Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Charles Phipps 08-27-05, 07:53 PM	With all these complaints about high level NPCs, I honestly wonder how many people would want to play in the "base" setting that was always forwarded by 2nd edition. Not Greyhawk, just taken as a whole... * All non-PCs or villains were 0-level largely * All the important wizards were alive in the distant past * Spellcasting priests and wizards charged outrageous sums of money for their services and the highest level was 6th for any of them * Everyone was terrified of monsters because they had 0 levels and they had hitdice. Just curious if this is the kind of setting that people want. What exact do you THINK should be the setting's level wise outside of the party anyway? Cause I *HATED* this setting.
DarkWarriorKarg 08-27-05, 08:13 PM	I'd never noticed that about 2nd ed... and that's a pretty pathetic and boring world. My average NPCs will be anywhere from 1st to 10th... I can hear the screams... Some straight NPC classes, some NPC/PC classes and others straight PC classes. My reasoning is thus: 1) Prestige classes... someone's got to have them (NPCs) in order for the PCs to discover them. 2) The PCs are not the only heroes. There ARE other adventurer groups out there. Not many and many not very successful, but they exist. And not all of them are good guys. 3) Retired heroes. 4) People who have reached their potential and "topped-out". 5) Opponents and foils. 6) Rivals. High level evil would-be would-conqueror's don't just *poof* in without a history. And there will by a few of higher levels. All of them with things to do. As for the common elitist view that all NPCs shouldn't be higher than "shmuck-level", a pox upon ye all.
Just another user 08-27-05, 08:27 PM	Personally I believe that 0 level characters make a lot more sense than 20 level commoner. That's why I like Eberron, because try to reintroduce some idea of the 2nd edition that I loved, like the 0 level character (i.e npcs are low level and stay low level) and the use of exotic components (dragonshards) in magic items creations (not simply "put gold here and XPs there and *voilą* the magic item is done")
Charles Phipps 08-27-05, 08:37 PM	I always took the idea of there being twenty levels to a commoner as being something of a formality in things. I did however, like many DM's I suspect, do my best to come up with a reason for one. 20th level commoners in my game have included... * An Avatar of Arawai (before I got Eberron, I made some mistakes) who manifested as the Earthmother. * A 900 year old peasant who had been cursed with immortality by his dragon master who kept him as a familiar. He went from village to village and lived amongst them as a member until his dragon woke every generation and he brought him the information he needed. * Spirits from the Plane of Order.
Beleriphon 08-27-05, 08:38 PM	Personally I believe that 0 level characters make a lot more sense than 20 level commoner. Thats why we have 1st level commoners, a 0 level character never made sense to me. Giving them a few levels in something that has no combat value adds a certain level expertise in the certain areas.
camble 08-27-05, 09:32 PM	I mostly assume that the general masses a pc does not interact with are simply low level commoners with the occasional expert thrown in for good measure. The only npc's that really need to be fleshed out beyond that are the ones that are going to be a part of your story.
Gurv 08-27-05, 09:57 PM	What Eberron does, more than anything, is create a plausible world that follows most of the rules as they are already presented. The 3.x ruleset gives demographics and sets prices for the services of various classes. Eberron follows them much more reasonable than most other settings. Peasants are not over-awed by simple illusions: the demographics indicate that many villages have low-level wizards. The prices given for spellcasting in the RAW are well within the means of moderately well-off people. Again, Eberron recognizes that fact and incorporates magic into the setting. Work gets done with unseen servants and floating disks when appropriate. To balance this, Eberron makes a point of reminding people that the NPC classes exist, and that 90% of the populace uses them. It isn't about creating a world where everyone is weak. It's about reseting the standard, and bringing everything back to where the rules already say they should be.
