When it comes to D&D, I've always been an advocate of letting the rules dictate the setting rather than the other way around. One thing that really irritates me is the endless stream of people who do things like house-ruling out Raise Dead spells for the sake of the "realism" of their world. They want to play D&D - a game of high magic - in a setting indistinguishable from the dirt-filled and disease ridden world they imagine to be a "realistic" view of the Medieval period. Or they do it because they want death to be "meaningful".
Screw that. If you want to play dirt farmers and pigstickers then go play WHFRP, and if you want death to be all angsty then go play Vampire.
This is D&D.
So the setting should reflect game's elements, rather than the game being twisted and shoehorned into some setting that means you've got to handwave away most of the magic and bizarre stuff in order to keep a sense of "verisimilitude".
With that in mind, I've been going through the 5e PHB looking at the magic chapter to see what it actually tells us about the world...
Healing
The average peasant probably has ample access to healing magic. Even a first level clerical acolyte at the local temple or the local druid's apprentice can cast Cure Wounds; not to mention any bards that pass through regularly or live in the area. There are so many classes that can heal at first level that you can pretty much expect any non-life-threatening injury to be magically healed.
Similarly, poison and disease can now both be cured by a mere second level spell (Lesser Restoration) that is available to all three of the types of people mentioned above, so I would imagine that they would be easily available too.
None of the above spells have any kind of material component cost, so I wouldn't expect these sorts of things to follow the suggested cost of 10-50gp per casting. That might be the cost to go up to a total stranger and ask them to prepare and cast a random spell on your behalf, but I'd expect the local priests (less so druids and bards) to dish out healings for free.
Partly because it's in their interest to keep the locals happy with their religion; and also because that's the sort of thing that tithes are for. Then again I'm a Euro-socialist so I see free healthcare as fundamental right that good-aligned churches would provide.
Of course, severe injuries like people losing a leg in a ploughing accident might require a Regeneration spell, which is going to need a 13th level caster. That's the sort of thing that will require a short pilgrimage to the high temple or druidic enclave rather than something that can usually be done locally. Those who can't make the journey would have to wait for a high level priest or druid (or bard - bards are second only to clerics in terms of being able to heal) to visit the village. I would imagine that many religions would have one or two who travel the land healing people (as well as overseeing their local subordinates of course); so people are likely to be able to be healed even if it means it takes a year or two to be able to arrange it. As above, the spell has no cost to the cleric, druid or bard although in this case I'd expect some kind of "pay what you can afford to" donation to be expected. I see no reason why a cleric would refuse to heal someone because they can't afford the high price the cleric is demanding - not in any civilised society anyway.
Death
When it comes to actual deaths, things are a bit more complex.
Since stopping someone from dying is so easy (a simple curing spell or even a cantrip in the case of clerics) I'd expect dangerous events like childbirths to be attended by someone who can cast those spells in case of emergency.
When someone does die and there's no-one around to stop it (for example in an accident or in a feud) we're looking at finding a 9th level cleric to cast a Raise Dead. Ninth level clerics don't grow on trees, so while there may be one in charge of the local temple it's by no means guaranteed; so some travel may be involved. Unlike the lesser healing spells this one costs money - and a lot of it. It takes 500gp to cast the spell, and I can't imagine the various churches simply eating the cost for every prematurely dead person in their areas. However, they might subsidise the spell for the truly needy, or people might put some money aside each month as a form of "insurance". Maybe the churches themselves take this money on top of regular tithings.
Of course, this only works if the dead person is still whole (so if someone dies out in the woods and gets half eaten by wolves before the body is found it's too late) and if they are got to the priest within 10 days. Given the limited spell slots in 5e, the priest might already be "fully booked" for Raise Dead spells for the next few days so there might be some hard decisions to make in terms of who is more deserving.
A 9th level travelling bard that passes through could also cast a Raise Dead, but they're much more likely to demand the 500gp up front and the odds of one happening to pass through within the 10 day limit are quite low.
If you don't have the whole body, you might be able to get a Reincarnate from a 9th level druid, although the time limit is the same and the cost is twice as much at 1,000gp a shot. The fact that people are less likely to be tithing to druids and are therefore going to have to pay the full price; combined with the fact that the deceased will almost certainly come back as a different race; makes this a much less attractive proposition for the average commoner.
For those who can afford it, of course, a 13th level cleric or bard can do a Resurrection on your lost loved one. The big downside to this is that it costs twice as much as a Raise Dead (1,000gp) but on the plus side the time limit is a century and you only need a body part. 13th level clerics are harder to find than 9th level ones but that doesn't matter because you can spend a year or two saving up for the spell before going to the temple (or waiting for the travelling priest to do the rounds). As with a simple Raise Dead I'd expect that there would be various long-term-payment financial arrangements made with churches, but bards would probably want cash up front.
If there's no body at all, for example it was completely eaten or Disintegrated then the average commoner is pretty much out of luck. It's going to take a 17th level cleric to cast True Resurrection and that costs a whopping 25,000gp to cast. There are probably only a small handful of people in each country capable of casting the spell, but the price tag means that only the super-rich nobility and royalty can afford it anyway.
For that sort of rich nobility it's cheaper to plan in advance and buy a Clone spell from a wizard. At 3,000gp it's more expensive than a Raise Dead or Resurrection, but it's mostly guaranteed. You don't need to worry about people finding your body or it being intact because it's irrelevant. After you die you wake up in a clone body and you're fine.
On the flip side of the coin, what does this mean if you want to kill someone and keep them dead? If you're an assassin or simply a murderer, how do you stop your victim being raised after the deed?
You probably can't get away with simply smashing up the body. While that will stop a Raise Dead it won't stop a Resurrection or higher. However, destroying the body completely (either magically with a Disintegrate or physically by feeding it to your pigs) will prevent all but the most rich or prepared of people from coming back. The only ways back after that are True Resurrection or Clone.
If your victim is likely to have a clone body waiting for them or is likely to have allies willing to pay for a True Resurrection, you basically can't kill them permanently. Instead you have to arrange for something permanent but non-lethal to happen to them. Good candidates are petrification (but be careful because destroying the statue will kill them) or the Imprisonment spell. In either case, you're then going to need to hide them or put them somewhere where the sort of rescue party that can afford a True Resurrection won't be able to get to them.
Transport
There are very few long range transport magics available to the average person, and few that would be good for transporting goods or armies. In most cases we're looking at nothing better than a road network.
Teleporting is possible, but for all but the highest level casters this is going to rely on the Teleportation Circle spell. This spell needs a 9th level arcane caster to cast it, and although it only costs 50gp in components it can only take you to a permanent circle. Creating a permanent circle requires an arcane caster of that level to spend a year casting the spell every day in the same place. That's going to set you back 18,250gp in components alone plus whatever you pay the caster, so there aren't going to be too many of those around. You're likely to see them only in major cities. Given that these circles are the sort of places that dangerous people and creatures are likely to appear, they will be located in places with organised defence forces. It's likely that these places will also have casters able to cast the spell for a fee.
Other Magical Conveniences
The Continual Flame spell only costs 50gp and lasts forever (unless it's dispelled), and it only takes a 3rd level cleric or wizard to cast it. I'd therefore expect most towns and cities to be lit at night by these, and most families would have one or two that they use to light their houses (they can be covered or hidden at night). The 50gp cost would be expensive if they were being bought regularly, but since the odds of a commoner's house being subject to a dispel are remote in the extreme they can last a generation or two and are therefore cheap. In fact they're the sort of thing a couple might be given as part of a wedding ceremony to both help them set up a home and also be symbolic of their wedding vows.
Plant Growth requires only a 5th level druid, and can give all plants in a half-mile radius double yield for the year. With no material cost, I see that being cast on every field around every town every year. This basically means that we'll only see half the amount of farmland that you'd expect for a given population (and this in turn means more wilderness, so it's in the druids' own self-interest to do it for the people).
Speaking of food, while a 3rd level cleric can create food in an emergency with the Create Food and Drink spell, this doesn't scale well and isn't likely to be able to feed a town through a famine. However, Create Water only needs a first level cleric or druid and creates lots of water. With repeated application this could irrigate crops and stave off droughts.
Detective Work
Finally, how much does 5e magic mess up detective work and/or investigative situations?
Surprisingly not much. While a fifth level cleric can cast Speak With Dead, the corpse retains the personality of its former life and is under no obligation to answer questions or even tell the truth. So the old "kill them first and ask questions later" tactic won't work. It will still be useful when investigating murders, of course, so a murderer would have to make sure they aren't identifiable by the victim.
In terms of interrogating or questioning people who are alive (either in a judiciary manner or in the field) the two main spells that can be used are Detect Thoughts which requires a 3rd level wizard or sorcerer and Zone of Truth which requires a cleric or paladin of similar level.
In neither case are these infallible. Detect Thoughts can't be done sneakily in that the target knows that you're trying to read their mind and can make a saving throw to end the spell, and similarly while Zone of Truth forces people to tell the truth it does have a saving throw and the target knows the spell's effect when it hits them (although the caster knows if the target has saved and is therefore possibly lying).
In a formal interrogation, I'd see the former as less useful. Not only do you rely on the target not being able to trick the caster who's reading their thoughts, you also have to rely on the caster revealing what they've detected truthfully and accurately. The latter spell is much more effective, although while it can stop someone lying it can't stop the equivocating and giving technically-true-but-misleading answers and it can't stop them from simply refusing to talk.
There could be an argument that Zone of Truth could be combined with torture in less savoury environments since it gets rid of the problem of people simply telling you what you want to hear in order to get you to stop. Of course it doesn't get rid of the fact that torture is hideously immoral, and most clerics and paladins wouldn't be party to such activity. There are bound to be a few who would do it, though, but they're more likely to be on the protagonist end of the scale.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778123When it comes to D&D, I've always been an advocate of letting the rules dictate the setting rather than the other way around.
Empty your groinpurse everyone, and you too can join the Guild of Castrati GMs!
Which is to say, I'm of a very different mind.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778123When it comes to D&D, I've always been an advocate of letting the rules dictate the setting rather than the other way around.
I have the opposite POV. I change the game system to met the needs of my setting, I don't change the setting to fit the game system. I've always done this. Heck, I was house-ruling OD&D to better fit my setting back in 1976.
This is one of the reasons 5e will not work for me (to GM, it would be fine to play in someone else's setting), it would require more work that I have time for to adapt it to any one of my three settings (especially when I've already done the work for TSR-era D&D and those rules work was well today as they ever did).
QuoteSo the setting should reflect game's elements, rather than the game being twisted and shoehorned into some setting that means you've got to handwave away most of the magic and bizarre stuff in order to keep a sense of "verisimilitude".
It depends on the setting for me: the Hidden Valley has less weird/powerful magic, my version of the Wilderlands is about (TSR-era) D&D magic normal, while Arn is a truly high-powered setting where a visiting player can come in with Stormbringer and not overpower the setting. They all work fine with house-ruled TSR-era D&D rules -- far better than they do with any non-D&D system I've tried.
However, to each their own. If you don't like "setting trumps system" that's fine but I probably feel just as strongly that "setting trumps system" is the way to go. Neither strikes me as intrinsically "wrong".
Yeah, I'm not buying any of this shit. D&D can be played a lot of different ways. It is gaming culture tradition to always play gonzo high magic, but a lot of other things go on on the margins. And they work fine.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778123When it comes to D&D, I've always been an advocate of letting the rules dictate the setting rather than the other way around. One thing that really irritates me is the endless stream of people who do things like house-ruling out Raise Dead spells for the sake of the "realism" of their world. They want to play D&D - a game of high magic - in a setting indistinguishable from the dirt-filled and disease ridden world they imagine to be a "realistic" view of the Medieval period. Or they do it because they want death to be "meaningful".
Screw that. If you want to play dirt farmers and pigstickers then go play WHFRP, and if you want death to be all angsty then go play Vampire.
This is D&D.
So the setting should reflect game's elements, rather than the game being twisted and shoehorned into some setting that means you've got to handwave away most of the magic and bizarre stuff in order to keep a sense of "verisimilitude".
Strongly disagree. D&D can be played many ways, and I like the group to determine the style of game, rather than solely the designers who are explicitly designing a widest common denominator version of D&D.
You are playing a kind of game, like the canonistas who take a bunch of disparate sources written by people who didn't care about canon, and trying to amalgamate them to be 100% consistent. As if there was some kind of intellectual rigor in this, rather than just changing stuff you don't like. I don't buy it.
Unfortunately, many D&D players take your approach, so it's easier to get customised fantasy game going with a game other then D&D.
edit: that sounded a bit more badwrongfun-ist than I meant to. I mean, have fun playing the game your way. It's just not the only way to play D&D and do I get kind of annoyed that it's such a widespread one. Also your assertion that if you want to tweak the playstyle you should just play another game is just mindless consumerism to me. I like tweaking, hacking etc. Essentially I see no reason to set up the books as holy writ.
Most of you are falling into the trap that leads to inconsistent confused games.
There is an implicit setting. That doesn't mean it's the only setting you can ever run, but if you aren't aware of the way the rules skew, you end up thrashing about any time anything emulative happens. Unless your group just doesn't care, at which point the setting is somewhat irrelevant.
So, for example, at some point someone is going to say 'hey wait, if half the party can cure diseases, and we clearly aren't that unusual, how the hell is disease a problem in the Middle Kingdom?'
There are a bunch of ways to answer that, but it'll probably save you some grief to work that out ahead of time.
I think you guys are misunderestimating my intent here.
I'm not trying to say that a high magic setting is the only way to play D&D or that it's the "one true way" to play it.
Well, I am actually - but in a tongue in cheek hyperbolic way that's well aware that I'm only expressing my own preferences, not objective fact. Obviously, when you look at it objectively any way to play D&D is as valid as any other.
But introductory rhetoric aside, my main point here was to lay out the default implications to the setting when you use the rules as written, as much for my own benefit as anyone else's. The point being that if you play by the book (without house ruling anything), this is what sort of setting you end up with.
Of course, if you don't like that sort of setting in your games - you'd rather there was more magic or less magic available to society - then you can use my description as a guide to what spells need changing to get the sort of setting you want.
I have a tendency to agree, D&D isn't the only game in town anymore. It is an annoying bait and switch when someone says "let's play D&D", but when you see the house rules, it really is another game; esp when they want to spend forever explaining them.
I'm not thinking the church would be that benign about free health care (I'm American so that may explain). My disagreement is that nobody lower then Landed Gentry or adventurers would likely ever see 1000 gold pieces let alone raise it. Those prices are there for a reason. Spell slots are limited, magic items jealously guarded and yes a Bard may be great at healing IF it's even a spell they know.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778141I think you guys are misunderestimating my intent here.
Oh we know exactly your intent, you're using passivepurplebullshit rhetoric. You're claiming you're not declaring a One True Way, you're simply irritated with all the people that play the way you don't like. You don't need to do that here. I find your view of RPGs extremely irritating as well, but what's more pathetic is your awfulpurple posting style. No one's gonna ban you for saying what you think, we're just going to laugh at you when you mealymouth it instead.
Quote from: Will;778140There is an implicit setting.
I think most people here grasp the concept of implicit setting. The implicit setting created by 5e is my main beef with many of the 5e rules. Which is why they will be changed to make an implicit setting that isn't Cartoon Action Hour. :D
The problem is, I'm not sure that the designers at WotC are really aware of the concept - 4e is pretty much x-thousand pages of proof of that argument.
However, close reading of the 5e text, so far at least, is paying lipservice to the concept of what the GM says, goes, and while they've made some astonishingly bad choices as to what is in Basic instead of optional, they're pretty clear that this version of D&D is going to be the most "Build Your Own" of any of the WotC editions.
Whether they practice what they preach we won't know until we start getting the settings and find out if everything in the three books is really intended to be used with the Realms, Greyhawk, Eberron, Athas, Ravenloft, Planescape, Krynn or any of the other D&D worlds. If the setting books are simply adding and taking nothing away, then we're back to the"Everything is Core" mantra of 4e and all this was merely smokescreen. Their response so far to the couple White Room Spherical Cows has been encouraging.
We'll just have to see.
Quote from: CRKrueger;778150I think most people here grasp the concept of implicit setting.
The earlier responses seemed to indicate otherwise.
Of course, one of the underlying assumptions here wasn't true in old editions of D&D.
Not everyone who felt like it could become a caster. Clerics, in particular, were very special, and literally chosen. A PC could be a cleric, of course, but there's nothing that says everyone who wants to be a cleric is going to be one.
The next issue is levels...getting to 5th level is a big deal in the older editions, whereas in the new editions people practically "power level" to that in a few sessions. Absolutely, if anyone can be a cleric, and making it to 5th level is simply a matter of a few battles and an adventure or two, then yes, "Cure Disease" is the kind of thing that anyone can get, any time.
The next issue is spells and magic items. In older D&D, even a 5th level cleric only got 2 3rd level spells a day, and getting a wand of Cure Disease wasn't completely trivial...in fact it was basically impossible. In a city of 10,000 people, if there's only one 5th level cleric and he can't make potions of Cure All every day, then suddenly, yeah, I can see that "cure disease" costing a bit of money, and I can see diseases actually being a factor.
Similarly, if Raise Dead is trivial, you really do have to figure the world is far more warped about death than in "our" world. But if Raise Dead takes years off the caster's life (instead of gold that's just immediately replaced due to "wealth by level" gibberish), and casters of high enough level are very rare? Now you can go back to taking advantage of how death is treated here.
It's one of the issues I have with Pathfinder--armies simply don't make any sense when you can outfit half a dozen guys with Wand of Fireball more conveniently and for far less money than you can equip a few dozen knights, and it's totally a game world, to just by the printed modules and such, where there really should be troops of Fireball Wand-ers...and very little else makes much sense considering the awesome and trivially acquired power of magic.
On the other hand, 5e is still wide open. As long as they don't make the mistake of making magic items stupid-trivial to make, and don't mess up in, well, all the ways previous editions have made mistakes, there's a chance it'll be pretty rockin'.
Quote from: CRKrueger;778150Whether they practice what they preach we won't know until we start getting the settings and find out if everything in the three books is really intended to be used with the Realms, Greyhawk, Eberron, Athas, Ravenloft, Planescape, Krynn or any of the other D&D worlds. If the setting books are simply adding and taking nothing away, then we're back to the"Everything is Core" mantra of 4e and all this was merely smokescreen. Their response so far to the couple White Room Spherical Cows has been encouraging.
We'll just have to see.
I agree. We can't be sure that it's not all talk about customizing the rules to the setting until they do something like publish Dragonlance in the Pre-Chronicles era and toss the cleric and all the healing spells.
I never had to house rule anything to run a gritty, lethal D&D game. IIRC, the AD&D DMG says 1 in 100 adults have levels. Fighters are by far the most common class, followed by thieves, then clerics, then magic-users. So maybe 1 in 500 adults is a level 1 cleric. And not all deities are benevolent. Included in those numbers are storm gods, gods of war, and gods of death. I don't imagine clerics of Ares or Set go around cheerfully healing every peasant supplicant. So we're left with clerics of benevolent deities - maybe 1 for every 1000 people. Many of those will be concentrated in great cities, abbeys, or temples. So most villages and towns won't have even a single level 1 cleric.
Then there's the whole notion of magic being some utilitarian tool like writing or masonry. The role of magic in a campaign world is entirely up to the DM. You want telekinetic rail cars, magic-powered windmills, and temples dispensing cure disease like tylenol? Cool. In my world, divine magic is made available to clerics to further the ends of a capricious deity, not to facilitate an efficient public welfare program.
In 35 years I've only seen one raise dead and one resurrection. Again, I didn't have to house rule anything. Nor did I consciously set out to run a harsh or cruel game. It just so happened that I've experienced little high level play, and played in campaigns were high level NPCs are very rare.
Quote from: Doom;778152Similarly, if Raise Dead is trivial, you really do have to figure the world is far more warped about death than in "our" world. But if Raise Dead takes years off the caster's life (instead of gold that's just immediately replaced due to "wealth by level" gibberish), and casters of high enough level are very rare? Now you can go back to taking advantage of how death is treated here.
For 5e, Raise Dead is a good example to discuss. The material components for spells RAW are as I recall:
- If there are no specific components listed, all the caster needs is a "component's kit", not the name but you get the point.
- Any listed specific components are required.
Raise Dead requires a 500gp diamond which is consumed on casting. That should make for some restraint on the spell, unless your setting rains precious gems. It's not just having the funds but getting the item. And this requirement for specific and pricy components are common for higher level spells.
I see cantrips and orisons as a big obstacle to low magic settings, but 5e isn't necessarily raining meteor swarms either.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778123Healing
The average peasant probably has ample access to healing magic. Even a first level clerical acolyte at the local temple or the local druid's apprentice can cast Cure Wounds...
That's not the base assumption made in the book:
Quote from: Player's HandbookPage 56 = Not every acolyte or officiant at a temple or shrine is a cleric. Some priests are called to a simple life of temple service, carrying out their gods' will through prayer and sacrifice, not by magic and strength of arms. In some cities, priesthood amounts to a political office, viewed as a stepping stone to higher positions of authority and involving no communion with a god at all. True clerics are rare in most hierarchies.
Quote from: DragonerIt is an annoying bait and switch when someone says "let's play D&D", but when you see the house rules, it really is another game
This is a legitimate concern.
I think you might be overestimating the effect of the healing spells. Walk into ER or a Doctors office and see how many patient are there. How many clerics would you need to heal them all?
Do you think that, if we asume every priest is at least a level 1 cleric, everyone who gets sick or injured would be cured? If we reduce it to only those whose life is threatened, what now?
I 'm not going to do the math, as I don't care enough and am not exactly a famed mathematician. But my guess? No, by a fair margin.
Now lets say most priests aren't clerics, just ordinary people dedicated to a power.
I, too, like to have a setting that follows the pointers of the rules, but you seem to assume demographics with a great amound of spellcasters and people over level 1 running around. I haven't heard of any 5e rule enforcing that.
Do I believe your style is supported by 5e and valid? Off course I do.
But I do not believe that what you describe is the natural result of the game rules, as it depends on assumptions not based in any rule.
Nothing out there says every person has class levels. And nothing forces a certain destribition of classed NPC's or their levels. In fact, bounded accuracy means it's far more easy to play a game where people of PC capabilities and level range are rather rare.
After all you're not forced to level adversaries to the PC's for a decent challenge and then explain where, if people of such capabitities are rare, why they keep cropping up (which is, i guess, what you mean by PCs noticing that they are nothing special). The mooks of the dread emperor you fight at level 20 are the same first level Goons the petty baron Stinkypants employed when you unseated him at first level. Just a lot more of them and their leaders are much worse.
So, without houseruling, I can have a setting without your level of high magic. One, where magical healing can be hard to come by, available to the important, the lucky and those willing to take hardship of pilgrimage. One where a druid blessing a field is wondrous. Where arcane casters aren't for hire.
Now, if you want a thread collecting the influence a high amount of readily availability casters up to level 3 or even 5 has on a gameworld, that would be interesting.
But starting a thread and claim a certain playstyle and setting is the correct one by the rules?
That's not interesting, it's irritating.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778141Of course, if you don't like that sort of setting in your games - you'd rather there was more magic or less magic available to society - then you can use my description as a guide to what spells need changing to get the sort of setting you want.
I seldom have to change the effects of a (TSR) D&D spell to fit my settings. Instead I end up deciding how common or uncommon it is. As players don't get to pick their spells from the spell list in TSR-style D&D, if I decide that spell X is rare in the world then both PCs and NPCs are unlikely to have a copy of it (and without that copy, they can't cast it).
