociaty around them.
motorfirebox 01-02-05, 10:42 PM	I still contend that 200 Ranger 6 - built with the elite array (that's another benefit of having PC classes) and appropriate equipment - will have a fair shot at overcoming 600 Warrior 4 with the standard array and appropriate equipment. Against 800 Warrior 2, the 200 Ranger 6 are looking at a cakewalk. that's, ah, dandy. however, i wasn't contending that 200x Rng6 could take on 600x War4, or 800x War2. i was contending that 200x Rng4-6 (mostly 4, as hellcow said several times--and as you have ignored at least as many times) would stand no chance against 800x War3-5. i'll admit, though, that i made up those troop numbers. let me sit down and calculate out actual troop numbers from the stats in the book. Valenar has a population of 70k. because they have a strong warrior tradition and the Last War only just recently concluded, and also because it will help prove my point, i'll give them the utterly insane and wholly unbelievable number of 25% of their population involved in military service (most nations can't comfortably support more than 1-2% of their population in active military service; north korea, for instance, starves its citizens in order to support a whopping 6.1%). that's 17,500 level 4-6 rangers. now, Breland, the nation i used as an example, has a population of 3,700,000. again, because the Last War just finished, i'll give them 3% of their population in active military service--pretty high, for peacetime, but this isn't peacetime. that gives Breland 111,000 warriors of either level 1-2, or level 3-5. that means that the Brelanders outnumber the Valenar by a factor of at least six, if you overinflate the Valenar numbers and deflate the Brelanders. and that's one country. granted that in the Last War, everybody was fighting everybody--even so, the Valenar still have a crapload of Brelanders to deal with, not counting the entire rest of the continent. if their warriors are all level 3-5, the Valenar (a) wouldn't have been a premier fighting force that nations paid lots and lots of money to hire; and (b) would have simply been crushed out of hand when they dared steal land from another nation.
slainethehornedgod 01-02-05, 10:43 PM	Hmmm. Not sure why the link above isn't working but its on Montes forums in DMs only.
Streamweaver 01-02-05, 11:02 PM	I'll let the previous Troll encounter die as it should and just pick back up where the real adventure seems to have picked up again. Check out here (http://p222.ezboard.com/fokayyourturnfrm9.showMessage?topicID=28 95.topic) for a post I made on it on Monte Cooks boards. Can't view the topic. Don't know if the link is wrong. I think that age is often not taken into account for NPC's. Things like the 'Einstein effect' come more into control once you start to consider what the actual physical stats of a 60+ year old human might be. A 20th level commoner, or expert, is alot less impressive with a STR, DEX and CON all below 8. This is a perfectly reasonable take on the situation. The Einstien example really isn't used to show it can't be done, but that the class and level system isn't a perfect model of reality. The system exists as a guide for player characters and an expert in a particular field can exist purly as a description. NPCs can even exist in only a partial rules form and still be valid in a game. It's perfectly valid for characters to interact with an sage NPC the DM hasn't defined past having a +20 in a particular skill without having the faintest idea what his base attack bonus or even class is. This concept that something cannot exist without being clearly defined as X or Y is the kind of silly that makes the baby Buddah giggle. And it is a valid question to ask about the people that populate the world around the characters. DM's shouldn't always depend on the 'whatever level I deem needed' out. PC's should have a certain expectation of the skills and attributes of the NPC's around them. Whethers its 1st level only or an average of 3rd (depending on what the DM decides) PC's should know what average individuals are capable of. Once this is established then the players will be able to answer questions like: Will a group of city watchmen be able to handle a renegade troll? Or would it be impossible without the help of the PCs? Will the PCs be able to sneak into a rich nobles mansion? Or will his guards likely have high ranks in spot/listen? Will the PCs be able to stop a fight at a bar? Or can the PCs dependably beat up the local toughs? One might say that there is no way a PC should know any of this. Well, how would a black belt answer these questions? Or a member of a military special forces? Or an ex-fencer who hasn't touched a foil in years? I think that characters should very much have a sense of their personal abilities and how they might compare with the norm of the sociaty around them. What these questions are basically getting at is saying "The players should have some idea where they fit into the world" which I think is something any good DM will help answer for the players during the course of the campaign. You can provide players with this idea and never have to say the whole world is X or Y level. Just as you can describe realtive weath without having to give an exact goldpiece value to the world, or describe the beauty of a work of art without having to say it's made by someone with at least a X skill in craft. The point is global averages are a matter of flavor and lose guides at best.
