Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;781208Wasn't there a "Cloistered Cleric" class for AD&D in an early Dragon magazine? I think it made it into one of the Best of Dragon collections (volume 2, I think).

There was indeed. Dragon 68.

Level was based on int their case minimum INT and WIS. So a Cloistered Cleric with INT:10 and WIS:14 would be level 6. They used d4 for HP and could not turn undead. They could though cast spells from a limited selection.

Tieing the non-adventuring NPC level to their stats was a great idea and we adapted that to other NPCs.

Quote from: Bill;781248But I would just swap out the turn undead for something else.

Yeah, I'll probably replace it with some kind of divine smite. I've grown to loathe turning undead, as it simply means the PCs wrangle the turned monsters into some kind of dead end or pit, and then ready torches, spears, nets, etc. and kill them anyway. It's just a huge PITA to adjudicate.

Quote from: Will;781223If high hit point Nobles bother you, I suspect your issue is more about hit points generally. Since it makes not a heck more sense why a 10th level Fighter has 20x the hit points of a first level Blacksmith. Or whatever.

I mean, heck, you can have high level Commoners with lots more hit points than starting. It's... a conceit of the game.

I always figure it reflects the divine nature of a world in which guys can kill their way to become gods -- as you become more important, the world makes you more real and resistant to mundane problems.

I have issues with HPs but they are not relevant here

High HP = combat skill (or in the case of cart horses or giants actually being big enough to take more physical damage)
If you have no combat skills that means you have no additional HPs. So unless your noble is combat trained (or gigantically sized) he should have the same HPs as the barkeeper.

Increasing the reality of PCs is something I stick to in my Amber games

Its not complicated.

I disagree and think that isn't completely supported by the rules.

Quote from: Haffrung;780734The question is whether someone from outside that class - a kick-ass Bohemian warrior wandering into England after honing his skills in the Holy Land - could have turned the trick. I think not. You need a power-base to take a throne, not just elite personal skills.

Just to make my position more explicit: it seems to me to be entirely reasonable to build up a power-base as a foreigner over a couple of decades, if your effective setting is a couple of hundred years earlier than the Norman-rule-of-England period I keep drawing on for examples.

EDIT: had forgotten to finish the above thought.

Quote from: Bren;781051So by that method, the 63 year old King of a large, rich kingdom who has been sitting on his throne since he turned 18 is a Level 30 Fighter. :rolleyes: Yeah, that's not going to work for me even if the King caps out at Level 20.

After the shout-out from Apparition13, I need to continue my quest to argue that there is no such thing as a large, rich kingdom (in my worlds). It's a post-Renaissance idea that is absurdly anachronistic (for my desired aesthetic of play). More examples below.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;781093What gamers need is the common sense to say, "Yeah, I think he was a great gendarme when he was younger, but after ruling for forty years, he's equivalent to a 5th level fighter when fighting but 10th level for purposes of morale, should it ever come up in the campaign."

I'd have to run numbers to be sure I'm happy with it, but I wouldn't take away levels. Accepting for the sake of argument that somebody has sat on the throne for 40 years, there are aging rules that I'd hope to remember to apply here. A human around 60 has:
  -4 STR, -4 DEX, -4 CON, -2 CHA
That will be obviously off their physical peak without having to take away levels.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;781224Actually, I think 2E is the only edition where you've been able to build a cleric/priest variant without turn undead that doesn't entail creating a whole new class. I kind of regret they didn't go with the idea of making it a spell from the early playtest packets, a la 13th Age or Rolemaster's Repulsions spell list. But then, I also think the whole spells vs. Channel Divinity thing is an unnecessary complication.

4E: if you have the splatbooks, the cleric can choose between a classic Turn Undead, a desperation AOE heal (all nearby allies heal, the cleric is weakend), and Punish the Profane (skimming the power, it's a holy-attack-and-immobilize against one undead target and a minor-attack-and-repulse against other undead in an AOE). If you have Essentials, the cleric gets yet a fourth Turn-Undead-like option. If you have DMG2, they encourage you to reskin powers with a little thought, so the special-purpose attacks could with DM's permission become vs outsiders or elementals or ... rather than undead.

--------------

France after the Millenium:

Henri I: revolts with his brother & mother against his father, then gets in war with his brother. attacks William (before he's the Conqueror) twice, failing. Challenges the Holy Roman Emperor to single combat; HRE runs away in the night.

Philip I the Amorous (must be an ACKS Aristocrat who took Seduction as a free proficiency at an early level rather than one of the more combative leadership skills?): war for Flanders; lots of revolts by vassals; war with William the Conqueror.

Louis VI the Fat: fought the robber barons around Paris, tried to take Normandy from the English. hit by archery at least once during the siege of Castillon (during war against his vassal). intrigue or worse against his half-brother.

Louis VII: "better suited for life as a priest than as a monarch".  personally involved in the assault and burning of a town. Goes on crusade, ambushed, his bodyguard slaughtered, he climbs a crag and holds off the Turks with his sword...

Phillip II: Wars with Flanders, England (including the revolts of the sons against Henry II), goes on Crusade, gets dysentery during siege of Acre, invades Normandy while Richard is still away on Crusade, war with England for a dozen years, ... unhorsed in the middle of a charge by pikemen, saved by his armor...

Louis VIII the Lion: while fighting as prince in his father's wars earns his nickname for bravery.

Louis IX the Saint: goes on crusade twice, fights England, fights major nobles...

Phillip III the Bold: not bold in character, but superlative fighter and horseman. Dies of dysentery (most common fate of French kings in the period?) while invading Aragon.