Other spells might be fairly common knowledge but might require rare and/or expensive material components to cast or there may be various social or religious taboos around its casting. For example, in my Wilderlands campaign, a cleric has to have the permission of his deity to cast a raise dead spell on a person. If the cleric's god does not approve, the spell simply does not work. Heck, if the person being raised follows a different deity and that deity does not approve (and is more powerful than the cleric's deity), the spell does not work. And the raise dead spell requires fairly expensive and fragile components.
Of course, as Doom pointed out, the assumptions in TSR-era D&D about the number of leveled characters in the population seem much different than the assumptions of WOTC D&D in those areas. (Yet another reason why my settings would be a lot of work to run under 5e.)
Randall the game isn't aimed at you at all. Not even TSR 2e non-raw is aimed at you and in some cases not even RAW 0-1e. You pick the spells wasn't even completely RAW ever. There are grades of old school and you, OG and sometimes CR lie at the more extreme end of the conservative spectrum of the scale.
Kind of like I lie in the extreme liberal part of the old school spectrum. I wouldn't play in a game in your world and you'd never let me because to me you're too inflexible and to you I'd just cause headaches.
You and OG don't buy product so why would either of you ever expect 5e to be of any interest at all? As both of you repeat ad nauseum you have your game and/or your unique assumptions and settings so rock on already. It's like asking Jibba to care.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;778160This is a legitimate concern.
Easily fixed in truth in advertising too. I have nothing against people not wanting to play, or play something else.
My general rule of thumb is that life is like the middle ages only 20% better.
A magical revolution is certainly viable with the RAW rules. However a revolution means there was a time before it happened. A time where the ingredients were in place but the right people did not put them all together.
That is the time the implicit setting of Dungeons & Dragons is set in. Perhaps it is the PCs that are the founding fathers of the magical revolution or perhaps they just join the seemly endless parade of privileged whose lives are much better than in our own history.
Last there is the god factor. The milieu behind D&D assumes divine powers far more active and direct than what existed in our history. Every day clerics are granted visible power as a sign of their service and faith. Along with numerous records of direct encounters with divine and infernal powers.
In addition there are the existence of extremely long lived races. What are the elves really doing to us in their forest glades? Are the dwarves isolated in their mountain fastness or it is just an act? Are the halfling as cute as they appear or use their appearance to lull us into doing their dirty work for them?
Quote from: Will;778151The earlier responses seemed to indicate otherwise.
Hmm, did they?
Quote from: RandallS;778128It depends on the setting for me: the Hidden Valley has less weird/powerful magic, my version of the Wilderlands is about (TSR-era) D&D magic normal, while Arn is a truly high-powered setting where a visiting player can come in with Stormbringer and not overpower the setting. They all work fine with house-ruled TSR-era D&D rules -- far better than they do with any non-D&D system I've tried.
Understanding three different settings to the point that you know how to alter a ruleset different ways to fit those settings certainly implies you know what the implicit setting is and it does not match yours - therefore you change it.
Not saying that you meant this Will, but for some the argument carries with it an unstated assumption, claim or implication of "you don't know what you're doing, you're going to break something", which decades of successful roleplaying has proven wrong.
The argument against houserule usually is a strawman frequently used to argue "don't change anything" by people who have the agenda of player empowerment/GM disempowerment through rules mastery and charop builds.
Quote from: Marleycat;778174Randall the game isn't aimed at you at all. Not even TSR 2e non-raw is aimed at you and in some cases not even RAW 0-1e. You pick the spells wasn't even completely RAW ever. There are grades of old school and you, OG and sometimes CR lie at the more extreme end of the conservative spectrum of the scale.
Kind of like I lie in the extreme liberal part of the old school spectrum. I wouldn't play in a game in your world and you'd never let me because to me you're too inflexible and to you I'd just cause headaches.
You and OG don't buy product so why would either of you ever expect 5e to be of any interest at all? As both of you repeat ad nauseum you have your game and/or your unique assumptions and settings so rock on already. It's like asking Jibba to care.
and Marley doesn't want to hear you talk at all, so just go away please, kthxbai - she's gotta go find something to PewPewPewPushMarkSHORYUKEN! :p
Quote from: Marleycat;778174Randall the game isn't aimed at you at all. Not even TSR 2e non-raw is aimed at you and in some cases not even RAW 0-1e. You pick the spells wasn't even completely RAW ever. There are grades of old school and you, OG and sometimes CR lie at the more extreme end of the conservative spectrum of the scale.
I don't think I'm on the scale. You think I'm near the extreme conservative end of old school while there are other old school people who look at Microlite74 and Microlite81 (and the supplements thereto) and declare that I'm not really old school at all. I just nod and grin.
QuoteKind of like I lie in the extreme liberal part of the old school spectrum. I wouldn't play in a game in your world and you'd never let me because to me you're too inflexible and to you I'd just cause headaches.
I've seen nothing in your posts that tells me you'd be an automatic problem in a game I ran. If you were interested and I had an opening, I'd be happy to let you play for a few weeks so we could see if you enjoyed the game and we enjoyed having you play. As for inflexible, I guess it depends on what you mean. If you mean I will only run the systems I enjoy, house-ruled as I see necessary, and with a strong rulings not rules vibe, you're right, I'm inflexible.
However, you will find I will allow all sorts of non-standard stuff in play if the player wants it (and is willing to start weak and grow strong like every other class/race) and I can fit it in. For example, there aren't any Kender in the Wilderlands, but there are gates to other places that might open and dump a Kender in the Wilderlands. You'd be able to play one if you wanted to, but you would likely be the only Kender around.
QuoteYou and OG don't buy product so why would either of you ever expect 5e to be of any interest at all? As both of you repeat ad nauseum you have your game and/or your unique assumptions and settings so rock on already. It's like asking Jibba to care.
But I do buy product. I have the 5e PH, MM, and DMG on order from Amazon, for example and I buy a good number of PDFs every year. I even purchased the first 3 4e books when they came out, although I quickly sold them off, meaning 4e is the only version of D&D I don't have at least the core books for. I just don't convert to a new edition unless it does what I need it to do better than what I already have. I will happily add anything I like from a new edition to my game however, just as I have done since I started playing in the mid-1970s.
I simply refuse to adopt modern play-styles that stress the RAW, system mastery, min-maxing (aka excessive character optimization), character skill over player skill, adventure paths, etc.
Oh, game settings and rule logic never quite mesh perfectly. No writer is going to foresee all of the wonkiness.
They're called Murphy's Rules (if you used that term) for a reason. Reasonable DM look at that wonkiness and make judgement calls accordingly.
Withdrawn.
What gets me. I've seen this argument before. How the magic in the setting would suddenly up the quality of life for everyone. Sure in a setting like Ebreron where the convention of a 1930 post war Europe with magic happens, but most D&D worlds scarcity is important.
Quote from: Scott Anderson;778203Withdrawn.
You can just delete posts.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778123When it comes to D&D, I've always been an advocate of letting the rules dictate the setting rather than the other way around.
In the campaigns I run, the game dictates the setting.
Except when it doesn't.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778123This is D&D.
D&D?
This . . . is . . . SPARTA!(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130421005220/epicrapbattlesofhistory/images/e/e9/Sparta-kick.gif)
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778123So the setting should reflect game's elements, rather than the game being twisted and shoehorned into some setting that means you've got to handwave away most of the magic and bizarre stuff in order to keep a sense of "verisimilitude".
Hiorseshit.
Doom'll take it from here.
Quote from: Doom;778152Of course, one of the underlying assumptions here wasn't true in old editions of D&D.
Not everyone who felt like it could become a caster. Clerics, in particular, were very special, and literally chosen. A PC could be a cleric, of course, but there's nothing that says everyone who wants to be a cleric is going to be one.
The next issue is levels...getting to 5th level is a big deal in the older editions, whereas in the new editions people practically "power level" to that in a few sessions. Absolutely, if anyone can be a cleric, and making it to 5th level is simply a matter of a few battles and an adventure or two, then yes, "Cure Disease" is the kind of thing that anyone can get, any time.
The next issue is spells and magic items. In older D&D, even a 5th level cleric only got 2 3rd level spells a day, and getting a wand of Cure Disease wasn't completely trivial...in fact it was basically impossible. In a city of 10,000 people, if there's only one 5th level cleric and he can't make potions of Cure All every day, then suddenly, yeah, I can see that "cure disease" costing a bit of money, and I can see diseases actually being a factor.
Similarly, if Raise Dead is trivial, you really do have to figure the world is far more warped about death than in "our" world. But if Raise Dead takes years off the caster's life (instead of gold that's just immediately replaced due to "wealth by level" gibberish), and casters of high enough level are very rare? Now you can go back to taking advantage of how death is treated here.
Shorter? While the implied setting establishes that powers such as curing disease and raising the dead exist, how common and prevalent they are across the setting is the province of the referee.
,
Quote from: RandallS;778199I don't think I'm on the scale. You think I'm near the extreme conservative end of old school while there are other old school people who look at Microlite74 and Microlite81 (and the supplements thereto) and declare that I'm not really old school at all. I just nod and grin.
I've seen nothing in your posts that tells me you'd be an automatic problem in a game I ran. If you were interested and I had an opening, I'd be happy to let you play for a few weeks so we could see if you enjoyed the game and we enjoyed having you play. As for inflexible, I guess it depends on what you mean. If you mean I will only run the systems I enjoy, house-ruled as I see necessary, and with a strong rulings not rules vibe, you're right, I'm inflexible.
However, you will find I will allow all sorts of non-standard stuff in play if the player wants it (and is willing to start weak and grow strong like every other class/race) and I can fit it in. For example, there aren't any Kender in the Wilderlands, but there are gates to other places that might open and dump a Kender in the Wilderlands. You'd be able to play one if you wanted to, but you would likely be the only Kender around.
But I do buy product. I have the 5e PH, MM, and DMG on order from Amazon, for example and I buy a good number of PDFs every year. I even purchased the first 3 4e books when they came out, although I quickly sold them off, meaning 4e is the only version of D&D I don't have at least the core books for. I just don't convert to a new edition unless it does what I need it to do better than what I already have. I will happily add anything I like from a new edition to my game however, just as I have done since I started playing in the mid-1970s.
I simply refuse to adopt modern play-styles that stress the RAW, system mastery, min-maxing (aka excessive character optimization), character skill over player skill, adventure paths, etc.
So you waste money on games you will never run? That's weird to me but don't let me stop you. I understand getting a PHB if you liked BASIC and planned to play but anything else? Why? For example I love NWoD but only have interest in Human, Mage and Changeling games so why give a flip about Vampire, Demon, Werewolf etc.?
I am overstating it though because I bet I would enjoy your game and IRL I'm never a disruptive player regardless of system.:)
One of my favorite 3e games was when I wanted to play a Drow Sword Dancer (horribly underpowered prestige class) but in the DM's setting drow didn't exist. He adapted and I was the only drow in existence as a priestess for a God nobody heard of. It was AWESOME! I went about creating a whole new fighting style and religion in his setting.
Quote from: estar;778184My general rule of thumb is that life is like the middle ages only 20% better.
That's funny - my rule of thumb is the D&D setting is like life in the middle ages only 80% worse. What with the orc hordes roaming the countryside, lycanthropes infesting the cities, evil sorcerors scheming in their dark towers, vampires spreading their plague, rampaging giants, trolls that can only be killed with fire, necromancers raising skeletal armies, and demon worshippers summoning actual demons. Not to mention the dragons.
Quote from: Marleycat;778174Randall the game isn't aimed at you at all. Not even TSR 2e non-raw is aimed at you and in some cases not even RAW 0-1e. You pick the spells wasn't even completely RAW ever.
Up until 3E, the allocation and rarity of spells was most certainly up to the DM - RAW. I have always played that way with every edition of the game. And I'm not some kind of reactionary. I just think it's both a useful restraint of spellcaster power, and a fun in-world spur to go out and chase down rumours of spells and spellbooks.
Quote from: Haffrung;778228That's funny - my rule of thumb is the D&D setting is like life in the middle ages only 80% worse. What with the orc hordes roaming the countryside, lycanthropes infesting the cities, evil sorcerors scheming in their dark towers, vampires spreading their plague, rampaging giants, trolls that can only be killed with fire, necromancers raising skeletal armies, and demon worshippers summoning actual demons. Not to mention the dragons.
Up until 3E, the allocation and rarity of spells was most certainly up to the DM - RAW. I have always played that way with every edition of the game. And I'm not some kind of reactionary. I just think it's both a useful restraint of spellcaster power, and a fun in-world spur to go out and chase down rumours of spells and spellbooks.
It could ALWAYS be rolled for at character creation also right from the Holy Holmes box. From there you found what you could and rolled to see if you could learn it.
Quote from: Marleycat;778229It could ALWAYS be rolled for at character creation also right from the Holy Holmes box. From there you found what you could and rolled to see if you could learn it.
Right, you roll for three random level 1 spells. The rest you had to find. How does that contradict what RandallS wrote?
All about consistency.
I have said a few times I think far too many DMs spend no time thinking about their setting and assume some default where any race or splat book is fair game.
What the game presets as options should be the superset from which you draw your setting. This world has no hobbits, this world has no gods, this world has no plate armour,in this world Paladins are tied to specific orders of knighthood etc etc
There is no problem with a vanilla medieval setting but the OP has a point about healing and the like. If your PCs can all vistit the local temple for a quick cure then so can anyone else.
The idea of a village having a local priest that maybe serves a sizable parish made up of a few villages and is on hand for births and for saying last rites and burials etc. make sense for a lot of settings and that will have an effect on infant mortality and birth rates etc. If you don't have that then you probably need to say why.
Will a City with a wizard academy probably have the equivalent of continual light spells ... yeah seems liekly. If Wizards are going to be limited in number you might want to limit player access to wizards.
I think we have said before in another thread that if a 1st level wizard can cast a useful spell (especially something with a permanent or long duration) at 1st level that can be monetised and the only limit to becoming a wizard is average intelligence and the ability to read then some one will set up a sweatshop of begar wizard kids churning this stuff out just like they do with Rugs, plaster casts of King Tut, prayer bowls, leather sandals, etc etc
Quote from: Haffrung;778234Right, you roll for three random level 1 spells. The rest you had to find. How does that contradict what RandallS wrote?
He said he explicitly picks even at creation, which is an option but not the only option even RAW.
Quote from: jibbajibba;778238I think we have said before in another thread that if a 1st level wizard can cast a useful spell (especially something with a permanent or long duration) at 1st level that can be monetised and the only limit to becoming a wizard is average intelligence and the ability to read then some one will set up a sweatshop of begar wizard kids churning this stuff out just like they do with Rugs, plaster casts of King Tut, prayer bowls, leather sandals, etc etc
The problem with this idea is two fold.
1) The logistic of a sweatshop in the first place. Historically factories were limited to special circumstances like the Egyptian Pharoahs using their power to create a paint factory in Naucratis. The biggest problem is that the surplus needed to adopt this on a wider scale simply did not exist.
That and the fact that human society was largely centered around the household as the base economic unit meant it wasn't until the 18th century was there widespread use of factories to produce goods. Even then there was widespread resistance that had to be forcibly dealt with.
2) Wizards is a literate and scholarly activity. A person has to learn to read and write. Master arcane knowledge and then after all that finally be able to cast a first level spell.
It is possible but a lot of other pieces would have to be in place as well. It wouldn't be a medieval society anymore but rather looking like something like the later Chinese Empire or Europe after the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.
All of this implies that there was a time when the full range of RAW spells were available but nobody was doing this.
Quote from: Haffrung;778228That's funny - my rule of thumb is the D&D setting is like life in the middle ages only 80% worse. What with the orc hordes roaming the countryside, lycanthropes infesting the cities, evil sorcerors scheming in their dark towers, vampires spreading their plague, rampaging giants, trolls that can only be killed with fire, necromancers raising skeletal armies, and demon worshippers summoning actual demons. Not to mention the dragons.
You mean like Mongols sweeping in from the east in the 13th century. Or the Black death wiping out a third of Europe?
Our history's middle age was no picnic and had is own special horrors as well as its bright side.
Quote from: estar;778251The problem with this idea is two fold.
1) The logistic of a sweatshop in the first place. Historically factories were limited to special circumstances like the Egyptian Pharoahs using their power to create a paint factory in Naucratis. The biggest problem is that the surplus needed to adopt this on a wider scale simply did not exist.
That and the fact that human society was largely centered around the household as the base economic unit meant it wasn't until the 18th century was there widespread use of factories to produce goods. Even then there was widespread resistance that had to be forcibly dealt with.
2) Wizards is a literate and scholarly activity. A person has to learn to read and write. Master arcane knowledge and then after all that finally be able to cast a first level spell.
It is possible but a lot of other pieces would have to be in place as well. It wouldn't be a medieval society anymore but rather looking like something like the later Chinese Empire or Europe after the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.
All of this implies that there was a time when the full range of RAW spells were available but nobody was doing this.
I was thinking more about the small facotries I see when I travel round pretty much all of the 3rd world. 20-30 kids in a room carving statues or paining papyrus, or writing out the Koran or Chinese poems.
The academic part I agree is an issue. However if you look at the arab world all Arab cities are filled with Madressa. Arab kids (well boys) have been getting pretty much universal access to literacy since the 9th century. I could easily see a D&D setting with these sorts of schools.
Imagine the following scenarios
i) D&D magic exists, you have stuff like cantrip level magic missile and some quite high damage 1st level spells. What would stop the local king implementing universal literacy for all children, the kids learn to read the bright ones (in actual D&D terms the top 60% make the grade) get taught basic magic, now you have an army of guys that don't need arrows and can go on to wreak some impressive damage.
In a world with a magic an arms race is a believable concept. These wizards might find that they need work outside of war and put their skills to other uses a multitude of magical aids may result.
ii) A world with religions of the book. Both Juadism and Islam place a vast importance not just in the book by the ability to read the book. Christianity moved away from this trying to put a priesthood in place who could read but not publishing the book in the vulgate or encouraging study by lay folks for hundreds of years. Almost by default these societies lead to a literate group of teenage males who can be tapped by an entrepenure to set up a mgic factory. Because literacy itself is common it looses any intrinsic value. These guys might well end up like Chinese Gold farmers in WOW.
So I don't think its a big stretch. I don't think you need to do it but where it doesn't happen I think you need to have thought through the logic of your setting . Consistency is all. Everyone is literate? the PCs can always get free healing in a local temple? these things have implications.
Quote from: estar;778255You mean like Mongols sweeping in from the east in the 13th century. Or the Black death wiping out a third of Europe?
Our history's middle age was no picnic and had is own special horrors as well as its bright side.
Oh no you didn't.Mongols=Orks?
Maybe we'll get Stormbringer to come back and finally tell us what the dark side of the hobby is now. Weren't you involved in 5e at some point? Somebody tell Hurley to get Rob added to the list.
Quote from: Haffrung;778228That's funny - my rule of thumb is the D&D setting is like life in the middle ages only 80% worse. What with the orc hordes roaming the countryside, lycanthropes infesting the cities, evil sorcerors scheming in their dark towers, vampires spreading their plague, rampaging giants, trolls that can only be killed with fire, necromancers raising skeletal armies, and demon worshippers summoning actual demons. Not to mention the dragons.
In which case the only way society could function would be if the OP's assumptions are true.
Quote from: estar;778251The problem with this idea is two fold.
1) The logistic of a sweatshop in the first place. Historically factories were limited to special circumstances like the Egyptian Pharoahs using their power to create a paint factory in Naucratis. The biggest problem is that the surplus needed to adopt this on a wider scale simply did not exist.
Plantations are factories; food factories. Sprinkle in a few druids and hey presto, surplus.
Quote2) Wizards is a literate and scholarly activity. A person has to learn to read and write. Master arcane knowledge and then after all that finally be able to cast a first level spell.
If it gives a big enough advantage to make a difference in warfare, it will be done. Any society that doesn't is a conquered society.
Quote from: estar;778255You mean like Mongols sweeping in from the east in the 13th century. Or the Black death wiping out a third of Europe?
Our history's middle age was no picnic and had is own special horrors as well as its bright side.
The Mongols didn't sweep in from the east every other year, the black death didn't kill a third of Europe every decade. It appears to me Haffrung's assumption is monsters are a more constant and present threat than murder and marauding armies.
But like everyone has said, it's pretty easily controllable; all you have to do is adjust the demographics of classes and levels as a percent of population to get what you want. Turn it down enough and it's medieval, turn it up and enough and it's transhuman.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;778160That's not the base assumption made in the book:
Quote from: Originally Posted by Player's HandbookPage 56 = Not every acolyte or officiant at a temple or shrine is a cleric. Some priests are called to a simple life of temple service, carrying out their gods' will through prayer and sacrifice, not by magic and strength of arms. In some cities, priesthood amounts to a political office, viewed as a stepping stone to higher positions of authority and involving no communion with a god at all. True clerics are rare in most hierarchies.
This is of course typically undercut by the fact the bog standard Acolyte stats in Hoard of the Dragon Queen make Acolyte's able to cast Cure Wounds three times a day.
Consistency, it's not for breakfast.
As a descriptive thought experiment, I think that the approach of "How does the World looks like when the game rules are like physical laws" is not without merit. If anything, it helps to identify silly rules. As a prescriptive measure (these are the rules, therefore the setting have to be like this) I find this to be a bit hidebound and unnecessarily restrictive.
Quote from: jadrax;778325This is of course typically undercut by the fact the bog standard Acolyte stats in Hoard of the Dragon Queen make Acolyte's able to cast Cure Wounds three times a day.
Consistency, it's not for breakfast.
There's a middle ground between "all priests are clerics" and "clerics are vanishingly rare", of course.
My assumption when writing the OP (mostly flavoured by my experience with BECMI) was that while
most acolytes and temple attendants won't actually be clerics, there will be at least one medium level cleric in every temple and probably a low level clerical acolytes or two as well. The bigger temples in cities (or possibly on the frontier associated with important strongholds) will have higher level clerics.
Quote from: Beagle;778328As a descriptive thought experiment, I think that the approach of "How does the World looks like when the game rules are like physical laws" is not without merit. If anything, it helps to identify silly rules. As a prescriptive measure (these are the rules, therefore the setting have to be like this) I find this to be a bit hidebound and unnecessarily restrictive.
The OP was meant to be descriptive rather than prescriptive.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778329The OP was meant to be descriptive rather than prescriptive.
Good to know, but when it comes to D&D there are so many clowns out there who just love to interpret all rules as literally as possible if that allows them to abuse the game, just to call it broken, like the Create Food and Water "Traps" in 3.5. It's this game mode where being technically correct means that you somehow win any arguement. So I think an aprotopaic gut reaction to this kind of stuff is not particularly surprising.
Quote from: Beagle;778331Good to know, but when it comes to D&D there are so many clowns out there who just love to interpret all rules as literally as possible if that allows them to abuse the game, just to call it broken, like the Create Food and Water "Traps" in 3.5. It's this game mode where being technically correct means that you somehow win any arguement. So I think an aprotopaic gut reaction to this kind of stuff is not particularly surprising.
I was kind of surprised by the reaction I got.
I was expecting most people to reply talking about the meat of what I'd posted; maybe talking about other spells that would also have an impact on society, or maybe discussing whether my assumptions about the availability of spellcasters was too high or too low - and to be fair some have done the latter - but instead most people seemed to concentrate on the introduction to the post (which was intended as humour) and took it seriously.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778335I was kind of surprised by the reaction I got.