Hellcow 01-02-05, 11:03 PM	One might say that there is no way a PC should know any of this. Well, how would a black belt answer these questions? Or a member of a military special forces? Or an ex-fencer who hasn't touched a foil in years? I think that characters should very much have a sense of their personal abilities and how they might compare with the norm of the sociaty around them. I completely agree with knowing how you compare with the norm of society. Of course, the trick is that when I look at you, I don't know if you're typical, a tenth-degree black belt, a fencer, or a fencer who hasn't touched a foil in years. So sure, I should have a sense of how good I am in general... but that doesn't tell me how good I am against you. As a fencer, I can certainly get a sense of your abilities when I see you in action, but if we're just having a drink you might be a chump with a lot of bravado or a quiet guy who's a lot sharper than he looks. So I think it's important for a player to know if the average city guard is 1st or 5th level, and whether the average person is 1st or 5th level. But doesn't necessarily let me know if that crusty old veteran has spent the last 10 years in the jungle or behind a desk. (Now, I could see a good Spot check allowing you to get clues based on how you carrying yourself, care for your gear, etc - but that's another issue.) And to follow up on Richard's comment: These are discussion boards. Unless it's the Ask Keith Thread, I don't expect people to say "Keith has spoken, shut up!" You CAN do whatever you want in your own campaign, Eberron or not, and if you want to use T20 as your guide, go for it. My only goal is to explain the reasoning behind the decisions we made in Eberron - and that we will be using as we continue to develop Eberron in the future. We're not going to suddenly change the average person to 5th-level - though the revised demographics do mean that there are considerably more 3rd-5th level characters in Eberron than you'd find using the standard DMG demographics. I've always encouraged people to change Eberron however they want for their campaign, and that applies to this issue as to any other. However, I don't care to be told that I'm ignoring game mechanics or balance with "hand-waving and fluff talk" - when in fact I'm following a philosophy that I've thought about, that I feel suits the setting, and does not, in fact, violate the rules as written (again, if you disagree, please show me where it specifically says that NPCs should follow the same rules as PCs). If you don't like it, don't use it. Anyhow, with that said I think I've said all I have to say on this subject, so I'll see folks on the Ask Keith thread.
Streamweaver 01-02-05, 11:05 PM	On another note, am I the only one who finds it incredibly funny that this thread began with the "This has to be this way because reason dictates it" and ended up with "This has to be this way because the rules dicates it"?
Hellcow 01-02-05, 11:17 PM	Things like the 'Einstein effect' come more into control once you start to consider what the actual physical stats of a 60+ year old human might be. A 20th level commoner, or expert, is alot less impressive with a STR, DEX and CON all below 8. OK, a few more thoughts. ;) I just wanted to note that I completely agree with this, and this is another point about many of the existing high-level characters of Eberron. Lhesh Haruuc and King Boranel are high level, but they are getting old and not as impressive in battle. Jaela is on the other end - she's YOUNG, and while the PHB doesn't have stats for this, my assumption is that this is also a handicap; she hasn't grown into her full Strength. Maza Thadian, the 17th-level commoner, is extraordinarily fragile because of her age - that's fine if she sticks in the kitchen or the council room, but she's not going to do well in a fight. Valenar has a population of 70k. It's worse than you think, MFB, as only 43% of the population of Valenar is made up of elves; many of the former inhabitants of the region are still there. However, I'd say that most of the support tasks are performed by the non-elves, and the bulk of Tairnadal civilization is still based in Aerenal. So I think that your numbers are accurate - as you say, there's a limit to what a country can support - it's just that most of the supporters are non-elves, while more than 25% of the elves are soldiers. And NOW I'm done. ;)
GloryFox 01-02-05, 11:38 PM	Great reading. 2 points as I’ve been reading this thread and the Eberron campaign setting. Eberron Demographics as printed don’t fly. (LITTERALY) If 8% are adventuring classes. Approximately how many Arcane Spell casters are there in the city of Sharn? How many of those Arcane Spell casters can cast Fly? How many remaining Arcane Spell casters can cast Permanency? How do these numbers compare with your average 20 year veteran only being 2nd level? Is this 20 year veterans only 2nd level, only in regards to non spell casters, or do your 20 year Arcane Spell caster veterans still cast 1st level spells? The world still has to work. Sharn is full of sky coaches and Spell triggered feather falls. Who makes all these? Experts and Commoners, 20 year old 2nd level Arcane Spell casting veterans? Its high-level Artificers and Wizards who can presumably accomplish that task alone given the game physics. I think the demographics should be more rounded. The creators of any game world should not assume only certain classes advance while others wane. It would not be uncommon to encounter the 10th level Shoemaker or 8th level Wizard in such a fine city. But the scarcity of High-level demographics in this game world makes such encounters almost impossible. It also makes cities such as Sharn improbable. Also: Yes the players should be HERO’s but they should earn that title. A HERO is not determined by how many hit points or levels he has but his resourcefulness and ingenuity in any given situation. It seems to me the writers of Eberron think a HERO is someone more powerful, Power does not equal HERO, Power with no counterbalance power in any game world equals PC thugs.