(Psi)SeveredHead 08-27-05, 10:26 PM	With all these complaints about high level NPCs, I honestly wonder how many people would want to play in the "base" setting that was always forwarded by 2nd edition. Not Greyhawk, just taken as a whole... * All non-PCs or villains were 0-level largely Ewww... I hated 0-level characters. I don't have a problem with a veteran of war being a 5th-level warrior, or something like that. There's a huge difference between a 5th-level character (even compared to 1st-level PCs) than, say, a 40th-level NPC compared to 12th-level PCs. Second edition had virtually no non-combat rules (even the NWP rules sucked). If someone couldn't fight, the rules didn't bother covering them. I like being able to create a 7th-level expert (blacksmith) NPC. I don't care if he doesn't kick arse in combat. * All the important wizards were alive in the distant past You do find this in a lot of settings, actually. In FR, who do you think made all those magic items? (This was before the FRCS tried to make sense of the magic item system by having the Red Wizards spread out like a magical Wal Mart.) * Spellcasting priests and wizards charged outrageous sums of money for their services and the highest level was 6th for any of them Good. ^^ (There would occasionally be accomplished higher level spellcasters - you need a source of villainous spellcasters, after all - but none of them would be epic.) * Everyone was terrified of monsters because they had 0 levels and they had hitdice. I would expect any village to have a few warriors, aristrocrats and maybe adepts of up to 5th-level to protect themselves from the monsters. I wouldn't expect powerful monsters to be common, as they are naturally hunted down and killed by other powerful creatures. Without the help of adventurers, these villages might often be suffering due to monster attacks, but most aren't going to actually fall. What exact do you THINK should be the setting's level wise outside of the party anyway? Cause I *HATED* this setting. I don't think that was a Greyhawk problem. It showed up in Spelljammer and even Alternity.
Charles Phipps 08-27-05, 10:29 PM	Weirdly, Profiencies have a place in my heart as arguably better than Skills. You learned them with time and effort under most house rules, independent of levels.
(Psi)SeveredHead 08-27-05, 10:43 PM	Weirdly, Profiencies have a place in my heart as arguably better than Skills. You learned them with time and effort under most house rules, independent of levels. At the risk of dragging this thread off-topic, that was one thing I hated about them. You didn't get enough NWPs, so don't bother spending another NWP slot to improve your best skill by +1. The years of experience you might have in, say, swordcrafting didn't mean a thing. 0 level NPCs couldn't get more than they started off with. (How many did they get? I'm sure it's written somewhere.) You couldn't have a good swordscrafter without giving him lots and lots of fighter levels. (IMO, an expert who is proficient with a sword should be able to craft that type of sword - even mastercraft - just fine.) And finally, if there was a mechanic for using a NWP that you weren't trained in, I never saw it. What happens if you want to use Diplomacy on someone but don't have the skill? You have a Charisma of 13. What do you roll? Charisma +\- x modifier is for people with the NWP, but for you - nobody knows.
Edymnion 08-27-05, 10:51 PM	3) Retired heroes.I think it was one of Sean K. Reynolds' articles I read it in, but he actually used this as a GREAT backstory for PCs, and it would also work very well here. Big burly fighter, more than a little famous in his day, who retired, stopped working out, drank his fame away on ale and women, etc. Basically, really let himself go. Then his money ran out, and he decided to take up adventuring again. But, he was VERY rusty, and mechanically, was a lvl 1 character again. As he adventures, it all comes back to him (he starts leveling up again), and perhaps even surpasses how good he used to be. It allowed for you to have a cool "coming out of retirement" character without needing high levels to do it. The same thing could apply to Eberron. Its been years since the War ended, perhaps the famous guys basically said "Okay, that was cool. Wanna hit the bar?". Now they're fat and out of shape, they forgot how to cast most of their spells and lost their spellbooks in the clutter of their homes, and have just been living off their reputation. To the point they are no longer capable of doing the things they used to "in the good old days".
Majorafire77 08-27-05, 11:09 PM	I think that instead of killing levels entirely, PC class levels should revert to NPC class levels during a time of retirement, and after coming out of retirement, NPC class levels should turn back to PC levels after a time. If the fighter Edymnion was explaining, for example was a level 5 fighter when he decided to retire, he'd be a level 1 fighter/level 4 commoner in my opinion. He would be a Fighter 1/Warrior 4 if he did some basic training with the City Watch, for example. Arcane casters would turn into Magewrights, Divine into Adepts, people who do really basic work to commoners, people doing more specialized work to experts, and nobles and people like that turning to aristocrats. This would all happen over time of course. I would also say that the only PC class levels that a character could exchange his NPC levels for (after a while of getting used to things) would be the ones that he/she originally had. That fighter won't be getting wizard levels until his next level up, his commoner levels can only revert back to fighter ones. People who start as NPC classes to begin with (like if Billy the Halfling Commoner 2 goes exploring) can turn their NPC levels into whatever kind of level they want (again, over time), but after that they follow the standard rules that regular characters with PC levels to begin with do. I'm not sure how skills and feats would work out, they'd probably need to revert to stuff too.