I was expecting most people to reply talking about the meat of what I'd posted; maybe talking about other spells that would also have an impact on society, or maybe discussing whether my assumptions about the availability of spellcasters was too high or too low - and to be fair some have done the latter - but instead most people seemed to concentrate on the introduction to the post (which was intended as humour) and took it seriously.
Yeah, that's a board culture thing. Your are not the first person I have seen it happen to.
I thought the specifics were quite interesting, although they pretty much crop up in 3.5 as well. There is I think a tonal shift between 2nd and 3rd edition where High Level magic users just become more common. Which obviously ends up in Ebberon.
I think its also compounded in that D&D as written doesn't come close to having a sensible economy.
Quote from: jadrax;778339I thought the specifics were quite interesting, although they pretty much crop up in 3.5 as well. There is I think a tonal shift between 2nd and 3rd edition where High Level magic users just become more common. Which obviously ends up in Ebberon.
Although I've played every edition of D&D (except 2e inexplicably) from OD&D onwards, most of my campaigns run on BECMI or a close facsimile thereof.
That's a weird one when it comes to magic. On the one hand the magic-users and clerics in that edition have fewer spells and less power than in most AD&D and WotC editions, but on the other hand the magic that there is is much more common.
For a start the assumption is that most nobles are ex-adventurers who have reached "name" level and settled down to dominion management, and a consequence of that is that most high level landowners and "lords of the manor" are 9th level or higher. This means you can practically assume that there are 9th level clerics around to be able to cast those Raise Dead spells and the like.
Secondly the place is usually crawling with Immortals. Whereas a lot of setting will have a dozen or so gods sitting at the top of the pile and those gods are practically never met in person, BECMI assumes that there are literally
thousands of Immortals out there and they have a much more active role than gods - often turning up in person in mortal disguises. Again, this ramps up the access to magic in the setting in terms of the number of high level casters around without necessarily making it more powerful in terms of what each high level caster can do.
Thirdly, the simplified nature of the BECMI rules means that there are no material components for any spells. This sounds like a small change, but it has huge knock-on effects. Things like Continual Light stones are suddenly dirt cheap as a low level magic user or cleric can churn them out day after day at no cost to themselves. Healing is similarly readily available and BECMI not only has no material cost for a Raise Dead but there is no permanent side-effect either (e.g. constitution loss in AD&D or level loss in 3.x). So the only thing stopping all those high level clerics from raising three or four people a day each is, well, nothing. It just takes a few minutes of their time; less time than a funeral would!
I'd say that the average BECMI setting (note that this is very different from the average BX setting or the average BE- setting that doesn't use the CMI material) has much more ubiquitous magic than even Eberron does; but the magic isn't as world-shattering as in 3.x. In Mystara - the default setting for BECMI - there are places like Alphatia which is ruled by a council of 1,000 36th level magic-users and there are flying ships and colonies on the moon, and so forth.
So for me, reading 5e is a climb-down from the high magic of BECMI rather than a ramp-up from the lower magic of AD&D. When I wrote the OP I was thinking that the costs and limits on raising people from the dead, for example, were much
more restrictive than I'm used to - and that's what I was cataloguing.
This is one of the big reasons why I think 5e is most like BECMI in feel (and one of the reasons I like it so much). While the rules can usually be traced to a rule in AD&D or 3.x or 4e, the
feel of the magic system with spells that are lower in power and simpler (in terms of having fewer moving parts) but which also have fewer restrictions on being cast definitely strikes me as closer to BECMI than any other edition.
QuoteI think its also compounded in that D&D as written doesn't come close to having a sensible economy.
Now that's something that
no edition has ever got to grips with.
Quote from: Haffrung;778156I never had to house rule anything to run a gritty, lethal D&D game. IIRC, the AD&D DMG says 1 in 100 adults have levels. Fighters are by far the most common class, followed by thieves, then clerics, then magic-users. So maybe 1 in 500 adults is a level 1 cleric. And not all deities are benevolent. Included in those numbers are storm gods, gods of war, and gods of death. I don't imagine clerics of Ares or Set go around cheerfully healing every peasant supplicant. So we're left with clerics of benevolent deities - maybe 1 for every 1000 people. Many of those will be concentrated in great cities, abbeys, or temples. So most villages and towns won't have even a single level 1 cleric.
Then there's the whole notion of magic being some utilitarian tool like writing or masonry. The role of magic in a campaign world is entirely up to the DM. You want telekinetic rail cars, magic-powered windmills, and temples dispensing cure disease like tylenol? Cool. In my world, divine magic is made available to clerics to further the ends of a capricious deity, not to facilitate an efficient public welfare program.
In 35 years I've only seen one raise dead and one resurrection. Again, I didn't have to house rule anything. Nor did I consciously set out to run a harsh or cruel game. It just so happened that I've experienced little high level play, and played in campaigns were high level NPCs are very rare.
One of the better posts on the thread. Basically what I was thinking when I wrote 'fuck off, this is bullshit!' on the first page.
It is explicitly clear in both early editions and things written in 5E that one way you can construct a world for D&D is with 0-level commoners being the almost everyone. And I would say even the ~1:1000 suggestion for low level clerics and magic users could be viewed as generous.
And it isn't obvious that there is any world where they could be expected to use that power to raise society's water level. That would be like saying, '1 % of americans have extraordinary amounts of excess wealth, which they obviously could spend to support food and health care for the poor, therefore my 'America' campaign will be a utopia of social services'. Yes, it is completely possible for that to happen, except people with excess money would much rather spend it on jet skis and over-priced wine. It is probably more reasonable to imagine that a fantasy world that includes magicians will be hugely stratified and oppressive.
Quote from: Marleycat;778245He said he explicitly picks even at creation, which is an option but not the only option even RAW.
No, I said I decide how rare various spells are in my setting when I create the setting (perhaps deciding some spells do not exist at all in the setting). This includes creating tables of spells for randomly determining what spells a magic-user starts with/what spells will be found on scrolls/etc. Whether or not this is RAW is of no concern to me as I do not worship at the altar of RAW.
By the way Blacky, I just want to say I appreciate you bringing your analysis to this board. As I've said before, your Mystara/BECMI posts on RPGnet are excellent reads.
Quote from: Marleycat;778211So you waste money on games you will never run? That's weird to me but don't let me stop you. I understand getting a PHB if you liked BASIC and planned to play but anything else? Why?
I like D&D in general so I try to at least have a copy of the core books for any version so I can understand the edition, discuss it intelligently, see if anything in it could deserves to be added to my games, and be able to play it should the opportunity to do so in a group that matches my playstyle/interests. I don't waste money buying World of Darkness books, story games, current versions of GURPs, etc. because I have little interest in them.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778335I was expecting most people to reply talking about the meat of what I'd posted; maybe talking about other spells that would also have an impact on society, or maybe discussing whether my assumptions about the availability of spellcasters was too high or too low - and to be fair some have done the latter - but instead most people seemed to concentrate on the introduction to the post (which was intended as humour) and took it seriously.
Had your had a different intro paragraph, one more like "Ever wondered what the world where the RAW strictly applied might be like? Here's some of my thoughts on this.", I suspect you would have been much more likely to get the type of replies you were expecting. Instead, I and others replied to the "one true way" bit in your intro.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778343In Mystara - the default setting for BECMI - there are places like Alphatia which is ruled by a council of 1,000 36th level magic-users and there are flying ships and colonies on the moon, and so forth.
Yeah, reading through your 'Lets read Mystara' has been a real eye-opener for me in just how high magic a setting can be. Lets cast
Protection from Heat and explore the kingdoms in the Sun!
It's a very different vibe to the AD&D > D20 path the game ended up following.
Of course as Mike Mearl's current home game is apparently BECMI, it will be interesting to see what happens in future with regards to settings.
I've always assumed a couple of other things that don't seem obvious. First population is way less and the areas larger given we're talking about several sentiment competing species some quite large and requiring a serious amount of land, food or both without some serious magic use.
Quote from: RandallS;778350I like D&D in general so I try to at least have a copy of the core books for any version so I can understand the edition, discuss it intelligently, see if anything in it could deserves to be added to my games, and be able to play it should the opportunity to do so in a group that matches my playstyle/interests. I don't waste money buying World of Darkness books, story games, current versions of GURPs, etc. because I have little interest in them.
Fair enough.
Quote from: jadrax;778355Yeah, reading through your 'Lets read Mystara' has been a real eye-opener for me in just how high magic a setting can be. Lets cast Protection from Heat and explore the kingdoms in the Sun!
It's a very different vibe to the AD&D > D20 path the game ended up following.
Yeah, I sometimes make the mistake of assuming that all D&D is as high magic as Mystara, because it's what I'm used to - "Galactic Dragons & Godwars" as Armchair Gamer named the style.
Quote from: Marleycat;778364I've always assumed a couple of other things that don't seem obvious. First population is way less and the areas larger given we're talking about several sentiment competing species some quite large and requiring a serious amount of land, food or both without some serious magic use.
When it comes to the overlap of races, I've usually taken the assumption that the relationship between humans and orcs (for example) is like the relationship between Britons and Vikings.
In other words, I don't assume that humans treat the humanoid races as "kill on sight" enemies. The human towns will be aware of the various humanoid tribes that live in the hills and most of the time there will be an uneasy truce between them with a modicum of trade and communication.
There will even be cooperation in the face of an outside threat - although such cooperation can quickly lead to one side taking advantage of the other side.
Of course, raids from both sides against the other (human adventurers raiding the orc lands and orc warbands raiding humand lands) strain such a relationship, sometimes to breaking point, but in my campaigns the default relationship between the competing species is one of tense peace and distrust rather than that of all-genocide-all-the-time.
A bunch of goblins attacking a human town to steal food will be met with a lethal response, but a couple of goblins coming into town to sell some silks or gems of unknown provenance or to buy some barrels of ale will probably treated as suspicious but the odds are someone will be willing to trade with them and they won't be simply chased out of town or killed.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778123When it comes to D&D, I've always been an advocate of letting the rules dictate the setting rather than the other way around.
Alot of great points some posting in the thread are missing because they are reading the opening badly.
I think though you fell into your own trap when you waived off the spellcasting fees. Instead of gold Id expect the common folk to be paying for services. But via barter. Food, assistance with construction, crafting, trade etc. The high costs of many spells will make them prohibitive to the common folk unless they can barter and trade.
Here are some other points you can infer.
Incarcerating a spellcaster by the rules is an absolute pain in the ass. Cantrips means that they can ALWAYS cast something. Worse. Taking away their spellbook means only that they cant swap spells. They can just rest up and BOOM full power. And clerics and druids do not even have that problem.
The wilderness is appallingly lethal before you even get to the monsters. Raids by something as simple as goblins is a real threat and anything bigger is a guarantee disaster waiting to happen.
Lycanthropy. In the playtest its a curse and you need at least a 5th level cleric to cast Remove Curse. Depending on how they change in the final version they could be a potentially spreading problem without something to check them.
Quote from: Larsdangly;778344One of the better posts on the thread. Basically what I was thinking when I wrote 'fuck off, this is bullshit!' on the first page.
It is explicitly clear in both early editions and things written in 5E that one way you can construct a world for D&D is with 0-level commoners being the almost everyone. And I would say even the ~1:1000 suggestion for low level clerics and magic users could be viewed as generous.
And it isn't obvious that there is any world where they could be expected to use that power to raise society's water level. That would be like saying, '1 % of americans have extraordinary amounts of excess wealth, which they obviously could spend to support food and health care for the poor, therefore my 'America' campaign will be a utopia of social services'. Yes, it is completely possible for that to happen, except people with excess money would much rather spend it on jet skis and over-priced wine. It is probably more reasonable to imagine that a fantasy world that includes magicians will be hugely stratified and oppressive.
Its a sensible way to run games and its how I have tried to run games since I was 14 or so. However there are some innate issues with it.
i) There are no entry requirements for any class above minimal stats. So explain why the guys in the city that have been living in gangs stealing stuff since they were 5 aren't (at least) 1st level thieves? Explain why the noble man's son with plenty of money and lots of free time might not choose to learn magic? Two countries have been at war for 20 years but none of their soldiers are 1st level fighters? why?
ii) The standard tropes of play imply plenty of people with class and level. From the you all meet by coincidence in an inn (only 1 in 1000 people have classes so the chance of there being 4 of them in this inn at any one time by chance are 1:1,000,000,000,000 or one in a thousand billion), to you need to train to advance but there is always a guy of the right class and level in any major town, you can always get healed at the local temple, by the time you are 5th level a city of 10,000 will probably have a group of elite guards who are say 3rd and there are 100 of them, a monk has to defeat the monk of the level above to progress to Grand Master, yet with only 1 in say 10 characters qualifying as a Monk you would need a land with 170,000 people just for there to be a single monk of each level at all ....
iii) Every module ever written. From the 2nd level blacksmith to the 3rd level enchantress that lives in the woods to the Slave pits to well everywhere really.
So there needs to be a fix.
First of you want to make mundanes more common then no entry requirements for thieves and fighters. Now all soldiers are 1st level fighters and all pickpockets are 1st level thieves.
Steep entry requirements for all other classes. These might range from minimal stats; 16 Wisdom to be a cleric; to only the seventh son of a seventh son can be a wizard. You might want to go the Stormbringer route and have a random roll determine your class, you might have all players run some sort of funnel where you start as 0 level having picked one of a slew of background traits and only those with certain traits can match certain classes, etc etc
You could handwave these and say the PCs have the special trait of any character they wish to play but they have to specify that trait in their background.
Actually implement the rules and make it so that a cleric that can heal wounds is regarded as a living saint there may be 1 or 2 in the whole kingdom and they will have hundreds of followers wearing only one sandal and the like, The wizards all belong to one of 2 orders The Longstaves or the Meddlers and those groups have political systems and track down anyone else practicing magic. etc
Basically make the setting actually reflect the desire for the PCs to be special and not say one thing then do another.
Quote from: RandallS;778199I simply refuse to adopt modern play-styles that stress the RAW, system mastery, min-maxing (aka excessive character optimization), character skill over player skill, adventure paths, etc.
Ayup! No matter what the mechanics are, the kind of games I enjoy running remain the same.
I alter the rules to best serve the setting. If the rules/mechanics are at odds with the setting they get changed. There is no reason every single thing included in the rules HAS to exist in a particular setting.
Monsters for example. Every stupid D&D monster does not have to exist in every game world. There may also be creatures in the setting not appearing in any published D&D product. This doesn't make the game 'not D&D'. It is the same with spells & other abilities. Published material is merely like items on a buffet, pick what what you want and put it on your plate (setting).
Quote from: Omega;778374I think though you fell into your own trap when you waived off the spellcasting fees. Instead of gold Id expect the common folk to be paying for services. But via barter. Food, assistance with construction, crafting, trade etc. The high costs of many spells will make them prohibitive to the common folk unless they can barter and trade.
I think we're
mostly agreed on that, but the difference is I think that the food, assistance with construction, crafting, trade, etc. will be structured in the form of regular tithes - in return for which the casting of spells is one of the services that the temple provides - rather than as individual payments for individual spells.
Obviously spells with actual material component costs would need to have those components paid for individually in cold hard cash, and I suggested that these could be paid for in instalments over an above the normal tithing level. Again, these instalments can be in actual money or some kind of monetary equivalent service just like tithes can.
QuoteIncarcerating a spellcaster by the rules is an absolute pain in the ass. Cantrips means that they can ALWAYS cast something. Worse. Taking away their spellbook means only that they cant swap spells. They can just rest up and BOOM full power. And clerics and druids do not even have that problem.
True. I haven't done the analysis, but taking away their focus and component pouch will stop them casting any spell with a material component; and making them wear some kind of inflexible mittens (similar to boxing gloves) can prevent them casting spells with a somatic component. So that only leaves them with spells that have a verbal component only. To stop those too you'd need some kind of gag or something.
QuoteThe wilderness is appallingly lethal before you even get to the monsters. Raids by something as simple as goblins is a real threat and anything bigger is a guarantee disaster waiting to happen.
That's one of the reasons I like to have healing and even resurrection magic available to commoners. It means that villages can actually survive rather than losing everyone in a series of raids and wandering monsters and being unable to get them back.
QuoteLycanthropy. In the playtest its a curse and you need at least a 5th level cleric to cast Remove Curse. Depending on how they change in the final version they could be a potentially spreading problem without something to check them.
I'll be interested to see how Lycanthropy is handled in the Monster Manual. Disease? Curse? Bloodline?
In terms of how I run settings I'm firmly in the "both the PC's and their antagonists are extraordinary" camp, so I don't worry about magic rearranging society too much. Sure, it's around, but it takes a lot more than a high Int score to learn it. You need to convince someone to teach you, and it turns out the people with ability to bend reality have a pretty vested interest in keeping that ability to themselves.
Quote from: jibbajibba;778377are no entry requirements for any class above minimal stats. So explain why the guys in the city that have been living in gangs stealing stuff since they were 5 aren't (at least) 1st level thieves? Explain why the noble man's son with plenty of money and lots of free time might not choose to learn magic? Two countries have been at war for 20 years but none of their soldiers are 1st level fighters? why?
Simply because "class" is a metagame frame of reference for the players, not something intrinsic to the game universe. Why are none of their soldiers 1st level fighters? Because they aren't player characters. This isn't the only way to resolve the conundrum, but I think it's elegant enough.
I'd rather make a unique spellcasting monster as a NPC human wizard- with magics and spells often pulled from non-standard spell lists or invented from whole cloth- than use a classed wizard as an NPC. Not every time, sure, sometimes you go with the quick "fuck it, this is just a fourth level wizard." But I like to avoid that. Same for any other potential class. Just give it some HD, some abilities, put it in the world or on a wandering monster chart, done.
In my games, I prefer even the mightiest king in the land be a non-classed, single hit-die character. His might doesn't come from the unique perks of class, which I like to keep reserved for players and MAYBE some very unique monsters, but through armies, gold, and ancient oaths and traditions.
This is actually why bounded accuracy excites me in theory- as I understand it you can have a 0th level king with 6 hp and keep him safe from the PCs, at least for a while, through hordes of his 6 hp unclassed guards, probably a couple magic items passed down his royal line, and a few exotic pets. When the PCs can kill him, well, that's there prerogative as classed characters- they are allowed to become the mightiest of the mighty.
I think a good rule of thumb for my home games is no more than two or three classed NPCs for each classed PC in the whole milieu, but that's still a pretty high number. Certainly I wouldn't expect to run into all of those classed NPCs on the regular, and many of them would be antagonistic if not outright villainous to those who would stumble upon them.
Basically I want to make sure the PCs feel like they are apart from society, not normal, doing something different from a safe, decent civilized living- unique, but not necessarily special.
Quote from: jibbajibba;778377i) There are no entry requirements for any class above minimal stats. So explain why the guys in the city that have been living in gangs stealing stuff since they were 5 aren't (at least) 1st level thieves? Explain why the noble man's son with plenty of money and lots of free time might not choose to learn magic? Two countries have been at war for 20 years but none of their soldiers are 1st level fighters? why?
ii) The standard tropes of play imply plenty of people with class and level. From the you all meet by coincidence in an inn (only 1 in 1000 people have classes so the chance of there being 4 of them in this inn at any one time by chance are 1:1,000,000,000,000 or one in a thousand billion), to you need to train to advance but there is always a guy of the right class and level in any major town, you can always get healed at the local temple, by the time you are 5th level a city of 10,000 will probably have a group of elite guards who are say 3rd and there are 100 of them, a monk has to defeat the monk of the level above to progress to Grand Master, yet with only 1 in say 10 characters qualifying as a Monk you would need a land with 170,000 people just for there to be a single monk of each level at all ....
iii) Every module ever written. From the 2nd level blacksmith to the 3rd level enchantress that lives in the woods to the Slave pits to well everywhere really.
So there needs to be a fix.
All this I agree with.
QuoteFirst of you want to make mundanes more common then no entry requirements for thieves and fighters. Now all soldiers are 1st level fighters and all pickpockets are 1st level thieves.
Steep entry requirements for all other classes. These might range from minimal stats; 16 Wisdom to be a cleric; to only the seventh son of a seventh son can be a wizard. You might want to go the Stormbringer route and have a random roll determine your class, you might have all players run some sort of funnel where you start as 0 level having picked one of a slew of background traits and only those with certain traits can match certain classes, etc etc
You could handwave these and say the PCs have the special trait of any character they wish to play but they have to specify that trait in their background.
Actually implement the rules and make it so that a cleric that can heal wounds is regarded as a living saint there may be 1 or 2 in the whole kingdom and they will have hundreds of followers wearing only one sandal and the like, The wizards all belong to one of 2 orders The Longstaves or the Meddlers and those groups have political systems and track down anyone else practicing magic. etc
Basically make the setting actually reflect the desire for the PCs to be special and not say one thing then do another.
But here's where you lose me. You seem to have a severe double standard here.
On the one hand you want to avoid there being many wielders of magic of any type in order to keep PCs "special", but you're happy to have lots of thieves and fighters and the like. Surely that means that only half the PCs can be "special" - only the ones that use magic? Bob the mage gets to be one-in-a-million even though he's only first level but Sue the fighter is just like all the other first level fighters in the militia - and outclassed by the third level sergeant.
For consistency I'd either say that adventuring classes are all rare and exceptional - this is the way that 4e did things - or that they're all rather common and it's being (or getting to)
high level that makes PCs special rather than simply being able to use magic.
Quote from: jibbajibba;778238There is no problem with a vanilla medieval setting but the OP has a point about healing and the like. If your PCs can all vistit the local temple for a quick cure then so can anyone else.
The idea of a village having a local priest that maybe serves a sizable parish made up of a few villages and is on hand for births and for saying last rites and burials etc. make sense for a lot of settings and that will have an effect on infant mortality and birth rates etc. If you don't have that then you probably need to say why.
But you're making two big assumptions here:
- That the D&D world has a powerful religion analogous to Christianity.
- That good is the normal alignment of most communities.
That's understandable, because religion is maybe the most incoherent thing about the implied D&D setting. On the one hand, clerics as a class are much like Christian templars, from their spells to their role to their weapons. On the other hand, the deities presented as early as Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes (1978) look nothing like the Christian god. Odin, Thoth, Zeus, Dionysus, Set. These deities do not exist to give succor to the poor and weak. They are capricious, cruel, or detached. So only a fraction of temples are devoted to deities where you could expect healing the common man to be on the agenda.
It wasn't until the boxed Greyhawk set (1983) that we got anything like an official D&D pantheon (setting aside Dragon articles). And long before that came out, I was using the Judges Guild Wilderlands material. The City State of the Invincible Overlord was the first city published for D&D (1976). Evil is as prevalent in the city as good, and neutral more common than either. IIRC, the biggest temple is to lawful evil Harmakhis, and human sacrifice is carried out on the premises. In my own campaigns, I used the City State of the World Emperor (1980). The most powerful temple in the city is Mer-Shunna, an evil sea god. Temples to several evil gods operate openly in the city, and the closest analog to a Christian religion, the Mycretians, are a persecuted cult.
Quote from: jibbajibba;778238Will a City with a wizard academy probably have the equivalent of continual light spells ... yeah seems liekly. If Wizards are going to be limited in number you might want to limit player access to wizards.
In my early years playing D&D I didn't come across any wizard academies, let alone an assumption that they were commonplace in most cities. The material I had suggested that magic-users apprenticed to a more powerful mage in what I assumed was a one-to-one ratio. There was mention in some material of wizard cabals or conclaves, but these were small (a dozen or fewer mages) and dedicated to esoteric pursuits. No reason to assume they trained younger mages as matter of course.