motorfirebox 01-02-05, 11:42 PM	uh, gloryfox. lemme introduce you to the Magewright NPC class. ECS, page 256. edit: on second thought, color me stupid. magewrights don't get Fly. also, i canut spel.
GloryFox 01-02-05, 11:52 PM	Quite aware of that thank you. A 20 year Magewrite is 2nd Level according to Eberron Demographics. Only casting 1st level limited spells. 1 Fly is not on thier list. 1.5 Featherfall is not on thier list. (added) 2 Permancy is a 5th level spell available only to Magewrites of 16th Level. How many 16th Levels are in Sharn? How many of Magewrights? I think the world needs to work as described. 2nd Level Magewrghts do not make many pernamant Items or most Items described in Eberron.
Neofish 01-02-05, 11:53 PM	uh, gloryfox. lemme introduce you to the Magewright NPC class. ECS, page 256. edit: on second thought, color me stupid. magewrights don't get Fly. also, i canut spel. But they can learn it, also a single high level Artificer can craft a wand of fly and give it to them.... If a magewright has a wand, he can craft any of the items that have prerequisite of the fly spell....
Wolfwood2 01-03-05, 12:00 AM	I think the world needs to work as described. 2nd Level Magewrghts do not make many pernamant Items or most Items described in Eberron. Generally the answer to a question like that is that House Cannith has crafted a wonderous location that lets them pump out items in a way not normally possible under the crafting rules. Also, let's recall that a lot of the flying stuff in Sharn only works in that city's manifest zone. It may not have the same production requirements as regular permanent items of flight.
GloryFox 01-03-05, 12:01 AM	Magewrights can not learn spells from Arcane Spell books per page 256 under the section of spells.
Streamweaver 01-03-05, 12:04 AM	Deleted for duping.
Streamweaver 01-03-05, 12:05 AM	There are a few mitigating factors here to the fly concept. 1. Coaches and the like didn't just spring up out of the ground. The world is a junkyard of magic items that have built up over a thousand years. Without a sink for these items in the world like deterioration (magic items not decaying and all) the question isn't where do they come from, but more like why doesn't everyone own one. This isn't to suggest the argument should be the other way but to point out that these things build up over many centuries and basically don't go away. Eberron is one giant yard sale of magic items. 2. Eberron hasn't perpetually been at this power level. This is a temporary effect because the war became so devastating that it wiped out many of the higher level people. This is really a core concept I see in the setting, that the world has lost something to this war and the players come in at a time when it needs to be rebuild and has an opportunity for a new direction. 3. It is also apparent that magic item creation in Eberron is automated to some degree. That is to say the stereotype of individual mages sitting in towers producing things one by one over long periods of time does not apply. There are whole industries at work here that have a self supporting system in place. The fantasy equivalent of robotic factories. In this setting it's perfectly reasonable to say there are whole factories of mindless constructs aligning components under magical templates to make these things. 4. It's very obvious from glimpses of the world so far that there are methods that make it much easier for lower level characters to produce magic items if you have access to the right things. Artificers ability with UMD is a natural example, but there are very probably items that increase this ability. In fact a common theme in most of the societies presented in the setting are that they have access to things that allow them to go well beyond the individual who is on their own without additional resources. There are even more reasons but I'm getting tired of typing all this out. If people just can't break the mindset of Forgotten Realms they should just go play it rather than come here and complain that Eberron isn't FR. Other than that, if we limit the game to only what some people are able to grasp we would all be in trouble.