During this period, the population of France is estimated at 7 million - 16 million; this makes it a Principality or small Kingdom in ACKS with an expected ruler level of 12-13. However, the division into feudal domains and the really unclear politics (obviously the King of the Franks had far more direct vassals than he had the charisma to support as henchmen, leading to low loyalty scores and a general inability to ask for favors without triggering extra penalties) might limit the income and drop the ruler level to 10 or 11.

Quote from: Naburimannu;781491After the shout-out from Apparition13, I need to continue my quest to argue that there is no such thing as a large, rich kingdom (in my worlds). It's a post-Renaissance idea that is absurdly anachronistic (for my desired aesthetic of play). More examples below.

You seriously want to argue about whether or not your world doesn't have a single large, rich kingdom?

I will note that the level 9-12 you keep coming up with is a far cry from the 20+ levels others seem to be advocating. Your description is closer to my OD&D DM experience for top level NPCs.

Wait, who has been advocating 20+ level leaders?

Quote from: Naburimannu;781491I'd have to run numbers to be sure I'm happy with it, but I wouldn't take away levels.

We're talking about a non-player character - there are no levels to take away, because there were never any levels earned.

It's the idea that D&D non-player characters must follow the same rules as player characters, right down to gaining experience, that I think is completely off here. Other than henchmen, that's never been the case in any campaign I've run; a non-player character gets the stats I think are appropriate to who they are without regard for how player characters are created or advanced in play.

Black Vulmea, people obviously vary wildly on that.

Some people prefer everything to be seen through the lens of the PCs, some people prefer a more simulation-like world where all characters are characters, but some happen to be OUR characters.

D&D editions have drifted back and forth on the topic. The only consensus, really, is a sort of in-between noncommittal approach where NPCs are fairly like PCs, but not completely.

Quote from: Will;781583Black Vulmea, people obviously vary wildly on that.

No shit, Sherlock.

Edited to add: Y'know, I made exactly the same point upthread about experiences and editions varying, and your response?

Quote from: Will;780185This conversation is disappearing up it's asshole.

Waiter, check please.

So now it's okay to recognize that D&D is both context specific as to edition and subjective with respect to playstyle? But not earlier in the thread?

Gawd, I'm so tired of dealing with mendacious fucking morons who can't carry on a conversation in good faith. Fuck this fucking bullshit.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;781588No shit, Sherlock.

Then maybe you should start posting as if it were true, dumbass.

Edit: Ah, I see, you are saying 'almost everyone is doing it wrong.' Got it.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;781577We're talking about a non-player character - there are no levels to take away, because there were never any levels earned.

It's the idea that D&D non-player characters must follow the same rules as player characters, right down to gaining experience, that I think is completely off here. Other than henchmen, that's never been the case in any campaign I've run; a non-player character gets the stats I think are appropriate to who they are without regard for how player characters are created or advanced in play.

The Cloistered Cleric article and likely others back that up to a certain degree for the idea that there are NPC who do not advanture, but have skills that may surpass the PCs. In the Cloistered example there was levels. but it was a DM guage of what they could or could not achieve based on the relevant stats.

But modules would mix in resident NPCs and figures with real classes and levels and probably here is where the confusion set in and propigated.

People saw PC style NPCs and ignored the rest. Possibly to the point that some tried to move for everyone having a class, the farmer was a 0-1st level fighter, etc.

I prefer the Cloistered Cleric approach of skilled NPCs having skill levels based on stat thresholds. Neet and simple.

Quote from: Will;781496Wait, who has been advocating 20+ level leaders?

Quote from: apparition13;780044Not if the King is 14th level. Which is why the King would be 14th, or 24th, level, if that's how the setting is designed.

Quote from: jibbajibba;781078I assume that you would be happy if the King who had rules for 30 years and had spent 10 hard years on the campaign trail smashing the Gnoll kingdom of Da Gran was a 30th level "ruler" /10th level figther

Quote from: jadrax;780987Well, looking at the World of Greyhawk Glossography Level 19 and a Demigod - whatever level a demigod might be. Since demigod was unique in the list maybe > level 19?>

This was posted, in response to you. You didn’t specifically agree with level 20, but you also didn’t call it out as too high a level to be considered or to be part of the discussion.

Quote from: tenbones;780962So I'm clear - so some old guy who's been sitting on a throne for 50-years, hasn't picked up anything sharper than his butter-knife and killed anything more than his flagon, might be a 20th level Fighter by dint of tax-collecting and negotiations?

Quote from: Will;780740In the real world, the fact that any leader could be knocked off or just die randomly means that other things are more important -- a symbol of rule, a warlord other guys gang up under because he gives them direction and the benefits of being in charge, and so on.

Vs. 3e/4e, where you have essentially Superman the king, and what the heck are you going to do about that? A revolution lead by Batman?

I don't know what level being Superman is equivalent to, but it sounds really high level to me. His power is as great as many mythological pagan gods, so I'd guess at least level 20.

With the exception of Naburimannu, most people (including you and me) haven't been at all clear what they mean by "high level." I haven't reviewed the entire thread. It is too fricking long for that, but based on just what is posted the answer is some people have - and some people maybe even includes you.

Iuz is a Multiclass Cleric 16/Assassin 16

That said, the vast majority of the list was rulers in their low to mid teens.

Quote from: jadrax;781683Iuz is a Multiclass Cleric 16/Assassin 16

That said, the vast majority of the list was rulers in their low to mid teens.

I don't know what the experience point total for C16/A16 is, so I left it out of the highest levels.

I didn't want to bother to calculate an average, but the list is there to click on and "lots of rulers in the teens" doesn't in my mind conflict with "the vast majority of the list was rulers in their low to mid teens."