Charles Phipps 08-27-05, 11:18 PM	I think that instead of killing levels entirely, PC class levels should revert to NPC class levels during a time of retirement, and after coming out of retirement, NPC class levels should turn back to PC levels after a time. If the fighter Edymnion was explaining, for example was a level 5 fighter when he decided to retire, he'd be a level 1 fighter/level 4 commoner in my opinion. He would be a Fighter 1/Warrior 4 if he did some basic training with the City Watch, for example. Arcane casters would turn into Magewrights, Divine into Adepts, people who do really basic work to commoners, people doing more specialized work to experts, and nobles and people like that turning to aristocrats. This would all happen over time of course. I would also say that the only PC class levels that a character could exchange his NPC levels for (after a while of getting used to things) would be the ones that he/she originally had. That fighter won't be getting wizard levels until his next level up, his commoner levels can only revert back to fighter ones. People who start as NPC classes to begin with (like if Billy the Halfling Commoner 2 goes exploring) can turn their NPC levels into whatever kind of level they want (again, over time), but after that they follow the standard rules that regular characters with PC levels to begin with do. I'm not sure how skills and feats would work out, they'd probably need to revert to stuff too. While I'm all for people losing levels from disuse, I don't see how this would work honestly.
Majorafire77 08-27-05, 11:24 PM	While I'm all for people losing levels from disuse, I don't see how this would work honestly. They don't lose the levels. The levels simply get replaced by NPC class levels. Then, when they get back out on the scene, the NPC levels go back to the levels that they were before. The amount of time it takes would need to be determined by the DM, but it could work.
Charles Phipps 08-27-05, 11:32 PM	They don't lose the levels. The levels simply get replaced by NPC class levels. Then, when they get back out on the scene, the NPC levels go back to the levels that they were before. The amount of time it takes would need to be determined by the DM, but it could work. I know, They should. Forgetting and out of practice is justifiable, switching is less so.
Majorafire77 08-27-05, 11:38 PM	I know, They should. Forgetting and out of practice is justifiable, switching is less so. Meh. It doesn't completely screw over the character like deleting their class levels does.
Nived 08-27-05, 11:42 PM	Negative levels would make more sense and are at least established rules. On top of that you could easily use established conditions to account for his being 'out of shape'... Fatiuged would be about perfect methinks. Always try to figure out a way to use existing rules before you start creating a whole new 'level swapping' system.
Majorafire77 08-27-05, 11:45 PM	Negative levels would make more sense and are at least established rules. On top of that you could easily use established conditions to account for his being 'out of shape'... Fatiuged would be about perfect methinks. Always try to figure out a way to use existing rules before you start creating a whole new 'level swapping' system. Good point, but I think that some characters (like the leaders of Aundair other than Aurala) should be getting levels changed to aristocrat, showing a new environment and a lack of practice doing what their old classes are meant to do.
Charles Phipps 08-27-05, 11:47 PM	Good point. Another idea is that negative levels can be restored through 1 week or so of training for each level restored.
Majorafire77 08-27-05, 11:55 PM	Here's the problem with negative levels and level deletion (Edymnion's method): It does not reflect what the character does in his or her current position at all. A character's classes should reflect what a character does at that point in time. That's why a blackguard can switch paladin levels for blackguard levels right? If a paladin settles down and starts farming, he's not fighting evil, he's being a commoner.
Charles Phipps 08-28-05, 12:01 AM	Here's the problem with negative levels and level deletion (Edymnion's method): It does not reflect what the character does in his or her current position at all. A character's classes should reflect what a character does at that point in time. That's why a blackguard can switch paladin levels for blackguard levels right? If a paladin settles down and starts farming, he's not fighting evil, he's being a commoner. Then he should gain a level in commoner.