Hellcow 01-03-05, 12:27 AM	Eberron Demographics as printed don’t fly. (LITTERALY) Are you talking about the Demographics Dragonshard? Or just in general? Approximately how many Arcane Spell casters are there in the city of Sharn? Given the increased number of low-level characters, there are 5544 arcane spellcasters in Sharn, along with 1185 artificers. How many of those Arcane Spell casters can cast Fly? 99, plus 26 artificers who can cast flight through a spell-storing item. Another 382 who can cast levitate (along with another 111 artificers). Another 2999 who can cast feather fall, along with 444 artificers. And don't forget, the artificer gets +2 to his level for purposes of creating items, so it only takes a 3rd-level artificer to emulate flight for an item. How many remaining Arcane Spell casters can cast Permanency? Very few, I'll grant you that. But I'm not sure I see the relevance. Have we mentioned permancy a lot in Sharn? And don't forget that we're assuming that there HAVE been more powerful wizards in the past, who have fallen to war or time. Sharn wasn't built in a day, and the much of the magic involved has slowly grown. And finally, there is the principle of wondrous locations, such as the creation forges. House Cannith may have established a forgehold for creating soarsleds that allows artificers that are too low-level to work alone to create soarsleds working together. You're certainly free to view this as a cop-out; but the point is that this is a world in which low-level arcanists working together can accomplish things that might be performed by singular high-level wizards elsewhere. Magic is a part of civilization, not just a mystery in the hands of a few. How do these numbers compare with your average 20 year veteran only being 2nd level? Is this 20 year veterans only 2nd level, only in regards to non spell casters, or do your 20 year Arcane Spell caster veterans still cast 1st level spells? I don't see any difference between the warrior and the magewright in this situation. I believe that one magewright can study for 20 years and still be 1st level, while another can study for 10 and be 10th level. It's a matter of dedication and inherent ability, not time alone. The creators of any game world should not assume only certain classes advance while others wane. When did we? The Demographics Dragonshard doesn't support this. It would not be uncommon to encounter the 10th level Shoemaker or 8th level Wizard in such a fine city. Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinion and to make it so in your iteration of Sharn. In my Sharn, 8th level wizards are rare and respected. As for the 10th-level shoemaker, my opinion is that most shoemakers don't NEED to be 10th-level; a 2nd-level human shoemaker using the standard array can potentially have a Craft check of +9, easily enough to make a decent living. So why does he need to strive to improve his art? Maza Thadian is an example of someone who has, who has never stopped striving to study new styles, to improve her techniques, and she's spent hundreds of years doing it; she's Iron Chef Sharn. But the typical diner cook doesn't have this same dedication. He has learned what he needs to do his job, and with a +9 modifier, he does it very well. At level 10, he can have a +18 modifier, allowing him to make DC 30 checks without much difficulty. Assuming he's a commoner, he's also got a +5 BAB, +3 on all saves, and 25 hit points - enough to kick the ass of a few 2nd-level warriors, which seems odd if he's just a normal shoemaker. Contrary to "it's all about power", my point is that low-level characters are being underestimated here. If you look at what you need to accomplish everyday tasks, you don't NEED to be high-level to succeed. Which is why I'm saving the high levels for the people who are exceptional - and I see 10th as a high level.
GloryFox 01-03-05, 01:14 AM	WOW you actually calculated it! I'm impressed! Well there is no right or wrong reply in this case. We have a different opinion on GM styles. My view of the DMG is one of advice not law. Demographics work different in games according to your players. My players make short almost any encounter given a chance to think about it for a few minutes. Even if most NPC’s are stronger then the ones listed in Eberron. As for permanency it is more referred to than actually stated. Flying Cities, Force lifts and all. Eberron seems to me a world more magical than FR. Yet less backed up in its citizens or Armies. In one campaign we had we actually had over 500 written up 1st level Warriors attack the PC's (Who were 6th level and preparing for 7 days) and the PC's won overwhelmingly using good smart tactics and the combat rules as printed in the Players Handbook. I even had one side player who understood combat play the Warriors and he showed no mercy and good tactics in the fight. 1st level armies don’t last long at all. Battles such as that showed us that most campaign world armies needed to be filled with at least 3rd level Warriors to present some kind of threat both to the campaign environment (Monster Hordes) and to the PC's least they run amok. Also we have learned from over 25 years of D&D Low level Sheriffs get killed fast. As do most 1st level farmers from Trolls and simple Ogres. Also Farmers who have farmed in an area for 20 years are about 10th level from dealing with the world of monsters and brigands. But this is stated from campaign experience not from a campaign book. Over all I like Eberron and am preparing the Campaign for my veteran players. I will of course increase most NPC's in the game to provide my players with a challenge.