Quote from: estar;778251It is possible but a lot of other pieces would have to be in place as well. It wouldn't be a medieval society anymore but rather looking like something like the later Chinese Empire or Europe after the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.
D&D settings seem to have increased in technology level over the years. The Wilderlands is largely a dark ages world, with the ruins of more advanced civilizations underfoot. 30 years later we have Eberron. And a lot of people today (on TBP anyway) dispute the notion that D&D is based on a foundation of the medieval world at all.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778343Although I've played every edition of D&D (except 2e inexplicably) from OD&D onwards, most of my campaigns run on BECMI or a close facsimile thereof.
...I'd say that the average BECMI setting (note that this is very different from the average BX setting or the average BE- setting that doesn't use the CMI material) has much more ubiquitous magic than even Eberron does; but the magic isn't as world-shattering as in 3.x. In Mystara - the default setting for BECMI - there are places like Alphatia which is ruled by a council of 1,000 36th level magic-users and there are flying ships and colonies on the moon, and so forth.
That's incredible. I know nothing about Mystara, so I had no idea it was that high-magic.
So I suppose the whole notion of the 'default' or 'presumed' is not as much of a default as some suggest. Especially in the early days, when published setting material was thin on the ground, when sword and sorcery was still a popular genre, and the world outside the dungeon was left largely to the DM. All we can assume is that healing magic and mages exist. How common they are and what role they play in society is entirely up to the group, and always has been.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778373When it comes to the overlap of races, I've usually taken the assumption that the relationship between humans and orcs (for example) is like the relationship between Britons and Vikings.
In other words, I don't assume that humans treat the humanoid races as "kill on sight" enemies. The human towns will be aware of the various humanoid tribes that live in the hills and most of the time there will be an uneasy truce between them with a modicum of trade and communication.
In my worlds, monsters eat people. And I don't consider that particularly hardcore - the trolls and orcs in the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings eat people. Humanoids are regarded as settlers regarded Apaches, with the added horror that they're cannibals.
Quote from: jibbajibba;778377i) There are no entry requirements for any class above minimal stats. So explain why the guys in the city that have been living in gangs stealing stuff since they were 5 aren't (at least) 1st level thieves? Explain why the noble man's son with plenty of money and lots of free time might not choose to learn magic? Two countries have been at war for 20 years but none of their soldiers are 1st level fighters? why?
Those are the entry requirements for PCs. As the AD&D DMG states, on a very small fraction of people have the potential to become PCs. Think of it like elite athletics or academics. Out of the millions of kids playing high school football in the U.S. today, only a small fraction have the potential to become NFL players. Out of the millions of kids in math classes, only a small fraction have the potential to make it into MIT on a full scholarship and achieve a doctorate. Aside from physical and mental capability, there's ambition, innate drive, and even fortune.
Some soldiers are 1st level fighters. And 3rd level. They are the elite. Often the officers (if the army is a meritocracy).
Quote from: jibbajibba;778377iii) Every module ever written. From the 2nd level blacksmith to the 3rd level enchantress that lives in the woods to the Slave pits to well everywhere really.
Not every module. Aside from a couple officers, the soldiers in the Keep on the Borderlands are 0 level men-at-arms. And in the Village of Hommlet, Gygax points out that the number of leveled PCs is unusual because of the history of the village and the proximity of the Temple of Elemental Evil. But granted, a lot of D&D modules do break the setting guidelines presented in the rules.
Quote from: jibbajibba;778377Its a sensible way to run games and its how I have tried to run games since I was 14 or so. However there are some innate issues with it.
i) There are no entry requirements for any class above minimal stats. So explain why the guys in the city that have been living in gangs stealing stuff since they were 5 aren't (at least) 1st level thieves? Explain why the noble man's son with plenty of money and lots of free time might not choose to learn magic? Two countries have been at war for 20 years but none of their soldiers are 1st level fighters? why?
ii) The standard tropes of play imply plenty of people with class and level. From the you all meet by coincidence in an inn (only 1 in 1000 people have classes so the chance of there being 4 of them in this inn at any one time by chance are 1:1,000,000,000,000 or one in a thousand billion), to you need to train to advance but there is always a guy of the right class and level in any major town, you can always get healed at the local temple, by the time you are 5th level a city of 10,000 will probably have a group of elite guards who are say 3rd and there are 100 of them, a monk has to defeat the monk of the level above to progress to Grand Master, yet with only 1 in say 10 characters qualifying as a Monk you would need a land with 170,000 people just for there to be a single monk of each level at all ....
iii) Every module ever written. From the 2nd level blacksmith to the 3rd level enchantress that lives in the woods to the Slave pits to well everywhere really.
So there needs to be a fix.
First of you want to make mundanes more common then no entry requirements for thieves and fighters. Now all soldiers are 1st level fighters and all pickpockets are 1st level thieves.
Steep entry requirements for all other classes. These might range from minimal stats; 16 Wisdom to be a cleric; to only the seventh son of a seventh son can be a wizard. You might want to go the Stormbringer route and have a random roll determine your class, you might have all players run some sort of funnel where you start as 0 level having picked one of a slew of background traits and only those with certain traits can match certain classes, etc etc
You could handwave these and say the PCs have the special trait of any character they wish to play but they have to specify that trait in their background.
Actually implement the rules and make it so that a cleric that can heal wounds is regarded as a living saint there may be 1 or 2 in the whole kingdom and they will have hundreds of followers wearing only one sandal and the like, The wizards all belong to one of 2 orders The Longstaves or the Meddlers and those groups have political systems and track down anyone else practicing magic. etc
Basically make the setting actually reflect the desire for the PCs to be special and not say one thing then do another.
Magic, what about magic? And elves. Hobbits too. Effin' Hobbitses. Basically you have to accept some tropes. Hard to define the why's of how it all works.
Quote from: apparition13;778305In which case the only way society could function would be if the OP's assumptions are true.
Plantations are factories; food factories. Sprinkle in a few druids and hey presto, surplus.
The Romans had plantations known as latifundia which evolved into manoralism of the middle ages depending on climate and circumstances.
Some of the questions that needs to be answered are
1) Does each estate have a druid in residence?
2) By how much is productivity increased?
Particularly #1 implies there was a time where druids were not present on every estate. That at some point society developed the infrastructure to train, pay, and staff a network of druids living on estates boosting crop yields. Doesn't mean it some vast government program, just that this grew to be part of the culture. That a land owner can expect to be able to advertise, find, and employ druid to boost his crop yields.
A campaign can be adjusted to whatever the referee wants the the RAW rules by simply stating that it is set further back in time to the point before all this happened.
Quote from: apparition13;778305If it gives a big enough advantage to make a difference in warfare, it will be done. Any society that doesn't is a conquered society.
Why did gunpowder empires originate in Europe first and not china or the ottomans? Or the industrial revolution in the Midlands of England and not the Yellow River valley of China?
Progress as western civilization defines it, depends on a number of specific prerequisites and then on top of that luck. Somewhere it has to happen first and when it does it is a matter of luck as some individual happens to put everything together in the way that proves to be THE way. Sometimes it require a chain of events to fall like dominoes.
Quote from: apparition13;778305The Mongols didn't sweep in from the east every other year, the black death didn't kill a third of Europe every decade. It appears to me Haffrung's assumption is monsters are a more constant and present threat than murder and marauding armies.
Actually they did. the latter half of the 13th century pretty every land that bordered the Mongol Empire suffered at their hands one way or another.
As for the Black Death the primary out break lasted from 1346 to 1353. Then there were reoccurance in in 1361–62, 1369, 1379–83, 1389–93 continuing into the 15th century with up to 10% dying.
Smallpox was a annual occurrence with hundreds of thousands dying each year. Then there was cholera, typhus, yellow fever and so on.
In short the real horrors of the past were on par or greater than the pretend horrors we make up.
Quote from: Gold Roger;778164Do you think that, if we asume every priest is at least a level 1 cleric
Well and this is the biggest flaw with the Original Post's analysis. People with PC classes are much more rare in the world than he assumes they are, under the implied 5e setting (even rarer than you posited).
For example, from the Cleric class in the Basic edition:
"Not every acolyte or officiant at a temple or shrine is a cleric. Some priests are called to a simple life of temple service, carrying out their gods’ will through prayer and sacrifice, not by magic and strength of arms. In some cities, priesthood amounts to a political office, viewed as a stepping stone to higher positions of authority and involving no communion with a god at all.
True clerics are rare in most hierarchies."
Similarly from the Fighter description:
"Not every member of the city watch, the village militia, or the queen’s army is a fighter. Most of these troops are relatively untrained soldiers with only the most basic combat knowledge. Veteran soldiers, military officers, trained bodyguards, dedicated knights, and similar figures are fighters."
So from this we can tell the intent is that PC classes are the exception and not the rule, they are rare in society.
Once you include that type of assumption, most of the Original Post's analysis is obviously flawed. The village has no Druid. The town has no Wizard. The hamlet priest is not a Cleric. There may be no Fighters in the city watch.
And then there are more minor flaws with his analysis. For instance, Continual Flame is dispelled by any equal-level Darkness spell, not just Dispel Magic. Whoops, there goes your 50gp of ruby dust, destroyed by another 2nd level spell which doesn't have any costly component. I don't think they will be as common as he thinks, by a long shot.
I also think it's very strange that the Original Poster proclaims we should follow the implied setting, and then outright dismisses that implied setting when it's inconvenient for his agenda. For example, it says it costs 10-50gp per casting to get a Cleric to cast Cure Wounds. That's part of the implied setting, but he just outright dismisses it and says the world wouldn't work that way. Nope, that's how the world works. You either take it all, or you accept house ruling, you don't dismiss the parts that are inconvenient for your bias. And as we can see from how rare Clerics are, we probably now know why it costs that money. Because unlike what the Original Poster said, the local priest probably is not a Cleric and he or she cannot cast any spells.
Then we have claims like, "Since stopping someone from dying is so easy". No, it's not. The Original Poster missed the rule about Instant Death. "When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you die if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum." That means your average peasant absolutely can die from things like falling out of a tree, or child birth, even if they happen to have a Cleric in yelling distance, because instant death is, well, instant, and death.
Same goes for disease and poison - many do so much damage initial a peasant would die before a Cleric could get there.
Bottom line, it seems like the Original Poster didn't actually read the 5e rules very carefully and just made (false) assumptions about the implied setting and simply declared them as true.
Quote from: Haffrung;778412D&D settings seem to have increased in technology level over the years. The Wilderlands is largely a dark ages world, with the ruins of more advanced civilizations underfoot. 30 years later we have Eberron. And a lot of people today (on TBP anyway) dispute the notion that D&D is based on a foundation of the medieval world at all.
Not a problem in my book. We know the notion of fantasy changes every generation. 70s D&D had a lot of Swords & Planets that we didn't see a lot of afterwards. Steampunk is lot more popular these days then I ever remember it being. Urban/Modern Fantasy have popular archetypes like Dresden, Potter, and Buffy.
With the OGL I can write my bog standard tolkeinish setting and if it sells great! If not, and provided it not another fuck up on my part, one has to accept that taste changes.
My opinion the best option is to keep bog standard D&Dish medieval fantasy as the implied setting and add just enough of what current popular to show the possibility of adapting it to your preferred subgenre. Sort of like how some martian monsters and elements appeared in OD&D. Then for more specifics buy the supplement.
Mostly because despite all the changes, the bog standard stuff still has staying power as shown by the Lord of the Rings/Hobbit movies and Game of Thrones. But instead of being THE view of fantasy now it just the slighly more popular view of fantasy with a whole bunch of other subgenres shining brightly.
Quote from: Mistwell;778434For example, from the Cleric class in the Basic edition:
And yet in their two published adventure every experienced individual has a level.
Quote from: estar;778436And yet in their two published adventure every experienced individual has a level.
Are we talking implied setting from the rules, or not?
Stop with the moving target bullshit. We both know published adventures are not the PHB rules the Original Poster was referencing. Indeed, those published adventures are in a different setting entirely than the implied setting in the PHB (and it's called out as such) and those are in the Forgotten Realms setting, which IS higher magic than the implied setting of the PHB.
Quote from: Mistwell;778434Because unlike what the Original Poster said, the local priest probably is not a Cleric and he or she cannot cast any spells.
Although again, just because a priest is not a 'Cleric' doesn't necessarily mean they cannot cast spells. The basic Acolyte in Horde of the Dragon Queen has the same ability to cast spells as a second level cleric. The example priest has the spells of a 5th level cleric.
As for fighters, the 3HD ruffians in Phandelver get Additional Attack, a full two levels before an actual Fighter would. The example Knight is 8HD and has a Leadership Ability I am not sure that PC classes can get at all.
Edit: I believe that all these NPCs except the ruffians are pulled from the DMG and so are not setting specific.
Quote from: Mistwell;778438Are we talking implied setting from the rules, or not?
Stop with the moving target bullshit. We both know published adventures are not the PHB rules the Original Poster was referencing. Indeed, those published adventures are in a different setting entirely than the implied setting in the PHB (and it's called out as such) and those are in the Forgotten Realms setting, which IS higher magic than the implied setting of the PHB.
I am not moving the goal post. However I wasn't clear what I was driving at. In my experience what most referee do is treat level as experience and populate their setting with leveled individuals. It is a very natural way of thinking given how the game works.
However there are a lot of referee who play as any leveled characters is special . Special in that, the character is ordained by fate to make a mark on the world (as a hero or villain). Which makes leveled individual rare.
That the books explicitly support of that view in my view is likely a good thing. Because that needs to be encouraged more than the view that leveled individual are everything.
But the implied setting works equally well with either view. And I suspect that it will get discussed in the DMG like many other options.
Quote from: estar;778436And yet in their two published adventure every experienced individual has a level.
They have Hit Dice, which is not necessarily the same thing.
Commoners do not have Levels in PC Classes, but they still have 1d8 Hit Points.
Quote from: estar;778433Why did gunpowder empires originate in Europe first and not china or the ottomans?
"Gun" could very well be a Chinese word (iirc it is their word for a fighting staff), and they invent them. The Ottomans, use artillery to shoot down the walls of Constantinople; and it is an initial advantage vs a lot of European states. But this, as well as the "industrial revolution" have social causes as well.
QuoteOr the industrial revolution in the Midlands of England and not the Yellow River valley of China?
Sort of the same way the British beat out the Rhine valley also; a larger middle class with greater political unity.
Quote from: jadrax;778443Although again, just because a priest is not a 'Cleric' doesn't necessarily mean they cannot cast spells. The basic Acolyte in Horde of the Dragon Queen has the same ability to cast spells as a second level cleric. The example priest has the spells of a 5th level cleric.
As for fighters, the 3HD ruffians in Phandelver get Additional Attack, a full two levels before an actual Fighter would. The example Knight is 8HD and has a Leadership Ability I am not sure that PC classes can get at all.
Edit: I believe that all these NPCs except the ruffians are pulled from the DMG and so are not setting specific.
Yes, again, Forgotten Realms is a different setting than the implied setting from the PHB.
Quote from: Mistwell;778455Yes, again, Forgotten Realms is a different setting than the implied setting from the PHB.
Again, as far as I am aware, all these NPCs except the ruffians are pulled from the DMG and so are
not setting specific.
Quote from: dragoner;778449Sort of the same way the British beat out the Rhine valley also; a larger middle class with greater political unity.
I agree. Innovation comes from particular environments, such as a strong and free middle class, banking, and the scientific method, that aren't likely to be found in D&D settings based off the medieval world. It isn't at all inevitable that magic should function like science, or that material and social progress should go hand-in-hand.
One of the issues is that fewer and fewer fantasy gamers have any knowledge of history. Or if they do, they're like the TBP crowd*, who see historical societies as something to loathe and condemn. So we get fantasy worlds that are pretty much suburban North America with cloaks, swords, and magic in the place of technology. While there has always been that tendency in fantasy RPGs and in the fantasy genre in general, it seems to have become much stronger in the last 20 years. Even something as once-commonplace as a feudal system, with a small number of aristocrats lording over masses of simple peasants, today is likely to be portrayed as an evil empire.
*I've received repeated warnings and threadbans on TBP for the sin of enjoying fantasy worlds rooted in historical societies. Apparently, because you can create whatever you want in a fantasy world, if you create an unjust or 'exclusionary' world, you're condoning injustice and exclusion in our world.
Quote from: Mistwell;778434"Not every acolyte or officiant at a temple or shrine is a cleric. Some priests are called to a simple life of temple service, carrying out their gods' will through prayer and sacrifice, not by magic and strength of arms. In some cities, priesthood amounts to a political office, viewed as a stepping stone to higher positions of authority and involving no communion with a god at all. True clerics are rare in most hierarchies."
I haven't said every temple functionary will be a cleric; only that there will be some clerics.
Quote"Not every member of the city watch, the village militia, or the queen's army is a fighter. Most of these troops are relatively untrained soldiers with only the most basic combat knowledge. Veteran soldiers, military officers, trained bodyguards, dedicated knights, and similar figures are fighters."
I said nothing about fighters at all.
QuoteThe village has no Druid. The town has no Wizard. The hamlet priest is not a Cleric. There may be no Fighters in the city watch.
That's a perfectly valid, albeit extreme, assumption. I based my post on a more middle-ground assumption - that there will be
some of those types of people even though not everyone is one.
QuoteFor instance, Continual Flame is dispelled by any equal-level Darkness spell, not just Dispel Magic. Whoops, there goes your 50gp of ruby dust, destroyed by another 2nd level spell which doesn't have any costly component. I don't think they will be as common as he thinks, by a long shot.
Because people are constantly coming into other peoples' houses and casting darkness spells to destroy their lights, sure.
QuoteFor example, it says it costs 10-50gp per casting to get a Cleric to cast Cure Wounds. That's part of the implied setting, but he just outright dismisses it and says the world wouldn't work that way. Nope, that's how the world works.
That cost is for wandering into a random town and asking a stranger to cast a spell. I'm talking about people being healed by a cleric who knows them well from weekly ceremonies and to whom they have been paying tithes for years. It's a completely different situation.
QuoteThen we have claims like, "Since stopping someone from dying is so easy". No, it's not.
The majority of things that will kill someone won't do it instantly. And you'll notice I never said anything about death rates being completely nullified - merely reduced.
QuoteBottom line, it seems like the Original Poster didn't actually read the 5e rules very carefully and just made (false) assumptions about the implied setting and simply declared them as true.
Bottom line, for a lot of bluster, there's no substance to your post at all. I did read the rules carefully and hadn't missed any of the things that you claim I had, and the supposed "flaws" you point out are contrived situations or extreme interpretations.
Quote from: Haffrung;778421In my worlds, monsters eat people. And I don't consider that particularly hardcore - the trolls and orcs in the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings eat people. Humanoids are regarded as settlers regarded Apaches, with the added horror that they're cannibals.
Oh sure. Some monsters eat people in my campaigns too. But it gets boring if
every humanoid race is like that. I prefer variety where different races have different attitudes (and are easier or harder to live near).
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778492Because people are constantly coming into other peoples' houses and casting darkness spells to destroy their lights, sure.
If I'm a thief, and magic was that commonplace, you know I would.
Quote from: Haffrung;778421Out of the millions of kids in math classes, only a small fraction have the potential to make it into MIT on a full scholarship and achieve a doctorate.
**** PEDANTRY ALERT: ****
MIT doesn't give merit scholarships. They do court 'high-achieving' potential applicants, but they don't cut checks to bring them in. (MIT's financial aid is need-based, and admissions are need-blind.)
Also, I'm pretty sure I remember there being a bias in the Math Dept against bringing MIT undergrads back as grad students. There was the understanding, I was told, that a broader experiential base was of use to the department.
It is in many regards a sensibly-run school, its many many many cultural fuckups notwithstanding.
**** PEDANTRY ALERT OVER ****
Quote from: JamesV;778504If I'm a thief, and magic was that commonplace, you know I would.
Really, why?
I mean the
Continual Flame is going to be covered at night so that people can sleep. So why would you come in under cover of the natural darkness and then not only add unnecessary magical darkness on top of that but also then go to the trouble of
uncovering a covered light just so that your magical darkness can dispel it?
Surely you'd just come in through the natural darkness, steal things, and leave. Why do the extra messing about to destroy someone's light source out of spite?
Hell, if you really want to get rid of it that badly why not just
steal the (covered) Continual Flame?
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778494Oh sure. Some monsters eat people in my campaigns too. But it gets boring if every humanoid race is like that. I prefer variety where different races have different attitudes (and are easier or harder to live near).
Yeah, I do have some semi-tamed humanoids in my settings. In fact, the City State of the Invincible Overlord that I referenced earlier actually calls the goblin territory on the edge of the city the Goblin Reservation.
Quote from: Haffrung;778156In 35 years I've only seen one raise dead and one resurrection. Again, I didn't have to house rule anything. Nor did I consciously set out to run a harsh or cruel game. It just so happened that I've experienced little high level play, and played in campaigns were high level NPCs are very rare.
Wow! Haffrung, has your group been relatively consistent over the years? I can imagine a group stumbling into 'resurrection is very rare' and never feeling the need to stumble out.
Were those two episodes unusual in other ways? Dramatic? Did you make a big deal out of it? Was it implied that raising the dead was rare throughout your gameworld, or just in the PCs' experience?
Quote from: stuffis;778519Wow! Haffrung, has your group been relatively consistent over the years? I can imagine a group stumbling into 'resurrection is very rare' and never feeling the need to stumble out.
Largely, yes, it has been a stable group of long-time friends. Three of the guys in my group today are guys who I've been playing with (on and off) since we were 12.
Quote from: stuffis;778519Were those two episodes unusual in other ways? Dramatic? Did you make a big deal out of it?
IIRC, they were carried out by powerful clerics or druids who the PCs had aided. So yeah, a big deal. The PCs certainly didn't just walk into a temple and pay for them.
Quote from: stuffis;778519Was it implied that raising the dead was rare throughout your gameworld, or just in the PCs' experience?
Both. We spent much of our early campaigns in dungeon crawls, with not a whole lot of attention paid to NPCs and politics in the wider world. Later campaigns were in very hostile worlds, where clerics who were both powerful and benevolent scarcely existed. And most importantly, in that span maybe four campaigns reached 8th level, and only two reached 10th level.
Another thing to keep in mind is that in situations where a PC was brought below -10 HP without aid, it was likely that more than one PC was dropped, and a TPK ensued. No need for raise dead when you're making up a whole new party.
Quote from: apparition13;778305In which case the only way society could function would be if the OP's assumptions are true.
Plantations are factories; food factories. Sprinkle in a few druids and hey presto, surplus.
If it gives a big enough advantage to make a difference in warfare, it will be done. Any society that doesn't is a conquered society.
The Mongols didn't sweep in from the east every other year, the black death didn't kill a third of Europe every decade. It appears to me Haffrung's assumption is monsters are a more constant and present threat than murder and marauding armies.
But like everyone has said, it's pretty easily controllable; all you have to do is adjust the demographics of classes and levels as a percent of population to get what you want. Turn it down enough and it's medieval, turn it up and enough and it's transhuman.
Quote from: Haffrung;778531Largely, yes, it has been a stable group of long-time friends. Three of the guys in my group today are guys who I've been playing with (on and off) since we were 12.
IIRC, they were carried out by powerful clerics or druids who the PCs had aided. So yeah, a big deal. The PCs certainly didn't just walk into a temple and pay for them.