Majorafire77 08-28-05, 12:12 AM	No he shouldn't. You can only gain levels through experience right? Or are you suggesting an alternate way to give out experience? Plus, what if it was the will of the paladin's divine superior (just in normal D&D, not especially in Eberron) to help people in that certain community? That paladin gains a level in commoner and is :censored:ed. My system doesn't have them gain levels, only replaces them, so the paladin can start crusading again with no problems.
Charles Phipps 08-28-05, 12:15 AM	No he shouldn't. You can only gain levels through experience right? Or are you suggesting an alternate way to give out experience? Plus, what if it was the will of the paladin's divine superior (just in normal D&D, not especially in Eberron) to help people in that certain community? That paladin gains a level in commoner and is :censored:ed. My system doesn't have them gain levels, only replaces them, so the paladin can start crusading again with no problems. I don't get your point. If he's a paladin then he's likely to just gain levels as a paladin to put in diplomacy and so on...or perhaps "Profession: Farmer" You can't give without gaining. Also, commoners gain experience just like the rest of us. Mostly from storyboarding.
Vogel 08-28-05, 12:19 AM	Here's the problem with negative levels and level deletion (Edymnion's method): It does not reflect what the character does in his or her current position at all. A character's classes should reflect what a character does at that point in time. That's why a blackguard can switch paladin levels for blackguard levels right? If a paladin settles down and starts farming, he's not fighting evil, he's being a commoner. If a Paladin settles down and starts to farm....then he becomes a '0' level farmer, supposing that the Paladin is "human" and cannot duel class. Other wise the character becomes a '0' level farmer/'x' level Paladin. In the case a character has the option to duel class/muti-class, then if farming doesn't work out the character can again take up the sword against evil. :)
Majorafire77 08-28-05, 12:24 AM	I don't get your point. If he's a paladin then he's likely to just gain levels as a paladin to put in diplomacy and so on...or perhaps "Profession: Farmer" You can't give without gaining. Also, commoners gain experience just like the rest of us. Mostly from storyboarding. So PCs can get experience from growing food on a farm? Since when? Anyway, alternate example. Lord Darro ir' Lain. He's one of the head people of Aundair. After a long time of not fighting, he should be an aristocrat. It makes sense. He hasn't physically battled for a long time, but he's had lengthy discussions with Aurala and Adal. Problem is, he's not getting any experience. Darro doesn't deserve that BAB progression from the Knight Phantom PrC, he hasn't battled. He doesn't deserve that near-full casting, he hasn't been casting. He doesn't deserve to need to take cross-class skills in diplomacy, gather information, or other noble-like skills either. Switch his level. If a Paladin settles down and starts to farm....then he becomes a '0' level farmer, supposing that the Paladin is "human" and cannot duel class. Other wise the character becomes a '0' level farmer/'x' level Paladin. In the case a character has the option to duel class/muti-class, then if farming doesn't work out the character can again take up the sword against evil. You can't have 0 levels in commoner. You either have at least one, or you have none at all. I don't get screwed when I get experience because I have 0 levels in all but 1-3 classes.
Charles Phipps 08-28-05, 12:28 AM	So PCs can get experience from growing food on a farm? Since when? I would presume they'd get storytelling bonuses. You don't become a 4th level farmer by fighting the dark shadows sneaking in from Mordor.
Majorafire77 08-28-05, 12:33 AM	I would presume they'd get storytelling bonuses. You don't become a 4th level farmer by fighting the dark shadows sneaking in from Mordor. Storytelling bonuses? Broken (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=125). I use Action Points as rewards for good role-playing anyway. I dislike the idea of a party where the people are of different levels.