Hellcow 01-03-05, 01:23 AM	Well there is no right or wrong reply in this case. We have a different opinion on GM styles. My view of the DMG is one of advice not law. I agree on both counts. The rules are there to support the game, and as long as you are enjoying your game, it doesn't matter whether or not we see eye to eye. I agree with you about tactics. I've also found that low-level NPCs can prove a surprising threat if they are played with intelligence and cunning. A Phiarlan strike force that takes time to stalk and study, and chooses its ground carefully, can knock an arrogant high-level party down quite a few pegs. Level certainly isn't everything, for PC or NPC. Over all I like Eberron and am preparing the Campaign for my veteran players. I will of course increase most NPC's in the game to provide my players with a challenge. I'm glad to hear it. I hope you and your players enjoy the campaign!
Ricohard_Draconis 01-03-05, 07:41 AM	And to follow up on Richard's comment: These are discussion boards. Unless it's the Ask Keith Thread, I don't expect people to say "Keith has spoken, shut up!" I didn't mean to it come out like that, more that the arguements you put forward carry a little more weight since they come from the designer. I personally don't agree with some of the things you've said and won't use many of them in my campaign, but i do listen apologies to any who thought i sounded like the thought police. :P
ENHenry 01-03-05, 01:02 PM	As for permanency it is more referred to than actually stated. Flying Cities, Force lifts and all. Since permanency is no longer required to make magic items, there's really no issue to it. Permanency ONLY serves to make spell effects permanent, usually on a person. Even then, it's removeable by dispel magic. As keith notes, all it takes is a 3rd level artificer to make a flying item, and only a 1st level artificer to make a levitating one. Anyone have the requirements for a flying buttress handy?
Ricohard_Draconis 01-03-05, 01:08 PM	pre reqs can be found on page 170 of s:cot
GloryFox 01-03-05, 02:39 PM	Thank you I missed that page.
slainethehornedgod 01-03-05, 09:17 PM	Stupid link. Here's a post I made on another board which I think bare's directly on the issue at hand. 'I spend alot of time thinking about what all the NPC's are doing in my campaign world. I wonder how the average elf is only 1st level when they live so long? Why dwarves are so wimpy when giants are one of their ancestral enemies? The traditional staple of all NPC's being first level bothers me to no end so I have set about to create a system to give NPCs experience for their day to day lives. I start out by considering every year a NPC lives to be the equivalent to CR 1. I then state that NPCs only get experience for every year starting from adulthood and ending with old age. I figure that individuals don't really start to develop until adulthood and then either retire or are crippled by disease once they reach old age. This gives me the following chart. Years Lived Past Adulthood.....EXP......level 0..................0..........1 4................1200.......2 10..............3000........3 20..............6000........4 34..............10200.......5 50..............15000.......6 70..............21000.......7 97..............28101.......8 137............36101........9 Once a NPC reaches 9th level they no longer continue to gain XP just from living their daily lives. This chart provides two pieces of interesting data. First, if you consider that the majority of the population of a race is between adulthood and middle age then we can determine the average level. And second, by comparing the old age limit to this chart we can figure the average level of a elder of a particular race. The results based on the ages given in the PHB are below. Human...level 3 at 25...level 5 at 50 Dwarf....level 5 at 82...level 9 at 150 Elf.........level 4 at 142...level 9 at 251 Gnome...level 4 at 70...level 8 at 141 Half Elf...level 4 at 41...level 7 at 91 Half Orc...level 2 at 22...level 4 at 35 Halfling...level 3 at 35....level 6 at 72 I'm pretty happy with the results here. My PC's and I can now assume that the average human they meet is likely to be 3rd level in something (an NPC class of some sort) and that most older humans are 5th level. Likewise they can expect Elves and Dwarves to be significantly higher level. Which makes a lot of sense based on the average lifespan of these races. This system solves many issues that I have with the standard D&D world. Some threats that face the NPCs just require a higher level to believe that the local inhabitants can fend them off. Troll raids and gnoll ambushes can now be met with significant resistance. Giants wandering in the mountains now find 5th level warrior dwarves to be at least a minor threat.' Sure I know that a NPC doesn't really have to be fleshed out beyond a +20 to a skill but even then you, as a DM, are making some assumptions. To have a +20 in a skill a NPC has to be around 10th level which brings with it all kinds of other factors. A DM may not have to completely stat out a NPC but in order to have consistancy he should have at least an idea of level and possibly class.