Both. We spent much of our early campaigns in dungeon crawls, with not a whole lot of attention paid to NPCs and politics in the wider world. Later campaigns were in very hostile worlds, where clerics who were both powerful and benevolent scarcely existed. And most importantly, in that span maybe four campaigns reached 8th level, and only two reached 10th level.
Another thing to keep in mind is that in situations where a PC was brought below -10 HP without aid, it was likely that more than one PC was dropped, and a TPK ensued. No need for raise dead when you're making up a whole new party.
Now it all makes sense. At that level I wouldn't expect to see a spell above 5th level used except as a desperate move off a scroll or something. Is this 2e you are talking about? If so, that's about baseline for that edition.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778517Really, why?
I mean the Continual Flame is going to be covered at night so that people can sleep. So why would you come in under cover of the natural darkness and then not only add unnecessary magical darkness on top of that but also then go to the trouble of uncovering a covered light just so that your magical darkness can dispel it?
Surely you'd just come in through the natural darkness, steal things, and leave. Why do the extra messing about to destroy someone's light source out of spite?
Hell, if you really want to get rid of it that badly why not just steal the (covered) Continual Flame?
The spell is being treated as if it would become a common convenience, but assume no one would want to mess with it. If the expense is truly 50gp of specifically, powdered ruby, then that's an economy that would be worth messing with. It sounds to me that rubies of any grade would be a valuable resource. If the setting is like Earth, then its availability is limited to specific areas, which would also be important.
That actually could make stealing the continual torch/lamp a good idea. Why steal a draft horse if you can take a shaded permanent lamp at the same value? It might be easier to hide, and makes a lot less noise. An enterprising Thief's Guild might consider running a racket in stealing them and fencing them to places that are less privileged to have a access to a lot of rubies and clerics/wizards with access to the spell.
Quote from: Marleycat;778566Is this 2e you are talking about? If so, that's about baseline for that edition.
1E and 2E.
Quote from: Haffrung;7785811E and 2E.
Yeah with that as context my experience was similar to yours in those versions. I prefer a faster progression so it's one reason I went to different games.
Quote from: JamesV;778569That actually could make stealing the continual torch/lamp a good idea. Why steal a draft horse if you can take a shaded permanent lamp at the same value? It might be easier to hide, and makes a lot less noise. An enterprising Thief's Guild might consider running a racket in stealing them and fencing them to places that are less privileged to have a access to a lot of rubies and clerics/wizards with access to the spell.
Absolutely true, and that would need to be taken into account - people with
Continual Flame items would want them to be either easily hidden/secured to prevent theft or to be big bulky things that are very inconvenient to steal.
But redistribution by theft isn't the same as destruction, which is what Mistwell's argument against their existence was about. Mistwell wasn't claiming that they would be a commonly stolen item. He was claiming that they wouldn't exist at all because they'd have been dispelled by people casting darkness spells on them.
That claim was what I was arguing against (well, I wasn't actually arguing against it so much as calling it a silly thing and dismissing it).
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778604Absolutely true, and that would need to be taken into account - people with Continual Flame items would want them to be either easily hidden/secured to prevent theft or to be big bulky things that are very inconvenient to steal.
But redistribution by theft isn't the same as destruction, which is what Mistwell's argument against their existence was about. Mistwell wasn't claiming that they would be a commonly stolen item. He was claiming that they wouldn't exist at all because they'd have been dispelled by people casting darkness spells on them.
That claim was what I was arguing against (well, I wasn't actually arguing against it so much as calling it a silly thing and dismissing it).
And on second thought, you have a good point, though I do think that esp. the possible cost disparity in an appropriate darkness, dispel vs. continual flame is something that would affect the not just the cost, but the value of the lamps, and the dispels. No organized attack/raid/grand theft won't be without a dispel or darkness handy just in case.
A high-magic heist would be a heck of a thing to carry off properly.
Quote from: estar;778436And yet in their two published adventure every experienced individual has a level.
Exactly.
Key thing here is make the setting consistent with the rules. Doesn't mean you should play with RAW but means you need to blend the rules and the settign to make sense. Hopefully the DMG will have more advice on this.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778392All this I agree with.
But here's where you lose me. You seem to have a severe double standard here.
On the one hand you want to avoid there being many wielders of magic of any type in order to keep PCs "special", but you're happy to have lots of thieves and fighters and the like. Surely that means that only half the PCs can be "special" - only the ones that use magic? Bob the mage gets to be one-in-a-million even though he's only first level but Sue the fighter is just like all the other first level fighters in the militia - and outclassed by the third level sergeant.
For consistency I'd either say that adventuring classes are all rare and exceptional - this is the way that 4e did things - or that they're all rather common and it's being (or getting to) high level that makes PCs special rather than simply being able to use magic.
No I have no double standard. I have no wish to make PC special. My wish is to make people that can do magic special be they PCs, NPCs whatever.
The reason to do this is in order to make society work in a certain way not to massage the egos of the players. You are a fighter there are lots of you types about doesn't make the class less powerful merely more common.
So the driver is to try and control the natural tendancy for technology to alter society (here technology = magic) by making said technology rare. If a Chinese general invents a gunpower powered musket that doesn't change society significantly. If said general mass produces such muskets and uses them to arm 4000 men, that changes society.
Quote from: JamesV;778620And on second thought, you have a good point, though I do think that esp. the possible cost disparity in an appropriate darkness, dispel vs. continual flame is something that would affect the not just the cost, but the value of the lamps, and the dispels. No organized attack/raid/grand theft won't be without a dispel or darkness handy just in case.
A high-magic heist would be a heck of a thing to carry off properly.
if a continual flame costs 50gp in a society where a guy makes 1gp a week continual flames will be rare (palaces, military etc)
In our world what would happen is a bunch of wizards would get together and work out that you can do a weaker version of continual flame using a carboundum that only works out at 1gp a cast, or they would work out a way to generate a lot of ruby dust using magic.
Quote from: matthulhu;778385Simply because "class" is a metagame frame of reference for the players, not something intrinsic to the game universe. Why are none of their soldiers 1st level fighters? Because they aren't player characters. This isn't the only way to resolve the conundrum, but I think it's elegant enough.
I'd rather make a unique spellcasting monster as a NPC human wizard- with magics and spells often pulled from non-standard spell lists or invented from whole cloth- than use a classed wizard as an NPC. Not every time, sure, sometimes you go with the quick "fuck it, this is just a fourth level wizard." But I like to avoid that. Same for any other potential class. Just give it some HD, some abilities, put it in the world or on a wandering monster chart, done.
In my games, I prefer even the mightiest king in the land be a non-classed, single hit-die character. His might doesn't come from the unique perks of class, which I like to keep reserved for players and MAYBE some very unique monsters, but through armies, gold, and ancient oaths and traditions.
This is actually why bounded accuracy excites me in theory- as I understand it you can have a 0th level king with 6 hp and keep him safe from the PCs, at least for a while, through hordes of his 6 hp unclassed guards, probably a couple magic items passed down his royal line, and a few exotic pets. When the PCs can kill him, well, that's there prerogative as classed characters- they are allowed to become the mightiest of the mighty.
I think a good rule of thumb for my home games is no more than two or three classed NPCs for each classed PC in the whole milieu, but that's still a pretty high number. Certainly I wouldn't expect to run into all of those classed NPCs on the regular, and many of them would be antagonistic if not outright villainous to those who would stumble upon them.
Basically I want to make sure the PCs feel like they are apart from society, not normal, doing something different from a safe, decent civilized living- unique, but not necessarily special.
I would be quite happy to have 0 level kings. However, I have no need to make the PCs feel special. I am much more Ambercrombie than Tolkien.
I have no problem with no wizards or lots of wizards so long as the setting reflects the choice. I expect fighters and theives would be common just as they are in our world today but the vast number of them would be 1st level. So 20 1st level thieves have a 2nd level handler and the top thief in town is 3rd . In old progression rates (AD&D) it would have been something like the top
in town has xp = to the town's population as a decent rule of thumb.
Quote from: jadrax;778463Again, as far as I am aware, all these NPCs except the ruffians are pulled from the DMG and so are not setting specific.
Your awareness is incorrect. Nobody has anything from the DMG. In fact, the truth is the DMG is not finished yet. They only just finished the MM last week. You're quoting from adventure modules, which were set in Forgotten Realms.
Two things:
Quote from: jibbajibba;778676if a continual flame costs 50gp in a society where a guy makes 1gp a week continual flames will be rare (palaces, military etc)
I agree. In 5e terms, the material component alone would be worth one draft horse, or 50 days of comfortable lifestyle for a single person, not to mention the caster's markup. However as a safe, reliable, and handy source of light, I can see Blacky's point that they could become an item that wouldn't be a rare feature in a mid/high magic setting.
Quote from: jibbajibba;778676In our world what would happen is a bunch of wizards would get together and work out that you can do a weaker version of continual flame using a carboundum that only works out at 1gp a cast, or they would work out a way to generate a lot of ruby dust using magic.
ConEl(minster). Providing a month's worth of safe light for only 1gp per month!
Awesome.
Quote from: jibbajibba;778676if a continual flame costs 50gp in a society where a guy makes 1gp a week continual flames will be rare (palaces, military etc)
In our world what would happen is a bunch of wizards would get together and work out that you can do a weaker version of continual flame using a carboundum that only works out at 1gp a cast, or they would work out a way to generate a lot of ruby dust using magic.
They won't because they aren't wired that way it's way before Scientific thought, rationalism, Adam Smith or even Machevilli. And nobody but the merchant class or landed gentry deals in or likely ever sees gold coin. Unless you're an adventurer and whenever they land price gouging is the rule usually.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778492I haven't said every temple functionary will be a cleric; only that there will be some clerics.
As mentioned above, you're not on a site where you can just bullshit an have the protections of mods when someone actually calls you on it. You just lied, and I am calling you on it. I don't give a shit if you said the actual exact words "every temple functionary". Here is what you said,
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778123The average peasant probably has ample access to healing magic. Even a first level clerical acolyte at the local temple or the local druid's apprentice can cast Cure Wounds; not to mention any bards that pass through regularly or live in the area. There are so many classes that can heal at first level that you can pretty much expect any non-life-threatening injury to be magically healed.... I'd expect the local priests (less so druids and bards) to dish out healings for free...Of course, severe injuries like people losing a leg in a ploughing accident might require a Regeneration spell, which is going to need a 13th level caster. That's the sort of thing that will require a short pilgrimage to the high temple or druidic enclave rather than something that can usually be done locally. Those who can't make the journey would have to wait for a high level priest or druid (or bard - bards are second only to clerics in terms of being able to heal) to visit the village.
It is absolutely bloody fucking obvious you are saying Clerics are common. You outright say low level Clerics can be found in every village, that the local priest is a Cleric, and it's a short trip to a high level Cleric. This is not the implied setting of 5e. That is spelled out in black and white. If you were not being a disingenuous douchebag right now you'd have simply admitted that when I posted the text. Instead you're bullshitting and hoping you can weasel out of being wrong. Good luck, you chose the wrong board for that.
QuoteI said nothing about fighters at all.
Not but you understood my point, which was that PC classes are called out as rare in general, not common like you said they were. We can either discuss the implied setting of the game, which includes PC classes being rare in the world, or we can discuss some other setting or your houserules. You chose the topic - now live with the consequences of being wrong.
QuoteThat's a perfectly valid, albeit extreme, assumption. I based my post on a more middle-ground assumption - that there will be some of those types of people even though not everyone is one.
Bullshit. You said they were common. You gave example after example where they were common. You claimed every fucking village has these things, or they are a short distance away. Why are you lying about what you said? It's not like I was not quoting you directly you know. So, you want to talk about the actual implied setting or not?
QuoteBecause people are constantly coming into other peoples' houses and casting darkness spells to destroy their lights, sure.
Because people are constantly tossing around 50gp in ruby dust? See two can play that passive aggressive strawman game. I didn't say anything was constant. YOU said it took a higher level spell to dispel it, and you were wrong as it takes the same fucking level of a spell to dispel it as it takes to cast it, only it costs zero to cast the dispel while it costs 50gp (plus the fee for the spell-caster, another big cost) to make it. And some monsters have Darkness listed as part of their abilities. So yeah, it's a fuck of a lot more common to cast Darkness than it is to cast Continual Flame, because Darkness is free and dispels Continual Flame, which is not free. It's a fair point, which you missed, because you made assumptions about a game you didn't read very well. The countryside is not littered with Continual Flame spells that last generations - eventually they will probably get hit with a raid at some point by creatures/NPCs that can cast Darkness, and it would attract such as it means the house has 50gp+ to blow on such things. It's holding up a beacon saying you've got cash.
QuoteThat cost is for wandering into a random town and asking a stranger to cast a spell. I'm talking about people being healed by a cleric who knows them well from weekly ceremonies and to whom they have been paying tithes for years. It's a completely different situation.
What part of CLERICS ARE RARE is not sinking in? They don't know a Cleric. The village has no Cleric. The implied setting says it costs money, why are you adding some bullshit exemption not included in the setting?
QuoteThe majority of things that will kill someone won't do it instantly.
To a peasant? Yes, they will. How many hit points you think a peasant has?
QuoteAnd you'll notice I never said anything about death rates being completely nullified - merely reduced.
It's a matter of degree. If you are arguing 1% reduced your argument is meaningless. If you are arguing 50% reduced it's very meaningful. Given Clerics are rare, we're closer to the 1% side of that sliding scale than the 50%, which is my point.
QuoteBottom line, for a lot of bluster, there's no substance to your post at all. I did read the rules carefully and hadn't missed any of the things that you claim I had, and the supposed "flaws" you point out are contrived situations or extreme interpretations.
You didn't have one single honest response to that whole thing. You outright lied about the commonality of classes, you clearly were mistaken about dispel magic, and you are such a coward you cannot even admit you were mistaken even though that one was a wrong or right type question - you were clearly wrong, but just chicken shit to actually accept it.
Run away little man, back to your mod protected message board where people cannot call you out on your bullshit.
Quote from: Mistwell;778691As mentioned above, you're not on a site where you can just bullshit an have the protections of mods when someone actually calls you on it. You just lied, and I am calling you on it. I don't give a shit if you said the actual exact words "every temple functionary". Here is what you said,
It is absolutely bloody fucking obvious you are saying Clerics are common. You outright say low level Clerics can be found in every village, that the local priest is a Cleric, and it's a short trip to a high level Cleric. This is not the implied setting of 5e. That is spelled out in black and white. If you were not being a disingenuous douchebag right now you'd have simply admitted that when I posted the text. Instead you're bullshitting and hoping you can weasel out of being wrong. Good luck, you chose the wrong board for that.
Not but you understood my point, which was that PC classes are called out as rare in general, not common like you said they were. We can either discuss the implied setting of the game, which includes PC classes being rare in the world, or we can discuss some other setting or your houserules. You chose the topic - now live with the consequences of being wrong.
Bullshit. You said they were common. You gave example after example where they were common. You claimed every fucking village has these things, or they are a short distance away. Why are you lying about what you said? It's not like I was not quoting you directly you know. So, you want to talk about the actual implied setting or not?
Because people are constantly tossing around 50gp in ruby dust? See two can play that passive aggressive strawman game. I didn't say anything was constant. YOU said it took a higher level spell to dispel it, and you were wrong as it takes the same fucking level of a spell to dispel it as it takes to cast it, only it costs zero to cast the dispel while it costs 50gp (plus the fee for the spell-caster, another big cost) to make it. And some monsters have Darkness listed as part of their abilities. So yeah, it's a fuck of a lot more common to cast Darkness than it is to cast Continual Flame, because Darkness is free and dispels Continual Flame, which is not free. It's a fair point, which you missed, because you made assumptions about a game you didn't read very well. The countryside is not littered with Continual Flame spells that last generations - eventually they will probably get hit with a raid at some point by creatures/NPCs that can cast Darkness, and it would attract such as it means the house has 50gp+ to blow on such things. It's holding up a beacon saying you've got cash.
What part of CLERICS ARE RARE is not sinking in? They don't know a Cleric. The village has no Cleric. The implied setting says it costs money, why are you adding some bullshit exemption not included in the setting?
To a peasant? Yes, they will. How many hit points you think a peasant has?
It's a matter of degree. If you are arguing 1% reduced your argument is meaningless. If you are arguing 50% reduced it's very meaningful. Given Clerics are rare, we're closer to the 1% side of that sliding scale than the 50%, which is my point.
You didn't have one single honest response to that whole thing. You outright lied about the commonality of classes, you clearly were mistaken about dispel magic, and you are such a coward you cannot even admit you were mistaken even though that one was a wrong or right type question - you were clearly wrong, but just chicken shit to actually accept it.
Run away little man, back to your mod protected message board where people cannot call you out on your bullshit.
C'mon man that was a bit harsh. Upthread he did admit he was using Mystara as the implicit baseline.
I like the OP's ideas about how 5e magic affects a setting.
I don't get the fury at Blacky the Blackball.
Every system creates an implied setting. It's the nature of RPG rules. One of the biggest issues with licensed RPGs is how often the rules don't support the setting of the license.
Another issue is leveling and XP. The easier and quicker it is for someone to gain levels, the more higher level people will exist. Its a big deal to reach 3rd level as magic user in 0e. Thus 2nd level spells are uncommon. But in 3e/5e, its easy and quick to reach 3rd level, meaning there are more young NPC wizards capable of cranking out 2nd level spells.
Quote from: jibbajibba;778674No I have no double standard. I have no wish to make PC special. My wish is to make people that can do magic special be they PCs, NPCs whatever.
Fair enough. Your post that I quoted said that it was to make PCs special, so you can see where I got that impression.
QuoteSo the driver is to try and control the natural tendancy for technology to alter society (here technology = magic) by making said technology rare.
That's where we differ.
You say "The magic presented in the book would change society, and I don't want that - so I control it by making magic very rare."
I say "The magic presented in the book would change society - cool, let's see how it changes it."
Both are perfectly valid (although I make no bones about preferring the latter).
Quote from: Mistwell;778691You just lied, and I am calling you on it.
Hahahaha, no.
Me: There are clerics.
You: The book says not every temple employee is a cleric.
Me: I know.
You: LIAR!
Me: ???
QuoteWhy are you lying about what you said? It's not like I was not quoting you directly you know.
Nope, still wasn't lying.
Me: There will be clerics.
You: There will be no clerics. Or wizards. Or druids. And probably no fighters.
Me: That's rather extreme. I take the middle ground that not everyone will have a class but there will be some people with classes.
You: LIAR!
Me: ???
QuoteYOU said it took a higher level spell to dispel it, and you were wrong as it takes the same fucking level of a spell to dispel it as it takes to cast it
Nope, I never said that.
Me: Continual Flame spells in commoners' houses are unlikely to be dispelled.
You: Continual Flame can be dispelled by a Darkness spell.
Me: I know. But who's going to be going round peoples' houses casting Darkness?
You: You said it took a higher level of spell to dispel a Continual Flame. You were WRONG about the spell!
Me: ???
QuoteYou outright lied about the commonality of classes, you clearly were mistaken about dispel magic, and you are such a coward you cannot even admit you were mistaken even though that one was a wrong or right type question - you were clearly wrong, but just chicken shit to actually accept it.
You're a funny man (apologies if you're not a man)(or funny).
There's no point trying to talk to you if you're just going to falsely accuse me of lying when it's plain for everyone else to see that I didn't, and falsely accuse me of saying things that it's plain for everyone else to see that I didn't say.
I mean it's not like the thread isn't right here for people to be able to check what we've both said and compare it to your ranting and my paraphrasing, so I've no fear of coming out of this with egg on my face.
Quote from: Mistwell;778684Your awareness is incorrect. Nobody has anything from the DMG. In fact, the truth is the DMG is not finished yet. They only just finished the MM last week. You're quoting from adventure modules, which were set in Forgotten Realms.
Yes, I obviously meant MM rather than DMG.
Given that the adventure actually contains the stats for Forgotten Realms specific creatures (Ambush Drake, Dragonclaw Cultists, Guard Drake) and doesn't contain stats for the Acolyte, Assassin, Bandit, Berserker, Commoner, Cultist, Guard, Knight, Mage, Noble, Priest, Scout, Spy and Veteran. I am pretty confident when the MM comes out, they are all going to be in it. But time will tell which of us is right.
Quote from: Marleycat;778713Upthread he did admit he was using Mystara as the implicit baseline.
Oh yes. I freely acknowledge ("admit" sounds like I've done something wrong) that my assumptions about the scarcity of magic are based on a background of playing in much higher magic settings than some of the other people here.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778758Fair enough. Your post that I quoted said that it was to make PCs special, so you can see where I got that impression.
That's where we differ.
You say "The magic presented in the book would change society, and I don't want that - so I control it by making magic very rare."
I say "The magic presented in the book would change society - cool, let's see how it changes it."
Both are perfectly valid (although I make no bones about preferring the latter).
Yeah fair call me bad. I think I typed somehtign that my brain didn't mean:)
Again my focus is always consistency between setting and rules. So if there is lots of magic great no isuse withthat but the settign needs to reflect it , as you note in your OP.
However, nothign wrong with not wanting that but you need to put things in place that will dial down the magic.
Take the problematic "magic shop" . If magic items are as common as there are in the 1e universe as defined by offical modules and the standard treasure tables then there out to be some sort of market in such items. Just like there is in the real world round ancient greek artefacts or antiques smuggled out of pre-commmunist Russia. So how do you handle that? Accept it and then explore how that trade woudl work or reject it and alter the number of magic items in the world, or jsut ignore it which probably creates some issues.
Well its like everything else in D&D.
One person will read it one way and someone else will read it the diametric opposite.
I mean we have people who swear to whatever gods are handy that AD&D is really about miniatures. Someone else will claim the game is all about combat and nothing else. Look at how many people absolutely misinterpret Hit Points. The rules are too complex, too simple, unrealistic. etc ad absurdium.
One problem with extrapolating setting from the rules is that we sometimes fall into the modern thinking trap. What is obvious to us would not necessarily be obvious to someone lacking possibly centuries of development.
Mass production of items is going to likely be down to individuals with a bright idea and only last till they get bored, run out of components, or the demand putters out. Or will get mass produced because someone is gearing up for a war or is on a social uplift crusade. All of which tend to putter out sooner or later. But in general its just not going to occur to someone to make the magical equivalent of a musket or flintlock just because its obvious to us today.
Guilds may factor in too as a curb. Working to edge out of business competition. Or the simple fact that non-magical equivalents have one great advantage... They dont suddenly stop working if you are hit with a dispell, anti-magic zone, or worst case scenario, magic actually fades away.
And lots of other ideas that might or might not be viable to apply. Even all of the above can be skewed in various directions by applying bits of lore and past examples.
And of course it can be alot of fun to let magitech grow. Long as you dont initiate a second Blackmoor detonation... ahem...
Quote from: Omega;778774Well its like everything else in D&D.
One person will read it one way and someone else will read it the diametric opposite.
I mean we have people who swear to whatever gods are handy that AD&D is really about miniatures. Someone else will claim the game is all about combat and nothing else. Look at how many people absolutely misinterpret Hit Points. The rules are too complex, too simple, unrealistic. etc ad absurdium.
One problem with extrapolating setting from the rules is that we sometimes fall into the modern thinking trap. What is obvious to us would not necessarily be obvious to someone lacking possibly centuries of development.