Charles Phipps 08-28-05, 12:34 AM	Storytelling bonuses? Broken (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=125). I use Action Points as rewards for good role-playing anyway. I dislike the idea of a party where the people are of different levels. Actually, that seems a better method of gaining EXP than slaying things even in the context of that comic. I give action points in addition to EXP Your system isn't bad Majorafire and I'm sure it works for you. It's just not my cup of tea
Majorafire77 08-28-05, 12:37 AM	Actually, that seems a better method of gaining EXP than slaying things even in the context of that comic. I give action points in addition to EXP Your system isn't bad Majorafire and I'm sure it works for you. It's just not my cup of tea Alright.
camble 08-28-05, 01:41 AM	I personal like story telling bonuses. In the games I run there is a pretty even distrabution of martial and social encounters. If the PC's are able to role play an encounter with a npc well enough that he is convinced to help them they can expect to get xp Or playing in character and giving up resources like gold simple to enrich the character background. Such as a pc orphan from a poor neighborhood that grew up on the streets going back when he is rich and famous to start a orphanage or hiring professional investigators to track down leads to his origins. It can take only a moment in actual time and enriches the game by allowing the characters to be connected to the game world beyond just a dungeon crawl. As a added bonus it can be used for adventure hooks. Like following up on the investigators leads. Everyone have fun
Just another user 08-28-05, 10:44 AM	Ewww... I hated 0-level characters. I don't have a problem with a veteran of war being a 5th-level warrior, or something like that. There's a huge difference between a 5th-level character (even compared to 1st-level PCs) than, say, a 40th-level NPC compared to 12th-level PCs. Second edition had virtually no non-combat rules (even the NWP rules sucked). If someone couldn't fight, the rules didn't bother covering them. I like being able to create a 7th-level expert (blacksmith) NPC. I don't care if he doesn't kick arse in combat. The problem is, he kick arses in combat, a 7th level expert is a better combatant(sp) than a 2nd or even 3rd level fighter, and while this could make a moderate amount of sense for a blacksmith, it make less sense for a tailor or a cook.
Brastan 08-28-05, 01:32 PM	A paladin who retires does not gain EXP since he is now an NPC. The DM(over deity with an axe to grind) gets to add or remove levels where ever he or she want's. If it needs levels in commoner it gets levels in commoner no EXP need. I hold very seriously to the "NPCs" don't gain EXP. Frankly I like the fact that NPCs have levels now. It means that my Players' low-level characters can't beat the crap out of an entire town just because they think they got ripped off at the blacksmith's shop. "Ha ha, look that that funny farmer. What does he think he's doing with that scythe? Oh Host no get him off me! Why does he have such a high BAB?" Back in 2nd Ed. the players knew their characters were so much better than regular city folk and usually ignored them or treated them like scum. It also gave rise the various T-***** and jokes of today. Don't let the 0-level NPC fool you into thinking 2nd Ed was the ideal low level play ground, far from it. Since NPCs were either no level or PC classed it just meet that there were more Fighters, Wizards, and Thieves running around. Even some NPC kids were level 5 or 6 Thieves. Since there were more PC classed NPCs you get the question, why should the Players do anything. Clearly there are other Fighters and Wizards around town let them fend off the orc ride. The only elements I miss from 2nd Ed. were purely non-gamemechanics based such as the NPC traits/characteristics table or the list of NPC occupations/professions.
Beleriphon 08-28-05, 01:47 PM	The problem is, he kick arses in combat, a 7th level expert is a better combatant(sp) than a 2nd or even 3rd level fighter, and while this could make a moderate amount of sense for a blacksmith, it make less sense for a tailor or a cook. It does though, since the expert human has 10 or 11 for stats across the board. He's completely average and he's spent his precious few feats on improving his skills. Since NPCs like that don't really get to role stats at 5th level our cook might have increase his intelligence. The fighter on the other hand probably starts with a much higher strength, and way more feats. With his chosen weapon a human fighter at level 2 can outstrip any single NPC class thats three or even four levels higher.
(Psi)SeveredHead 08-28-05, 11:41 PM	If you don't like a 7th-level expert, use a lower-level one. A 3rd-level expert with Int 14 and Skill Focus (Craft [x]) and mastercraft tools can have a skill modifier of +11, meaning he can make mastercraft equipment half the time. At 3rd-level! This is ignoring skill synergies or what have you.
Splendide 08-29-05, 12:50 AM	The problem is, he kick arses in combat, a 7th level expert is a better combatant(sp) than a 2nd or even 3rd level fighter, and while this could make a moderate amount of sense for a blacksmith, it make less sense for a tailor or a cook. Six in one blow!