pjackson 01-04-05, 11:33 AM	Wow. What a lot of discussion arising from my post. A lot of good points have been made, though few concerning what I intended to be my point. Though I do have opinions about the design decisions, I was not critising them in the original post. As a player if my DM described someone to me as a 20 year veteran then I would expect him to be more experienced then an average soldier, which translated to D&D becomes higher level than the average warrior - specified as 2nd level. Of course there could be exceptions, but if that was all the description available of the NPC I would be assuming he was 3rd or 4th level, perhaps asking him to do something I would not if I thought he was only 2nd level. If the typical 20 year veteran was the same level as the average soldier I would find that jarring (especially given that a major war had recently ended). Now to address some of the points made. Wolfwood2 wrote: Try, just as a thought experiment, treating XP as a metagame measuring stick. And ask yourself if you're losing anything by doing so. My answer is yes, though that is not to say that I don't think that can be a good way to play. However, special rules for PCs make it harder to roleplay a character who believes that NPCs are people too. Especially as it encourages other players to treat them badly. Hellcow wrote: But the fundamental principle of Eberron is that the PCs are pulp heroes, that they quickly rise above the masses - and that this is not simply because the masses are lazy, but because the PCs are extraordinary. That is how I like my D&D campaigns to be. In my view, 1st-4rd is the bulk of the population; As is that. 1st for the people who scrape by without really applying themselves to their task; 2nd-3rd for competant, hard-working folk; 4th for truly dedicated people. But that does not seem right. Even the most dedicated (such as the PCs) start at 1st level. Level is a measure of experience not dedication, though the latter will affect the speed at which level increases and in which classes, e.g. fighter requires more dedication than warrior. As I see it for a typical NPC 1st is for the young, 2nd for 20 somethings, 3rd for those in their thirties and 4th for most older folk. The dedicated progress faster and further. Streamweaver wrote: I think there is also a danger of emphasizing ideas of levels on this scale to the players because it roots their thinking of the world in terms of the rules rather than in terms of the narrative. There is that danger, but I think it is useful if the DM has a good idea of the typical levels of various types of people in the world, if you want to get the players to get their characters involved in it, rather than just use it as a backcloth for the stories. Later Streamweaver wrote: What these questions are basically getting at is saying "The players should have some idea where they fit into the world" which I think is something any good DM will help answer for the players during the course of the campaign. I have know otherwise good DMs who have not answered the question, but I like to have the answer available, as far as my character would know, throughout my PC's career. In the last campaign I played in I thought my character was a competant wizard with 7 levels in that class. We met an NPC described as an apprentice wizard. After a couple of session she cast a fourth level spell which I found disconcerting. Hellcow wrote: But doesn't necessarily let me know if that crusty old veteran has spent the last 10 years in the jungle or behind a desk. (Now, I could see a good Spot check allowing you to get clues based on how you carrying yourself, care for your gear, etc - but that's another issue.) If the only clue a player has as to the NPCs competance is the description "20 year veteran" and the PC's judgement of that competance becomes important then it should be true at face value - significantly more experienced than an average soldier = at least 3rd level. If it is not true then something like a Spot check (even if done in secret) would be needed. slainethehornedgod wrote: I start out by considering every year a NPC lives to be the equivalent to CR 1. I then state that NPCs only get experience for every year starting from adulthood and ending with old age. I adopted a somewhat similar system, but did not start out there. I started with the needs of the story. I wanted to be able to describe typical NPCs by at least 3 levels - inexperienced, average, above average, with exceptional ones beyond that. I wanted the PCs to spend some time as relative ordinary people, so they would note the contrast when society started treating them as exceptional. But I wanted that to come fairly early. So I settled for just the minimum of 3 levels for typical NPCs. First level is for a character just starting to look after himself. For humans this could be as young as 10 for a street orphan but could be 22 or older for someone who has been in full time education without having to earn a living. Lets say 16 for an example. I worked it out that a CR 1 encounter for surviving each year, with the experienced divided by level, gave the results I wanted. Something like: Age_______Level _16-20______1 _20-32______2 _32-62______3 _62-118_____4 118-198_____5 198-238_____6