Mass production of items is going to likely be down to individuals with a bright idea and only last till they get bored, run out of components, or the demand putters out. Or will get mass produced because someone is gearing up for a war or is on a social uplift crusade. All of which tend to putter out sooner or later. But in general its just not going to occur to someone to make the magical equivalent of a musket or flintlock just because its obvious to us today.
Guilds may factor in too as a curb. Working to edge out of business competition. Or the simple fact that non-magical equivalents have one great advantage... They dont suddenly stop working if you are hit with a dispell, anti-magic zone, or worst case scenario, magic actually fades away.
And lots of other ideas that might or might not be viable to apply. Even all of the above can be skewed in various directions by applying bits of lore and past examples.
And of course it can be alot of fun to let magitech grow. Long as you dont initiate a second Blackmoor detonation... ahem...
Sure that all makes sense, but we shouldn't think that in D&Dland all the people think like 9th century Europeans. they don't live in the 9th century, they aren't from Europe and they may have none of the cultural bagage. People are basically people from Africa to New Guinea, from Chile to Scotland, now I have no idea what hobbits and dwarves might be like obviously, but where there is a market for folks to exploiit folks will exploit it, whether its selling fake Egyptian artefacts to tourists, levi jeans to kids in the USSR or continual flame lanterns to the middle class folks of The Padurian Empire.
Quote from: jibbajibba;778772Take the problematic "magic shop" . If magic items are as common as there are in the 1e universe as defined by offical modules and the standard treasure tables then there out to be some sort of market in such items. Just like there is in the real world round ancient greek artefacts or antiques smuggled out of pre-commmunist Russia. So how do you handle that? Accept it and then explore how that trade woudl work or reject it and alter the number of magic items in the world, or jsut ignore it which probably creates some issues.
I tend to have traders that will buy and sell magic items. I usually tie them to temples or magical colleges rather than have them as individuals (who would be too prone to being stolen from).
I've experimented with different ways of doing the actual trade - from having strict (and guild enforced) price lists for items to having no prices for any items, with the implication that they can't be bought with money but can be traded or bartered for other items.
Like the rest of the D&D economy, it's difficult to get something that works on an economic level (well, works well enough not to be glaringly stupid) and is also satisfying from a game point of view.
I tend to find it better in editions where making magic items is something that rarely happens, though. If magic items are relatively permanent but they're a pain to make, most of them will have made generations ago and passed from person to person (and monster to monster). That makes the magic item trade more like the trade in antiquities.
In editions where magic items are readily made - by PCs and NPCs - it tends to push the problems with the economy into full and uncomfortable view; as you then start getting them made to order or made and sold at a profit.
Having said that, one of the things I liked about 4e was the idea of
residuum. As an Ars Magica player it reminded me of that game's
vis (and in fact my group all called it vis).
That turned things from an economy where magic items are traded to a residuum based economy. Basically, residuum was used as a high value currency. You'd use gold and silver coins for small trades, but large value transactions - not just by adventurers, but by merchants and nobles too - would be made by exchanging quantities of residuum.
With that economy, you aren't expected to ever buy and sell magic items and there are no magic item traders. Instead you make your own (quickly and easily) from what is effectively money, and when you don't want an item any more you (quickly and easily) melt it down to its residuum - at a loss because the process isn't 100% efficient.
It's a very different way of doing magic items, and it solved the economics of magic items very handily. Unfortunately it also means that the "luck of the draw" when finding magic items is mostly taken from the game. Assuming they've got the residuum to be able to make it, every PC will have whatever magic items they most want rather than making do with whatever magic items they have found - and this can lead to a "build" mentality.
I'll be interested to see if something like residuum is presented as an option in the 5e DMG. With 5e's lesser dependence on magic items, it should take away most of the "items as part of a character build" aspect and it could work a lot better than it did in 4e.
But for God's sake if they do include something like that I hope they change the name. "Residuum" is a terrible name!
I don't mind 1st level clerics being common. The church is a rather common place for younger sons who will inherit nothing. Acolytes are all over the place.
I run OD&D and B/X. 1st level clerics don't get spells. Only clerics that have adventured and been tested by their deity get the blessing of spells.
So 1st level clerics don't need to be so rare. The ones that have the courage to become adepts are a bit more rare.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;778806I don't mind 1st level clerics being common. The church is a rather common place for younger sons who will inherit nothing. Acolytes are all over the place.
I run OD&D and B/X. 1st level clerics don't get spells. Only clerics that have adventured and been tested by their deity get the blessing of spells.
So 1st level clerics don't need to be so rare. The ones that have the courage to become adepts are a bit more rare.
So what about 1st level wizards? (and all those noble daughters of course :-) )
Quote from: jibbajibba;778814So what about 1st level wizards? (and all those noble daughters of course :-) )
1st level wizards are still not all that common unless the campaign world features universities of magic which teaches large numbers of students.
For most D&D games I prefer the reclusive master & apprentice model for magic users.
There are practicing witches in some places but they do not have levels in the MU class.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;7788211st level wizards are still not all that common unless the campaign world features universities of magic which teaches large numbers of students.
Even then they would be not common given the disparity between urban and rural population. Historically in western Europe the clergy was everywhere. Every village had access to a priest (although not all had a priest in residence some had circuit priests or congregated in a central settlement for Sunday).
However University trained clergy (or scholars) were as rare as any urban based profession. Which is to say they were a low percentage of a urban population that was a low percentage of the total population.
Sorcerers are based on birth and not training leaving warlocks and wizards. If those three are the only types of magic then there could be a loose network of hedge wizards/warlocks interwoven with the rural landscape.
They would little different than their urban counterpoint as magic works the same for both. But what would be noticeable right off is that the spellbooks of the rural hedge wizards would be far more limited than their urban counterpoint. They would also be more oriented to magic that could be used to aid rural life and to earn some coin.
If you really want to enforce this feel with the RAW rules most intact then just axe the rule that you get two spell automatically to write into your spellbook as you level.
I think the warlock class make a great template to build a hedge wizard/rural witch option around. The pact in this case being made with spirits of the land or community
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778758You say "The magic presented in the book would change society, and I don't want that - so I control it by making magic very rare."
I say "The magic presented in the book would change society - cool, let's see how it changes it."
Whereas I say the magic presented in the book would only change society if several other factors that are not presented in the book, and are entirely at the discretion of the DM, are in place. We consider it natural that people in a fantasy world would use magic the way we would - as a utilitarian technology. That thinking betrays a lack of imagination about how different societies in our world have functioned, let alone those in a fantasy world. Turning every discovery into a utilitarian, commercial endeavor is not the norm in human history.
But I've always said that the real world of the Balkans or Near East in 1300 AD would be more strange, alien, and shocking to your modern gamer than fantasy Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms.
Quote from: jibbajibba;778772Take the problematic "magic shop" . If magic items are as common as there are in the 1e universe as defined by offical modules and the standard treasure tables then there out to be some sort of market in such items.
That depends on how many adventurers are out there retrieving these items for beholder lairs and ancient ruins. In my games, adventurers are pretty thin on the ground. As I've already said, maybe 1:1000 people are clerics, even fewer are wizards. And only a fraction of individuals in each of those classes are interested in making forays into deadly lairs to retrieve magic items. So there is maybe one wizard interested in adventuring for every 10,000-15,000 people. The regions my games take place in tend to have low population densities. So in the bounds of my campaign locale there may only be four or five wizards motivated to adventure. Some of these will be evil wizards who get their muscle from orcs and ogres. So we're down to a couple adventuring parties in my campaign locales.
Furthermore, most wizards like to collect magic items and squirrel them away. That's why they build arcane towers and underground labyrinths - as vaults for their treasure. So many of the items gathered up by adventurers end up back in the hands of evil sorcerers or in dungeons, either deposited by the overlord, or left on the corpse of adventurers trying to loot the dungeon. It's a kind of life cycle of artifacts. There may be small market in magic items, but they don't change hands very often - maybe once or twice - before ending up back in a dungeon, labyrinth, or stronghold.
Your way of explaining it is more elegant then 5e's, at least so far but hopefully the DMG goes into the magic economy in some detail.
Another extrapolation is that there should be a jump in converts every time any given god makes an actual appearance in the physical world. Moreso if they are beating up some other god.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778762Hahahaha, no.
Me: There are clerics.
You: The book says not every temple employee is a cleric.
Me: I know.
You: LIAR!
Me: ???
Nope, still wasn't lying.
Me: There will be clerics.
You: There will be no clerics. Or wizards. Or druids. And probably no fighters.
Me: That's rather extreme. I take the middle ground that not everyone will have a class but there will be some people with classes.
You: LIAR!
Me: ???
Nope, I never said that.
Me: Continual Flame spells in commoners' houses are unlikely to be dispelled.
You: Continual Flame can be dispelled by a Darkness spell.
Me: I know. But who's going to be going round peoples' houses casting Darkness?
You: You said it took a higher level of spell to dispel a Continual Flame. You were WRONG about the spell!
Me: ???
You're a funny man (apologies if you're not a man)(or funny).
There's no point trying to talk to you if you're just going to falsely accuse me of lying when it's plain for everyone else to see that I didn't, and falsely accuse me of saying things that it's plain for everyone else to see that I didn't say.
I mean it's not like the thread isn't right here for people to be able to check what we've both said and compare it to your ranting and my paraphrasing, so I've no fear of coming out of this with egg on my face.
This is an even worse string of lies that your first two positions. You're now attempting to re-write history, claiming you never described PC classes as common despite having gone to some lengths to say just that, claiming you never said Continual Flame was difficult to dispel despite having said just that, you're just plain lying about what you said earlier and hoping nobody will go back and check what you wrote. But given I quoted you back what you had said in my reply, and rather than quoting my post which shows that proof you simply straw-manned my post with lame false paraphrasing, it's pretty fucking obvious to anyone reading this what you just did.
I mean really dude, are you really going to sit there and pretend you had characterized cleric prevalence as simply "there will be clerics" after all that detail you wrote about just how common you thought they would be? You might want to go back and erase your original post then, before people read what you actually said. And are you really going to characterize my post as "not every temple employee..." after I quoted you the text that says outright CLERICS ARE RARE in response to you claiming every single po-dunk village has one? Gonna be hard for you to erase my response and pretend it resembles your strawman, asshole.
And now you're running away with your tail between your legs. What a shock.
I don't know why your experience with Mystara has anything to do with this thread. We're not debating your fucking personal campaign history, we're debating the implied setting of 5e, which does not resemble your Mystara history. If you didn't want to talk about the topic you raised, why did you raise it? If the rules say "Clerics are rare" why do you go off claiming 5e Clerics are common and that makes healing common in this setting when it isn't?
Quote from: Marleycat;778713C'mon man that was a bit harsh. Upthread he did admit he was using Mystara as the implicit baseline.
What does that have to do with the implied setting of the 5e PHB rules, which is the topic he raised?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;778382Monsters for example. Every stupid D&D monster does not have to exist in every game world. There may also be creatures in the setting not appearing in any published D&D product. This doesn't make the game 'not D&D'. It is the same with spells & other abilities. Published material is merely like items on a buffet, pick what what you want and put it on your plate (setting).
If you run most monsters as unique creatures, you can try and use all the monsters from all the books. :)
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778383I think we're mostly agreed on that, but the difference is I think that the food, assistance with construction, crafting, trade, etc. will be structured in the form of regular tithes - in return for which the casting of spells is one of the services that the temple provides - rather than as individual payments for individual spells.
Actually that makes a lot of sense. Everyone contributes "tithes" (taxes) to the local temples in return for services (health insurance).
Socialized medicine as a natural outgrowth of D&D. :)
Quote from: estar;778433The Romans had plantations known as latifundia which evolved into manoralism of the middle ages depending on climate and circumstances.
Some of the questions that needs to be answered are
1) Does each estate have a druid in residence?
2) By how much is productivity increased?
Particularly #1 implies there was a time where druids were not present on every estate. That at some point society developed the infrastructure to train, pay, and staff a network of druids living on estates boosting crop yields. Doesn't mean it some vast government program, just that this grew to be part of the culture. That a land owner can expect to be able to advertise, find, and employ druid to boost his crop yields.
A druid (or priest or wizard with access to similar spells) settles in (or near) a village, and helps out the locals. This would increase yields, leading to a surplus. Nearby communities would want the same, so the druid trains a couple of apprentices and sends them off; they do the same and after not that long a while you have parish druids along with parish priests.
This is naturally dependent on how easy it is to become a druid in any particular GM's setting. It does give me an idea for a Jane Austen* like setting where matchmaking would include livings from the local druidship, or returning adventurers (rather than naval officers) and their riches joining the local community. Adventurers would be the younger sons and daughters who cannot inherit, and ambitious peasants looking to make something of themselves, who go off to find fortune so they can make a good match.
*I'm a huge Austen fan.
QuoteWhy did gunpowder empires originate in Europe first and not china or the ottomans? Or the industrial revolution in the Midlands of England and not the Yellow River valley of China?
Jared Diamond's
Guns, Germs, and Steel makes a pretty compelling argument that it was because the geography of China allowed for a unified empire with no real challengers (other than the horse nomads who would periodically conquer it) while that of Europe meant there were lots of smaller kingdoms constantly at war with each other, which means there is constant pressure to try and get the upper hand however you can, which in turn encourages innovation and those social structures that support it.
He isn't the only one to emphasize the role of intra-European warfare in the rise of Europe.
QuoteActually they did. the latter half of the 13th century pretty every land that bordered the Mongol Empire suffered at their hands one way or another.
Mostly by getting conquered rather than the Mongols sweeping in, then leaving, and coming back the next year. A situation like that on the Roman-German frontier during the later years of the Wester Empire might be a better analogy, if you replace the Germans with orcs and hobgoblins and giants and dragons and beholders and etc.
QuoteAs for the Black Death the primary out break lasted from 1346 to 1353. Then there were reoccurance in in 1361–62, 1369, 1379–83, 1389–93 continuing into the 15th century with up to 10% dying.
Smallpox was a annual occurrence with hundreds of thousands dying each year. Then there was cholera, typhus, yellow fever and so on.
In short the real horrors of the past were on par or greater than the pretend horrors we make up.
Ah, I was sloppy. I didn't mean that plague would be an issue in a high-magic setting since cure disease and the like could stop it cold. I meant that Blacky is saying that monsters are more of a threat than human armies, and their effects on population could be worse than historical disease and warfare combined.
That said, yes epidemics were a constant problem. But the point I was making was that the main black death outbreak that killed, depending on region, anywhere from 20-80% of the local population (wikipedia is handy) was a singular occurrence. The subsequent outbreaks weren't nearly as lethal. The analogy I was making was that monsters (again, setting dependent) could be a more constant threat, with the ability to "do a black death" over and over again.
Quote from: estar;778826I think the warlock class make a great template to build a hedge wizard/rural witch option around. The pact in this case being made with spirits of the land or community
You wouldn't need a warlock for that. Clerics could just as easily worship the village (or region, etc.) genius loci. But a good idea nonetheless.
Quote from: Haffrung;778412But you're making two big assumptions here:
- That the D&D world has a powerful religion analogous to Christianity.
- That good is the normal alignment of most communities.
About the second point, it isn't really relevant. Social Welfare programs weren't started because it was the right thing to do, they were started (by Bismark in Germany) to undercut socialists and create stability, for pragmatic reasons. They were also advocated for in order to increase the quality of troops, especially under conscription, since many were weak and in poor health from malnourishment. An Evil community planning for war has every reason to provide healing and food to its citizenry just in order to have healthy soldiers. Reasons of political pragmatism only make it more likely.
Quote from: Mistwell;778910What does that have to do with the implied setting of the 5e PHB rules, which is the topic he raised?
That you are overreacting. As it is you have a pretty extreme interpretation on the conservative side of the implied setting that isn't a majority view but you go off on him because he was being half sarcastic and giving his opinion of the implied setting of the game? He clearly said because of his IRL politics and geographic location that his view on clerical magic and access is clearly slanted to without a better term, universal access.
I disagree with this premise and most of his opinion concerining that but to go apeshit on him? Senseless.
Quote from: apparition13;778926About the second point, it isn't really relevant. Social Welfare programs weren't started because it was the right thing to do, they were started (by Bismark in Germany) to undercut socialists and create stability, for pragmatic reasons. They were also advocated for in order to increase the quality of troops, especially under conscription, since many were weak and in poor health from malnourishment. An Evil community planning for war has every reason to provide healing and food to its citizenry just in order to have healthy soldiers. Reasons of political pragmatism only make it more likely.
Fair enough. Though with the ubiquity of divine cures for disease, I do have to wonder how diseases would even sustain themselves in this fantasy setting. No hosts, no disease.
Quote from: Haffrung;778931Fair enough. Though with the ubiquity of divine cures for disease, I do have to wonder how diseases would even sustain themselves in this fantasy setting. No hosts, no disease.
Without something like a Nurgle around, they probably wouldn't. At least not the ones that cause epidemics. Although with a Nurgle around, diseases with long incubation periods during which they are contagious but that kill really quickly when they become active could still do a lot of damage and overwhelm local healers.
Quote from: Mistwell;778908...lies...
Quote...lying...
Quote...hoping nobody will go back and check...
Quote...lame false paraphrasing...
Quote...erase your original post...
Quote...strawman...
Quote...asshole...
Quote...running away with your tail between your legs...
Quote...fucking personal...
Hahahahaha! Are you seriously trying to get me angry/upset by hurling abuse at me and calling me a coward? That's so cute.
As I said last time, everyone reading this thread is free to read all my posts in it and all your posts in it and make their mind up for themselves about which of us is being reasonable. I've nothing to hide nor fear from that.
Quote from: Haffrung;778931Fair enough. Though with the ubiquity of divine cures for disease, I do have to wonder how diseases would even sustain themselves in this fantasy setting. No hosts, no disease.
Survival of the fittest.
The mundane diseases would fail to get a foothold, but given the number of magical animals and plants in the setting, I'm sure there would be magical diseases too.
The ones listed in the Contagion spell are probably a good place to start. There are probably "wild" versions of each of them - and they may be able to lie dormant and magically infect people instead of using mundane transmission vectors so a lack of hosts might not hold them back much.
Quote from: jadrax;778763Given that the adventure actually contains the stats for Forgotten Realms specific creatures (Ambush Drake, Dragonclaw Cultists, Guard Drake) and doesn't contain stats for the Acolyte, Assassin, Bandit, Berserker, Commoner, Cultist, Guard, Knight, Mage, Noble, Priest, Scout, Spy and Veteran. I am pretty confident when the MM comes out, they are all going to be in it. But time will tell which of us is right.
Oh look, all those NPCs are in the Basic DM Rules you can freely download. The none Forgotten Realms specific DM Rules.
Quote from: jadrax;779010Oh look, all those NPCs are in the Basic DM Rules you can freely download. The none Forgotten Realms specific DM Rules.
Rather amusingly, the "Acolyte" is a first level cleric and is described thus:
Acolytes are junior members of a clergy, usually answerable to a priest. They perform a variety of functions in a temple and are granted minor spellcasting power by their deities.And the "Priest" is a fifth level cleric and is described thus:
Priests are the spiritual leaders of temples and shrines.It's not just the clerics, either. A "Thug" has hit points and attacks like a 4th-5th level character (but doesn't have the class abilities of an actual fighter or rogue). "Bandits" are like 2nd level characters without the class abilities, as are "Guards". These sorts of people are distinct from "Commoners", who are like a 1st level character without any class abilities.
While I appreciate the premise of this thread and the examination of the setting implied by the rules of D&D's latest version, it's not a setting I'd ever want to play in and a large part of why I'm not much interested in D&D or "fantasy" RPGs in general. Magic and monsters are just too common for me to feel they are magical or monstrous.
Up above someone mentioned using monsters from Monster Manual as unique creatures. That sounds pretty cool, plus wasn't that the case with a lot of the classically-derived ones (minotaur, hydra, cyclops, medusa) anyway?
Quote from: Matt;779021Up above someone mentioned using monsters from Monster Manual as unique creatures. That sounds pretty cool, plus wasn't that the case with a lot of the classically-derived ones (minotaur, hydra, cyclops, medusa) anyway?
Minotaur - unique, killed by Theseus.
Hydra - unique, killed by Heracles.
Cyclops - not unique they were a species, one was blinded by Odysseus.
Medusa - not exactly unique, Medusa was one of three sisters, the Gorgons, who "had hair made of living, venomous snakes, as well as a horrifying visage that turned those who beheld her to stone"
The problem is, the "logical and rational extrapolation" approach is not really "realistic". It assumes that tech (magical tech in this case) would be rolled out to the maximum, ignoring the kind of irrationality found in the real world. For example, the Chinese had advanced naval capacity for centuries before Europeans. Did they colonise the whole world based on their ability to do so? Nope. Partly because of mindset, partly because of government edicts, etc. They could have at least made a grand attempt, but they didn't. Same with the wheel in Meso-America. Just didn't take off. If you attempt to use the same kind of precedent regarding magic in a D&D world, guess the "logical extrapolation" guys would see this as illogical DM fiat or something.
In the end , it's no more "realistic" to say "spellcasters would allow themselves to be organised to dole out beneficial spells" than it is to say "frequent pogroms have limited the number of spellcasters, and they restrict the use of their spells to initiated members who rarely cooperate with broader society".
I just don't see the rational "organised guilds of spellcasters healing light wounds on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays with presentation of the King's token" world as being particularly fun, and I don't see it as "realistic" either. Perhaps the answer is that it makes for a simple world where everyone understands how it works, and it plays out easily? In the same way that having a list of items and their costs leads smoothly and easily to there being a well-stocked shop in most places in a campaign, with a counter and regular opening hours. It's a simple analogue of the modern world, and the players can't complain that the DM is thwarting them in some way. DMs typically have to fight against this to establish that there is simply not a free flow of trade in his campaign world.
Quote from: The_Shadow;779031The problem is, the "logical and rational extrapolation" approach is not really "realistic". It assumes that tech (magical tech in this case) would be rolled out to the maximum, ignoring the kind of irrationality found in the real world. For example, the Chinese had advanced naval capacity for centuries before Europeans. Did they colonise the whole world based on their ability to do so? Nope. Partly because of mindset, partly because of government edicts, etc. They could have at least made a grand attempt, but they didn't. Same with the wheel in Meso-America. Just didn't take off. If you attempt to use the same kind of precedent regarding magic in a D&D world, guess the "logical extrapolation" guys would see this as illogical DM fiat or something.
In the end , it's no more "realistic" to say "spellcasters would allow themselves to be organised to dole out beneficial spells" than it is to say "frequent pogroms have limited the number of spellcasters, and they restrict the use of their spells to initiated members who rarely cooperate with broader society".
I just don't see the rational "organised guilds of spellcasters healing light wounds on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays with presentation of the King's token" world as being particularly fun, and I don't see it as "realistic" either. Perhaps the answer is that it makes for a simple world where everyone understands how it works, and it plays out easily? In the same way that having a list of items and their costs leads smoothly and easily to there being a well-stocked shop in most places in a campaign, with a counter and regular opening hours. It's a simple analogue of the modern world, and the players can't complain that the DM is thwarting them in some way. DMs typically have to fight against this to establish that there is simply not a free flow of trade in his campaign world.
All of which is entirely true but you need to include it in your setting.
Magic users are rare and there is little magic then explain what the limiters are. Clerics are common then explin the limiters etc etc
What become problematic is a mundane wolrd with no magic but no limits or restrictions on magic, PCs dipping into spell caster levels, all enemies know the tactics to deal with casters etc etc Then you have a large contradiction between the claimed setting and the reality of applying the rules.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;7788211st level wizards are still not all that common unless the campaign world features universities of magic which teaches large numbers of students.
For most D&D games I prefer the reclusive master & apprentice model for magic users.
There are practicing witches in some places but they do not have levels in the MU class.
So you are still not letting women into the clergy ... :)
Quote from: estar;778826Even then they would be not common given the disparity between urban and rural population. Historically in western Europe the clergy was everywhere. Every village had access to a priest (although not all had a priest in residence some had circuit priests or congregated in a central settlement for Sunday).
However University trained clergy (or scholars) were as rare as any urban based profession. Which is to say they were a low percentage of a urban population that was a low percentage of the total population.
Sorcerers are based on birth and not training leaving warlocks and wizards. If those three are the only types of magic then there could be a loose network of hedge wizards/warlocks interwoven with the rural landscape.
They would little different than their urban counterpoint as magic works the same for both. But what would be noticeable right off is that the spellbooks of the rural hedge wizards would be far more limited than their urban counterpoint. They would also be more oriented to magic that could be used to aid rural life and to earn some coin.
If you really want to enforce this feel with the RAW rules most intact then just axe the rule that you get two spell automatically to write into your spellbook as you level.
I think the warlock class make a great template to build a hedge wizard/rural witch option around. The pact in this case being made with spirits of the land or community
But again you are projecting a Medieval Europe default setting where as a Mexitec, Middle Eastern, Samoan, Mesopotanian culture might be the base of a fantasy world, or even somethign entirely created.
Quote from: Haffrung;778832That depends on how many adventurers are out there retrieving these items for beholder lairs and ancient ruins. In my games, adventurers are pretty thin on the ground. As I've already said, maybe 1:1000 people are clerics, even fewer are wizards. And only a fraction of individuals in each of those classes are interested in making forays into deadly lairs to retrieve magic items. So there is maybe one wizard interested in adventuring for every 10,000-15,000 people. The regions my games take place in tend to have low population densities. So in the bounds of my campaign locale there may only be four or five wizards motivated to adventure. Some of these will be evil wizards who get their muscle from orcs and ogres. So we're down to a couple adventuring parties in my campaign locales.
Furthermore, most wizards like to collect magic items and squirrel them away. That's why they build arcane towers and underground labyrinths - as vaults for their treasure. So many of the items gathered up by adventurers end up back in the hands of evil sorcerers or in dungeons, either deposited by the overlord, or left on the corpse of adventurers trying to loot the dungeon. It's a kind of life cycle of artifacts. There may be small market in magic items, but they don't change hands very often - maybe once or twice - before ending up back in a dungeon, labyrinth, or stronghold.
Not quite.
If humanoids are vaguely intelligent in the game world, so if they form societies that trade etc then all that treasure they have and those magic items that they can't use they would liekly trade for useful stuff, weapons, healing, farming, mining equipment etc. So if we suppose a setting where in accordance tot eh wandering monster tables such creatures are common and if we assing them the treasure as suggested in the books then a fairly large number of magic items go into circulation. You don't actually need a lot of murder hobos to go and steal them.
Again with your PC class numbers they don't work. If 1 in 1000 people are classed adventurers then the odds (as I pointed out above) of 4 random adventures meeting in a tavern are 1,000 billion to 1 so, so quite unlikely.
I totally agree that evil wizards and their ilk would be trying to gather back interesting magic stuff and any item store would be prey to their agents, and item auction would feel their presence. In fact I have often run games where PC are agents of such forces sent out to obtain said items the rumours of which have spread far and wide.
If however the bulk of your items are fairly standard magic items, +1 swords and the like I can't see a wizard really bothering overly except perhaps if there is a Residuum type thing going on.
So again everything you say might be true it just needs to be stated for the setting and the setting made to reflect that. If tribes of humanoids don't have magic treasure and adventurers are rare, say replacement characters start at 0 level and have to do a session of play before gaining a class, say the agents of dark forces appear whenever the PC use items openly and amaze the locals then it's all good.
Quote from: jibbajibba;779064Again with your PC class numbers they don't work. If 1 in 1000 people are classed adventurers then the odds (as I pointed out above) of 4 random adventures meeting in a tavern are 1,000 billion to 1 so, so quite unlikely.
Come on, everyone knows that in civilization adventurers are usually found in taverns. If there is a brawl, the odds of there being more than one go up. If there is someone with a job looking for a few good beings, or even a few not so picky beings, it becomes a near certainty. That's just the way the adventuring world works. :)
Quote from: apparition13;779131Come on, everyone knows that in civilization adventurers are usually found in taverns. If there is a brawl, the odds of there being more than one go up. If there is someone with a job looking for a few good beings, or even a few not so picky beings, it becomes a near certainty. That's just the way the adventuring world works. :)
But then when bandits attack the town, they'll all have mysteriously buggered off leaving the PCs as the only ones who can stop the attack!
Quote from: apparition13;778914It does give me an idea for a Jane Austen* like setting where matchmaking would include livings from the local druidship, or returning adventurers (rather than naval officers) and their riches joining the local community. Adventurers would be the younger sons and daughters who cannot inherit, and ambitious peasants looking to make something of themselves, who go off to find fortune so they can make a good match.
*I'm a huge Austen fan.
Rather off topic for this thread (since we've not seen anything of the 5e "settling down" rules from the DMG yet - if they even exist), but I find that the rules for settling down and ruling a dominion from earlier editions - particularly the Companion set in BECMI, but also AD&D to a lesser extent - strongly support a societal model of adventuring as a way of social climbing.
To avoid accusations of shenanigans I'll lay out the my assumptions first...
1) In these editions of D&D, when characters reach "name" level (usually 9th), they're expected to settle down and manage a dominion. Usually they'll be granted some kind of title of nobility in order to do this.
2) Any ruler who simply inherited their title rather than being granted it for services as a seasoned adventure and who is therefore actually a "normal man" or "commoner" or whatever the edition uses to denote people without levels would be extremely vulnerable to assassination by ambitious adventurers. The turnover would be huge.
3) In most published scenarios and supplements, important NPCs such as kings and lords are usually statted up to be high level. This is presumably in reaction to assumption 2.
4) In many published scenarios, important NPCs who are much higher level than the PCs are expected to be act as patrons to the PCs and send them on adventures or missions that are dangerous to the PCs - despite the fact that the higher level patrons would be able to do those adventures themselves with little risk.
Putting these together, we can end up with a system where being a name level PC class is a requirement for being granted a title and inducted into the landed nobility class.
The existing nobles are all name level semi-retired adventurers, but their titles won't be automatically inherited by their children. To be eligible to inherit the title and land, the eldest child must go off and "prove themselves" by questing (i.e. adventuring) until they reach name level themselves. Of course, adventuring is a high risk occupation and many of these eldest children won't make it to name level. They'll end up dead in a dungeon somewhere. Other times the heir simply won't have the temperament or inclination to be an adventurer.
The upshot of this is that while the landed nobility might have heirs that they're hoping will one day inherit, there's a good chance that they won't and that they'll have to find some other name level adventurer to pass their title to.
And this is where most PCs come in (although a PC could be the actual child of a noble, of course). For the lower classes, becoming an adventurer is a high-risk opportunity for social mobility. There are a lot of casualties along the way, but those who make it to name level are very likely to be granted title and make the transition to nobility.
And to keep all this running smoothly, there is a lot of interaction between existing nobles and up-and-coming adventurers. The nobles will be on the look out for promising candidates, and will be looking to guide their careers and mould them into respectable candidates for nobility, and similarly the adventurers will be trying to make a good impression in order to increase their chances. This naturally results in the sort of patronage system we see in published adventures where the local lord could go and wipe out a bunch of goblins that are raiding one of the villages in their dominion themselves but they'd rather pay a group of inexperienced adventurers the job. Partly because it means they don't have to take the time do do it themselves, but also because sponsoring an adventuring party to do this is greasing the wheels of society and grooming the potential next generation of nobility.
Of course, this system isn't just about the nobility themselves. The whole thing makes adventuring a respectable profession, and helps to guide the most powerful and dangerous people in the area into being productive members of society rather than being stuck out on the fringes. It's also good for the stability of society as a whole, since the personal power of the ruling classes makes for less assassination and resulting political instability, and most of the rulers will have worldly experience rather than just having inherited their titles after a youth spent in indolent luxury.
Didn't Blackmoor have a thing were you had to take up Adventuring at the age of 18 for 4 years by law, or something similar?
Quote from: jibbajibba;779061So you are still not letting women into the clergy ... :)
Depends on the religion. They all have different policies. :p
Quote from: Haffrung;778931Fair enough. Though with the ubiquity of divine cures for disease, I do have to wonder how diseases would even sustain themselves in this fantasy setting. No hosts, no disease.
Animals. The wilderness is after all the breeding ground of many diseases.
On the other hand a person recently pointed out to me that even today when you travel abroad you run the risk of catching something local. She mentioned vising Japan and getting horrifically sick, several times.
And does cure disease stop things like parasites?
It can create interesting problems and plot hooks when you apply it.
In a society where disease is virtually unknown... They might blunder into new lands and be VERY susceptible to local inflictions.
I for one appreciate Mr. the Blackball's efforts, if only for clarity. The problem I ran into playing 3rd edition D&D, for instance, was that old school assumptions about demographics in no way intersected with the emergent properties of an open-book game.
The downside is, you're kind of selling me off a game I otherwise like the look of, but I don't have quite your aversion to house-ruling. :)
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778123None of the above spells have any kind of material component cost, so I wouldn't expect these sorts of things to follow the suggested cost of 10-50gp per casting. That might be the cost to go up to a total stranger and ask them to prepare and cast a random spell on your behalf, but I'd expect the local priests (less so druids and bards) to dish out healings for free.
Partly because it's in their interest to keep the locals happy with their religion; and also because that's the sort of thing that tithes are for. Then again I'm a Euro-socialist so I see free healthcare as fundamental right that good-aligned churches would provide.
Let me just pick on the idea of tithes a little bit. What tithes? Tithes are what you get when you've got one single powerful religion. A competing polytheism, less so.
Kingdoms of Kalamar has one of the few reasonable extrapolations of a D&D-type pantheon I've seen. There, priests charge not just for spells, but for common non-spell prayers, blessings and ceremonies. They do that not because they're arch-capitalists, but because they like to
eat. A single tithing, creed-and-alignment following worshiper is a major coup for whoever converts them, but more typically people seek out a priest whenever they need something from that priest's god's (claimed) domain.
Now I agree that for local peasants, some fresh eggs and carrots are the likely currency. The gold coin price is for nobles, merchants and adventurers. But when the alternative to charging is starving to death in a ditch, then they're going to charge. No-one's paying them a living wage salary to sit around and man the temple during office hours, because who would?
I understand one of the functions of animal sacrifices in the ancient world was that the priest presiding got a cut, literally. So they got to eat protein that day! And that was just an expected part of the deal; no-one went off in a huff and converted because the priests didn't perform the sacrifice pro bono.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;778806I run OD&D and B/X. 1st level clerics don't get spells. Only clerics that have adventured and been tested by their deity get the blessing of spells.
So 1st level clerics don't need to be so rare. The ones that have the courage to become adepts are a bit more rare.
That's a tough sell to modern players, but I agree, it is a huge help to world-building.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779157The upshot of this is that while the landed nobility might have heirs that they're hoping will one day inherit, there's a good chance that they won't and that they'll have to find some other name level adventurer to pass their title to.
We're still talking D&D, right? I really like the fairy tale trope of "my daughter's hand in marriage and half my kingdom for the one who slays the dragon." Keeps it in the family, and you get a bad-ass classed character in the bargain.
But I can see doing it other ways too. "Eldest inherits" might be the first thing to go, replaced by "highest level inherits," which is what you're talking about. (Not sure what you'd call that - potencegeniture?) Or just go full-on Ottoman Empire/
Stardust, and have succession go to the last living son, with the theory he'll have to be the toughest, most leveled son of a bitch in the lot.
Otherwise I agree that just leveling up is going to be a big boost to social status. That's something I've seen GMs struggle with accepting. Its an easy, but cheap, staple to play innkeepers and merchants as gruff or disrespectful, but a fighter or wizard who's leveled at all is already showing promise, and even a mid-level character is a force to be reckoned with and courted.
Quote from: Saladman;779184Let me just pick on the idea of tithes a little bit. What tithes? Tithes are what you get when you've got one single powerful religion. A competing polytheism, less so.
That said, most religions in D&D tend to be portrayed as pretty well off in terms of having huge great big fantasy temples everywhere. They obviously get money and land from somewhere.
Quote from: jadrax;779186That said, most religions in D&D tend to be portrayed as pretty well off in terms of having huge great big fantasy temples everywhere. They obviously get money and land from somewhere.
Adventuring clerics of course! :)
That combined with an XP system based on acquiring treasure (and donating or spending it) would provide for all those temples as well as a decent lifestyle for the non-adventuring clergymen.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779157The existing nobles are all name level semi-retired adventurers, but their titles won't be automatically inherited by their children. To be eligible to inherit the title and land, the eldest child must go off and "prove themselves" by questing (i.e. adventuring) until they reach name level themselves. Of course, adventuring is a high risk occupation and many of these eldest children won't make it to name level. They'll end up dead in a dungeon somewhere. Other times the heir simply won't have the temperament or inclination to be an adventurer.
The upshot of this is that while the landed nobility might have heirs that they're hoping will one day inherit, there's a good chance that they won't and that they'll have to find some other name level adventurer to pass their title to.
And this is where most PCs come in (although a PC could be the actual child of a noble, of course). For the lower classes, becoming an adventurer is a high-risk opportunity for social mobility. There are a lot of casualties along the way, but those who make it to name level are very likely to be granted title and make the transition to nobility.
.
Nice idea. Personally I tend to think that money trumps level as it allows me to hire lots of people some of whom will be more gifted. However it is true that a pimped 10th level D&D fighter could mow through 100 men at arms in previous editions with little trouble, let alone a caster of some type.
An implication of your idea is that there will be loads of adventurers as the "D&D Dream" would be to set off on the road seeking adventure as an alternate to grubbing about in the mud. High risk but greater reward.
Quote from: Saladman;779184The downside is, you're kind of selling me off a game I otherwise like the look of, but I don't have quite your aversion to house-ruling. :)
I don't have an aversion to house ruling for its own sake to make the game more enjoyable, but I'm not keen on doing it to take the fantasy and magic out of the world.
If I want to play in an "historical" middle ages with the occasional wielder of magic being cloistered away so that they don't disturb the status quo or affect society I'll go play
Ars Magica.
QuoteLet me just pick on the idea of tithes a little bit. What tithes? Tithes are what you get when you've got one single powerful religion. A competing polytheism, less so.
My assumptions about a strong church supported by tithing are rooted in the dominion management rules in the old Companion Set which include rules for tithing - in both money and services - as a dominion expense.
Although I don't think most campaigns have competing polytheism, do they? I'm used there to being a centralised temple structure where there will be statues of
all the gods of the pantheon in each temple. Sure, a cleric will have a specific patron, but most people will pray to the goddess of love before going on a date and to the god of the sea when setting off on a ship voyage and to the god of the dead when visiting the graves of relatives.
I wouldn't expect to see different gods having entirely different temples and religious hierarchies, and if a temple has (for example) three priests and eight acolytes - whether they are actual clerics or not - then they won't all have the same god or goddess as a patron, but they'll all honour all of the gods. And tithes will go to the temples in general rather than the priests of an individual god.
QuoteWe're still talking D&D, right? I really like the fairy tale trope of "my daughter's hand in marriage and half my kingdom for the one who slays the dragon." Keeps it in the family, and you get a bad-ass classed character in the bargain.
Yeah, that fits in with the social climber aspect quite well. If none of your offspring have what it takes, marry them off to the adventurer that you are nominating as your qualified heir.
Although given that this is D&D, the king is as likely to be giving his son's hand in marriage to the female wizard as he is to be giving his daughter's hand to the male fighter...
QuoteBut I can see doing it other ways too. "Eldest inherits" might be the first thing to go, replaced by "highest level inherits," which is what you're talking about. (Not sure what you'd call that - potencegeniture?) Or just go full-on Ottoman Empire/Stardust, and have succession go to the last living son, with the theory he'll have to be the toughest, most leveled son of a bitch in the lot.
"The first one to reach name level inherits. Note that if the competition are dead then you can take your time. Also, you're all worth quite a lot of XP. Just saying."
Quote from: jadrax;779186That said, most religions in D&D tend to be portrayed as pretty well off in terms of having huge great big fantasy temples everywhere. They obviously get money and land from somewhere.
The polytheism as espoused in D&D is nonsense though. Polytheistic cultures don't have multiple monotheistic cults living next to each other they are all polytheistic or they cancel out the others or get wiped out by them trying to do so.
So in a world where the Seven rule, all septs are dedicated to the seven. You pay tithes to the sept.
In Rome you make donations as a patron to many temples even if you may have a particular liking for Jupiter. Your wife may visit Juno when she seeks to get pregnant or to curse your lover but she still worships Mercury or Apollo as needs be. the Roman system is interesting in this context as the wealthy give money (for offerings or more often animals to sacrifice) to temples to garner favours from the gods, their priests and the people. You can see in that setting that Gaius the Merciful may gift the temple a sum of money such that they then heal a 100 ills on the first of each month or whatever. All in the name of god and Gaius the Merciful.
There's a kind of balance (whether you do it by intent or not) in running D&D, and in this case, the Forgotten Realms as the extant gameworld, when it comes to how things are portrayed in the text vs. interpreting the portrayal to your own needs. There is a definite grey-area there.
For example - while yes it's odd to have multiple polytheistic religions abutting up against one another, it's not unheard of. Until monotheism took firm hold even here in reality, it was happening along cultural boundaries all the time and often cross-pollinated.
That's kinda how I handle it, it's almost sword-and-sorcery style. You go into a region and each city will have a varying representation of temples, shrines to various gods. People don't normally just worship ONE god, they pay their respects to the gods that oversee aspects of reality that affect a regular person's lives. Sailors pay homage to Umberlee the Bitch Queen to have safe seas, maybe Talos for calm skies. Prostitutes might tithe at Sharess temples, as well as Talona to stay disease free and Waukeen in order to have peaceful commerce.
I'm also a stickler to make sure Clerics and Paladins understand that "casting a spell" as a divine caster isn't so much that they're memorizing chants and busting loose. They are beseeching their deity for a specific act and channeling that power. So who/what/when/where/why they do what they do with this "magic" actually matters. I very much make that distinction that lay-priests exist and the vast majority of clergy aren't the Cleric-class specifically. Clerics and others that manifest such powers are special. I was glad to see this at least acknowledged in the PHB, though I get that many GM's just say "well all priests are clerics so the world must be flooded with healing spells and miracles etc." but when you do that you make Clerics essentially be Mages and live without consequence other than saying you're representative of some Deity (until the GM decides to use it as a game-factor). I'm always working with my Players to cultivate how their PC is actually representing their faith in context of their situation. It gives them room to manuever as well as constrains them in more logical ways (at least culturally) than just using the book as is free of context.
It's up the GM to decide how the mechanics of the game are lensed into play. What details that allow for things like magic. It's funny that people assume because GP values were attached to magic items in 3e that the designers themselves ran wild with it and the mudflation of magic-items and magic writ large proliferated the game-text as some kind of emergent quality that was intended in light of the logic that most of these gameworlds would have been *drastically* different if indeed this were the case. I almost feel that Eberron was this semi-interesting attempt at taking it for face value.
Thinking on it.
Extensive cure disease use could be a reason why some ancient civilization was wiped out.
All it took was one visitor fro far far away and a plague spread through the land that no one had any real immunity too anymore. Wiping everyone, or nearly everyone, out. Faster than could be contained.
Or imagine diseases spreading rampant through a land where the gods have revoked their priests powers for some offense.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779157Rather off topic for this thread (since we've not seen anything of the 5e "settling down" rules from the DMG yet - if they even exist), but I find that the rules for settling down and ruling a dominion from earlier editions - particularly the Companion set in BECMI, but also AD&D to a lesser extent - strongly support a societal model of adventuring as a way of social climbing.
What kind of brought it on is that I'm re-reading
Persuasion right now, and that is
exactly what happens. Minor noble's daughter wants to marry poor Naval Officer, gets talked out of it because he isn't rich enough or titled enough for her. He goes off, gets command of a frigate and takes a bunch of prizes (captures French ships) making a bundle, and comes back to settle down. The same dynamic would work perfectly in a Regency or similar type of time period where it takes money or position to make a good match, which everyone knows is the right and proper thing to do.
So the answer to "why go adventuring" or "why go into the dungeon" is to make your stake so you can settle down. Austen would work just as well if you replaced "officers" with "adventurers".
I had a campaign where I extended that into social norms (based loosely on some observations about homosexuality and Bushido in Japan).
I see adventurers as potentially having a social position as 'permitted outsiders,' who can violate social taboos because of their privileged position. On the flip side, this protection also keeps them apart from society.
The citizens will put up with an adventurer being different because they are off destroying monsters and playing a role that doesn't challenge society.
To that end, in the setting, if you wanted to be openly homosexual and not persecuted for it, become an adventurer (or hook up with an adventurer).
Which makes for interesting backgrounds, like 'I don't really like risking my life killing undead, but it's the only way I could openly marry my sweetheart. Plus it's great exercise.'
Quote from: jibbajibba;779063But again you are projecting a Medieval Europe default setting where as a Mexitec, Middle Eastern, Samoan, Mesopotanian culture might be the base of a fantasy world, or even somethign entirely created.
That is exactly what I am doing for the specific.
However generally that disparity between rural and urban population holds true of any culture up until the industrial revolution. It a matter of everybody having the same limits in transportation tech and crop yields.
What does change is what available at the pinnacle. Not in social strata but the largest cities the culture can support. Superior organization over advantageous terrain (mostly sea coast or rivers) can allows a Babylon, Rome, Tenochtitlan, or Chang'an. As those place occupy the piece of pride in their respective culture they get the most "press". Even at their all of those cultures were one of rural settlements.
In hard times like during the Migration period of Western Europe (i.e. the Dark Ages) those settlement crash.
And there are occupation that can only exist when a culture at it height or most prosperous notably anything not involved in the production of needed goods. Arts, science, and literature, etc. When Rome fell it was also the canary that spelled the death of urban life across the old empire for generations. And yes it not a simplistic as that (i.e. Constantinople) I am generalizing the most common case.
This applies to this discussion because all of this effect the "pipeline" for the next generation of classes like Wizards, and Clerics. In a "dark age' there less surplus to go around to let somebody sit on their ass and study for ten years to master a cantrip or learn to read holy writings.
Then even in the best of time, there never much in the way of a surplus to allow a true revolution to happen overnight. Instead enough small changes have to accumulate for the even the opportunity for a magical revolution to exist. Regardless of culture.
As an aside an interesting implication of D&D style magic is that is feasible for a small group to live substantially better.
For example imagine a D&Dish Rome in the 5th century. A group of wizards that were smart could band together to form a refuge to allow their tradition to keep on going. Thanks to magic they wouldn't need much in the way of outside support so could weather the collapse of the economy due to the migrations and other changes.
The downside is that individual wizards would be spending a lot more time on practical life sustaining activities, than their predecessors so would have less time to devote to studies. That is until things picked up again and they could hire people to supply them with what they need.
Quote from: apparition13;779131Come on, everyone knows that in civilization adventurers are usually found in taverns. If there is a brawl, the odds of there being more than one go up. If there is someone with a job looking for a few good beings, or even a few not so picky beings, it becomes a near certainty. That's just the way the adventuring world works. :)
I have a loosely defined "road culture" of adventurers in the Majestic Wilderlands. I don't make a big deal of it. It main effect that is that I have a set of notes on notable NPCs (and groups) that basically live the adventuring lifestyle of freeranging wanderers. It is one of the sources of random encounters.
I only ever had one player pick up on it. He challenged me as to whether it is "realistic" or not given how I roleplay nobles and other authority figures. I told it because the band of adventurers is a deep seated myth that viewed positively by most of the cultures of my campaign.
And that because the start of history in my setting, begins with the liberation of the races from the hands of the demons by the gods. And the way it went down at first was that groups of people who still free banded into something like adventure parties, to strike back at the demons.
So as long as the adventuring party is not causing trouble, they tend to be idealized just enough to be tolerated by the various cultures of my setting.
I admit it is a not a probable thing most are very suspicious of groups of armed strangers for good reason. But by arranging the background of my setting just so, I made it plausible.
In my campaign, adventurers are just another kind of itinerant wanderers. Like nomads, religious pilgrims, or bands of mercenaries. They're treated with the same suspicion those other groups are. But as is the case everywhere, money talks. Effectively, they're a combination of tomb robbers and mercenaries. So there's no real need for them to have any particular role in society anyway.
Quote from: apparition13;779236What kind of brought it on is that I'm re-reading Persuasion right now, and that is exactly what happens. Minor noble's daughter wants to marry poor Naval Officer, gets talked out of it because he isn't rich enough or titled enough for her. He goes off, gets command of a frigate and takes a bunch of prizes (captures French ships) making a bundle, and comes back to settle down. The same dynamic would work perfectly in a Regency or similar type of time period where it takes money or position to make a good match, which everyone knows is the right and proper thing to do.
So the answer to "why go adventuring" or "why go into the dungeon" is to make your stake so you can settle down. Austen would work just as well if you replaced "officers" with "adventurers".
That's an excellent observation.
Quote from: Haffrung;779289Effectively, they're a combination of tomb robbers and mercenaries.
What a great summary of D&D.
Quote from: estar;779254I have a loosely defined "road culture" of adventurers in the Majestic Wilderlands. I don't make a big deal of it. It main effect that is that I have a set of notes on notable NPCs (and groups) that basically live the adventuring lifestyle of freeranging wanderers. It is one of the sources of random encounters.
Do you mean you have a cast of NPCs the characters keep running into? I like that idea.
Quote from: Marleycat;778928That you are overreacting. As it is you have a pretty extreme interpretation on the conservative side of the implied setting that isn't a majority view
Woah hold on a minute. The fuck I do! There is nothing extreme about my view that the implied setting says PC classes are rare in society - it's the by the book statement, from a new book. It's a new game, you want to go run some polls over at some larger forums and see what people think? Cool, then maybe you at least have a shred of evidence supporting what is or is not an extreme on the interpretation spectrum for the 5e implied setting. But don't go speaking for how the majority views the implied setting of a brand new game that they're only reading the first book of this week. You don't speak for the masses, and all I have done is quote from that actual book that just came out to show what that implied setting is. Maybe my interpretation of that is on an extreme, and maybe it's smack in the middle of views on it, but you have no idea where my views would fall on that spectrum because you're speaking from your own opinion but proclaiming it's mine that is extreme and not contemplating for a moment it might be your own.
Quotebut you go off on him because he was being half sarcastic and giving his opinion of the implied setting of the game?
I go off on him because he's a troll - and others picked up on that right away but for some reason you fell for his game. Me, I know bullshit when I see it, and I know where he's headed with this and decided to head it off at the pass (and a few others did as well). And you can already see he's headed there. He started with "I play by the book with the implied setting, otherwise why buy the game" and he's already to "well by the book is horrible and I should not have to house rule so why buy the game" and anyone with a brain can connect the dots to see where he is head is "nobody should buy these books because the implied setting is horrible". But if he was wrong on what the implied setting actually is, his entire troll falls. Hence, I am pointing out why he was wrong, while you are lapping it up and being led down that path with him. Have fun with that.
QuoteHe clearly said because of his IRL politics and geographic location that his view on clerical magic and access is clearly slanted to without a better term, universal access.
I disagree with this premise and most of his opinion concerining that but to go apeshit on him? Senseless.
Wait you disagree with him, but not as much as I do, so you go off on me?
Quote from: Durn;779309Do you mean you have a cast of NPCs the characters keep running into? I like that idea.
Yes this is what it amounts to. The wrinkle is that the NPCs show where travellers congregate. Common grounds, Inn, Taverns, the road of course, as caravan guards, etc.
Quote from: Mistwell;779312I go off on him because he's a troll - and others picked up on that right away but for some reason you fell for his game. Me, I know bullshit when I see it, and I know where he's headed with this and decided to head it off at the pass (and a few others did as well). And you can already see he's headed there. He started with "I play by the book with the implied setting, otherwise why buy the game" and he's already to "well by the book is horrible and I should not have to house rule so why buy the game" and anyone with a brain can connect the dots to see where he is head is "nobody should buy these books because the implied setting is horrible". But if he was wrong on what the implied setting actually is, his entire troll falls. Hence, I am pointing out why he was wrong, while you are lapping it up and being led down that path with him. Have fun with that.
I think you're being a bit paranoid. Did you see the post from last week (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=777038#post777038)where he said 5E was "rapidly shaping up to be [his] favourite edition"?
Quote from: Mistwell;779312I go off on him because he's a troll - and others picked up on that right away but for some reason you fell for his game. Me, I know bullshit when I see it, and I know where he's headed with this and decided to head it off at the pass (and a few others did as well).
Mistwell, I find myself agreeing with the great majority of your posts, both here and on Enworld. I also agree that you have the stronger side of this particular argument in terms of the "implied" setting in 5e, for what that's worth.
I have to disagree about Blacky being a "troll." I know them when I see them and he isn't one at all. And I don't think he was headed down that road you fear. At least not with that motive.
Quote from: Mistwell;779312Me, I know bullshit when I see it, and I know where he's headed with this and decided to head it off at the pass (and a few others did as well). And you can already see he's headed there. He started with "I play by the book with the implied setting, otherwise why buy the game" and he's already to "well by the book is horrible and I should not have to house rule so why buy the game" and anyone with a brain can connect the dots to see where he is head is "nobody should buy these books because the implied setting is horrible". But if he was wrong on what the implied setting actually is, his entire troll falls. Hence, I am pointing out why he was wrong, while you are lapping it up and being led down that path with him. Have fun with that.
Now that's just
special.
It's so utterly the polar opposite of my consistently stated opinion on 5e (on every board I post on) that my mind just boggles as to how anyone can come to that conclusion.
It's completely Bizarro World.
For the record, once more,
everyone should buy the 5e books. It's one of the best - if not
the best - editions of D&D (and I've played all the others except for 2e). Personally, I've been DMing a campaign for the last six months using the playtest rules and I can hardly wait for the rest of the core books to come out so we can upgrade to the final rules (we're partially doing that this weekend with the PHB).
I'm already writing character generation software to track characters and auto-fill character sheets with their new abilities when they go up levels, and I've started planning out a 5e conversion for Mystara and the Immortals rules.
I could hardly be more excited by this edition. So to somehow interpret my gushing about it as an elaborate trolling attempt done in order to put people off it takes a special kind of tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist mindset.
@Mistwell, thanks for actually seeing I don't agree with his particular take but I understand it because I know what lens he's viewing it through. The implied setting is very similar to 2e's but with some important differences
1. Magic items aren't assumed what that means is that it's anything the DM prefers.
2. PC's are special and rare but that also isn't set in stone but the game itself has no issue supporting lower or higher powered PC's that's up to the DM again.
Quote from: Marleycat;779387The implied setting is very similar to 2e's but with some important differences
I'll have to take your word for that. I do have a copy of 2e on my shelves, but it belongs to my wife so it's in Spanish.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779390I'll have to take your word for that. I do have a copy of 2e on my shelves, but it belongs to my wife so it's in Spanish.
It's not a problem because the game being modular in nature means it's built to handle a variety of baseline assumptions without breaking or working against the framework or engine of the game itself.
I entertain serious doubts they'll actually manage that, but we'll see.
Quote from: Will;779401I entertain serious doubts they'll actually manage that, but we'll see.
I'm betting on "Everything is Core" being the default assumption, no matter what Mearl's original stated and supposed intentions were.
My money is on a greater tolerance for and encouragement to DMs to tweak things and run games like they want. Which is a good thing.
I'm also betting DMs are going to be barking their shins on all sorts of nested assumptions and balance issues that are poorly illuminated on the shag carpet of ga... ming...
...
Something like that. (It's been a day)
Quote from: CRKrueger;779409I'm betting on "Everything is Core" being the default assumption, no matter what Mearl's original stated and supposed intentions were.
Yeah, so far Im seeing nothing "modular" here. Some options here and there. From some statements so far though I get the impression that all the "modularity" will be in the DMG. Though I also suspect its just going to be more options really.
I think they dropped "modularity" early on.
You know what I liked? Tri-stat. It had two levels of what I'd call 'fractal' design.
You have Body, Mind, Spirit. 10 points per value.
You also have skills under each, which range in cost (generally 1-6 per point), depending on how important it is to the genre/game.
So... you could just make up a character as three stats. Ooor... decide you want to focus on Mind stuff, add a bunch of skills in Mind.
From simple to complex, totally up to you. And potentially different from person to person.
Quote from: Will;779401I entertain serious doubts they'll actually manage that, but we'll see.
It's not hard to...
A. Slot Cantrips
B. Alter Heal rates/short rest times
C. Mess around with magic ie add a corruption/sanity mechanic, eliminate or lessen whole magic sources or spellpoints, AEDU (we already have a good idea how by looking at sorcerers and warlocks for spellpoints and AEDU)
D. Use a W/V system or a sanity system or Armor as DR or hit location systems
Among other things that will be in the DMG to totally alter the PHB baseline in most any direction that better fit your preferences.
It's not hard to change things. It's never been hard to change things.
The trick has been changing things and not ending up with major exploits or balance going out the window.
Quote from: Will;779424It's not hard to change things. It's never been hard to change things.
The trick has been changing things and not ending up with major exploits or balance going out the window.
This is why I'm waiting for the DMG because all the things I've named off 90% have been explicitly mentioned to be in the DMG and the other 10% inferred. Personally I have solid ideas about slotted cantrips, healing rates, W/V, and short rest rates (the last doesn't have to be changed unless you're going for a 4e baseline and all that takes is to shorten them to 5 minutes). And allow 1-5th level Druid/Wizard slot recovery after each short rest including AT's, EK's, Paladins, and Rangers and Bards. Just altering it to 1/4 and 1/6th level where appropriate.
0-2e just means slowing heal rates, 3e just add feats to character progression or uncouple them from ability bumps or something similar plus make sure crafting or magic items are decently available in some way.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;779348I think you're being a bit paranoid. Did you see the post from last week (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=777038#post777038)where he said 5E was "rapidly shaping up to be [his] favourite edition"?
No I did not. Yes, I could be paranoid, and I could be mistaking him for someone else with a similar (but not the same) handle. In which case...I'll be apologizing to him for over reacting.
Quote from: Saplatt;779354Mistwell, I find myself agreeing with the great majority of your posts, both here and on Enworld. I also agree that you have the stronger side of this particular argument in terms of the "implied" setting in 5e, for what that's worth.
I have to disagree about Blacky being a "troll." I know them when I see them and he isn't one at all. And I don't think he was headed down that road you fear. At least not with that motive.
Well, I will take your opinion seriously in that and reconsider.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779378Now that's just special.
It's so utterly the polar opposite of my consistently stated opinion on 5e (on every board I post on) that my mind just boggles as to how anyone can come to that conclusion.
It's completely Bizarro World.
For the record, once more, everyone should buy the 5e books. It's one of the best - if not the best - editions of D&D (and I've played all the others except for 2e). Personally, I've been DMing a campaign for the last six months using the playtest rules and I can hardly wait for the rest of the core books to come out so we can upgrade to the final rules (we're partially doing that this weekend with the PHB).
I'm already writing character generation software to track characters and auto-fill character sheets with their new abilities when they go up levels, and I've started planning out a 5e conversion for Mystara and the Immortals rules.
I could hardly be more excited by this edition. So to somehow interpret my gushing about it as an elaborate trolling attempt done in order to put people off it takes a special kind of tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist mindset.
Fair enough. Then I've misjudged you (and I think mistaken you for another Blacky), and I apologize for that. Sorry for over reacting.
Someone on EnWorld had a good point about "Healing from healers is common". One I had not considered.
In 5e, with rare exception, hit points are not "meat" at all. Essentially only the last hit point can be considered an actual injury. And cure wounds does not heal anything that a single night of sleep can heal.
That peasant who gets injured? Unless he needs regeneration or cure disease, he does not need a cleric/druid/bard. He never needs cure wounds, unless he happens to fall unconscious and dying right next to a healer.
That's because unless the healer is 30 seconds away, he cannot get there in time to prevent death from injuries anyways. And if the guy survives the injury on his own, all he needs to do is sleep a single night and he's fine again.
I am not sure what that really says about the implied setting.
Quote from: Will;779413You know what I liked? Tri-stat. It had two levels of what I'd call 'fractal' design.
You have Body, Mind, Spirit. 10 points per value.
You also have skills under each, which range in cost (generally 1-6 per point), depending on how important it is to the genre/game.
So... you could just make up a character as three stats. Ooor... decide you want to focus on Mind stuff, add a bunch of skills in Mind.
From simple to complex, totally up to you. And potentially different from person to person.
Tri-stat is Witchcraft's system correct? If so I loved that system.
Nah, Withcraft is Unisystem (which is also a cool system, I'm mainly familiar with it in Buffy).
Tri-stat was most notably used in BESM (Big Eyes, Small Mouth).
Quote from: Will;779444Nah, Withcraft is Unisystem (which is also a cool system, I'm mainly familiar with it in Buffy).
Tri-stat was most notably used in BESM (Big Eyes, Small Mouth).
I've seen it but don't really know much about it other then it's a d100 system iirc.
Quote from: Omega;779412Yeah, so far Im seeing nothing "modular" here. Some options here and there. From some statements so far though I get the impression that all the "modularity" will be in the DMG. Though I also suspect its just going to be more options really.
I think they dropped "modularity" early on.
What is a module if not a set of mutually reinforcing options?
Quote from: Mistwell;779435That's because unless the healer is 30 seconds away, he cannot get there in time to prevent death from injuries anyways. And if the guy survives the injury on his own, all he needs to do is sleep a single night and he's fine again.
I am not sure what that really says about the implied setting.
It says what I've been saying about D&D life for decades now.
Due to the absolutely lethal environment. An environment where even common animals have a fair chance if killing you in one shot. An environment where the @#$%^&ing PILLOWS try to eat you... Everyone and everything is exponentially hardier than here on Earth. Possibly millennia of natural selection has left even the weakest peasant at what would be the equivalent of modern good health.
Quote from: Mistwell;779430No I did not. Yes, I could be paranoid, and I could be mistaking him for someone else with a similar (but not the same) handle. In which case...I'll be apologizing to him for over reacting.
We used to have a poster called Blakkie who was a bit of a troll, but he left years ago. Mistaken identity, i think.
Quote from: Warthur;779489What is a module if not a set of mutually reinforcing options?
Optional? :rolleyes:
The fact that they havent even mentioned modularity since near the start or middle of the playtest suggests that they dropped the idea, whatever it was. And just went with options.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779192I don't have an aversion to house ruling for its own sake to make the game more enjoyable, but I'm not keen on doing it to take the fantasy and magic out of the world.
If I want to play in an "historical" middle ages with the occasional wielder of magic being cloistered away so that they don't disturb the status quo or affect society I'll go play Ars Magica.
Well, now you're bringing in a straw-man. No-one's talking about house-ruling D&D into a historical sim except you. I'm talking about house-ruling it back to the point it can do the implied setting of, say, the AD&D DMG. Or D&D in fairy-tale land. Neither of which is compatible with a magitech, universal health care, Eberron type campaign world.
A bias I'm bringing here is my experience with 3rd edition (which may or may not yet be a fair comparison). The problem wasn't that open book 3E games failed to simulate historical Europe. The problem was they failed to simulate
Greyhawk adequately, among others. That game lasted until we started to qualify for prestige classes, at which point the DM threw up his hands and went back to AD&D, to general approval. Or, a looser comparison, the d20 Wheel of Time game lasted right up until the GM let in some base classes from 3.0 to get more players. Everything was technically compatible, but it killed the spirit, and we ended up playing stock D&D. Which, if that was going to be the result, I'd have rather been pitched that up front than had it happen as a kind of coup via emergent game play.
Which I understood to be part of your original point, that these kinds of consequences bear thinking about since they're going to come out in play anyway.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779192Although I don't think most campaigns have competing polytheism, do they? I'm used there to being a centralised temple structure where there will be statues of all the gods of the pantheon in each temple. Sure, a cleric will have a specific patron, but most people will pray to the goddess of love before going on a date and to the god of the sea when setting off on a ship voyage and to the god of the dead when visiting the graves of relatives.
I wouldn't expect to see different gods having entirely different temples and religious hierarchies, and if a temple has (for example) three priests and eight acolytes - whether they are actual clerics or not - then they won't all have the same god or goddess as a patron, but they'll all honour all of the gods. And tithes will go to the temples in general rather than the priests of an individual god.
I suspect we just have different play experiences then. The campaigns I've seen (not all that many in the grand scheme of things) more often have Temples of [god X], and churches will be opposed to their deities arch-nemesis/alignment opposite. I've got no intrinsic objection to pantheon temples at all, I'm just saying that's not the default assumption I've seen in games.
I absolutely agree your average commoner is going to worship ala carte, that's what I like about how Kalamar handles it.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779192"The first one to reach name level inherits. Note that if the competition are dead then you can take your time. Also, you're all worth quite a lot of XP. Just saying."
:D
I mentioned Stardust already, this is the scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uopoXtR0Kjk) I was thinking of.
Quote from: Omega;779412Yeah, so far Im seeing nothing "modular" here. Some options here and there. From some statements so far though I get the impression that all the "modularity" will be in the DMG. Though I also suspect its just going to be more options really.
I think they dropped "modularity" early on.
Caveat: I'm talking out of both the side of my neck, and my ass, with no real "evidence" of anything. <--- mark that.
I think "modularity" will come in the form of the larger systems: Spellcasting, Combat, Feat acquisition, and internal class tweaking.
Spellcasting - We already know there will be a spellpoint system in the DMG. This was kinda no-brainer since the re-valuation of spell-slots and scalability factor of spells pretty much says: yep, we can do spellpoints now. This *also* paves the way for Psionics, and other forms of magic supported purely by fluff.
Combat - this can go a number of ways. Additional "basic manuevers" that can be made in combat, more complexity for those that want a more tactical style game. We already know these elements will be in the DMG as well. But to the degree that the system supports it - sure! it's there. Where these options will come in needs to be sub-divided either between "commonly accessed actions" - what any PC can do in combat, and "class-specific" actions limited to specific classes. I find myself a little perturbed that the Battlemaster Archetype hogs all the of the combat abilities that I think other classes/sub-classes could benefit from - parry? disarm? What could happen is modular rules in class-tweaks could allow for this. Or not, and make them more generally accessible. (BTW - I do like the Battlemaster... but it seems a little too 4e for my tastes.)
Feat Acquisition - I like the choice given to Feats/Stats. I'm not convinced the Feats are *meaty* enough. Some certainly are. Others... not so much. I think that inevitably we'll see more. This is something where the Fantasy Craft approach needs to be examined - all the Feats have design balance against one another. I'm feeling 5e made some steps in this direction, but didn't go all the way. Time will tell.
Class tweaks - More Fighter Archetypes will happen. I think a lot of potential rests here to go beyond the three we have. And yes I said beyond, because while the Champion/Battlemaster/EK are all serviceable, there's a LOT of stuff I personally feel is missing from the Fighter class in terms of flavor. The modularity of making new Archetypes can go a *LONG* way towards making more content for the Fighter, but all the classes, without changing the necessary underpinnings of the system. Which is the whole point of "modularity".
It's there! I see it! (maybe I sniffed too much glue. I hope no one opens my office door... shit... I have a review today. Where's my paint chips?...)
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779157To avoid accusations of shenanigans I'll lay out the my assumptions first...
1) In these editions of D&D, when characters reach "name" level (usually 9th), they're expected to settle down and manage a dominion. Usually they'll be granted some kind of title of nobility in order to do this.
Which edition says that a player creating a stronghold must first be granted a title to do so?
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;7791572) Any ruler who simply inherited their title rather than being granted it for services as a seasoned adventure and who is therefore actually a "normal man" or "commoner" or whatever the edition uses to denote people without levels would be extremely vulnerable to assassination by ambitious adventurers. The turnover would be huge.
Is your assumption that killing a noble means you then take that noble's titles and rank?
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;7791574) In many published scenarios, important NPCs who are much higher level than the PCs are expected to be act as patrons to the PCs and send them on adventures or missions that are dangerous to the PCs - despite the fact that the higher level patrons would be able to do those adventures themselves with little risk.
That seems to be a problem with
D&D starting around the early- to mid-Eighties. It has little, however, to do with the implied setting.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779157Putting these together, we can end up with a system where being a name level PC class is a requirement for being granted a title and inducted into the landed nobility class.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Black Vulmea;779583Which edition says that a player creating a stronghold must first be granted a title to do so?
Usually =/= must; and he did say setting assumptions, so the idea is to take these assumptions as given and see what happens.
QuoteIs your assumption that killing a noble means you then take that noble's titles and rank?
I think the assumption is that if you get titles at name level, and there are titled NPC around who are 0 level, you can create an opening by easily killing said NPC, so therefore NPC nobles will not be 0 level and will have to be name level, just to survive.
He's unclear about kill them and take their title.
QuoteThat seems to be a problem with D&D starting around the early- to mid-Eighties. It has little, however, to do with the implied setting.
City State did it.
I see no reason why rulers need to be high level. Historical rulers were often people of no great physical or intellectual distinction. Anyone could have marched into the palace of King John and lopped off his head. But the feudal system is about legitimacy. When anyone who is strong enough to grab a crown can take over any time, you have something close to anarchy. Which is fine as a D&D setting. But if you have a prosperous, stable kingdom, it's because of stable leadership. And that means legitimate regimes and smooth successions.
Historically you couldn't have a guy kill 100 other guys with his brain.
And I think 'the feudal system is about legitimacy' is... wrong on the pertinent details. But I'll let the house historian wonks weigh in on that.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;779583Which edition says that a player creating a stronghold must first be granted a title to do so?
None say you
must, but the Companion Set of BECMI and Rules Cyclopedia (the sets with the most comprehensive dominion management and stronghold building rules, and the sets that I was talking about here - I did say this was a bit off topic and not 5e based) make it clear that it's the standard way to gain a stronghold in an established country without simply taking over the whole place.
QuoteIs your assumption that killing a noble means you then take that noble's titles and rank?
Of course not. But killing a noble or royal means chaos and possible wars of succession, and that's really bad for the long term stability of the area, especially if it keeps happening with rival dynasties vying for power.
QuoteThat seems to be a problem with D&D starting around the early- to mid-Eighties. It has little, however, to do with the implied setting.
I see it as a
feature of the D&D settings that have it, not a problem.
Although as I said, this is a bit of an off topic drift since it's about BECMI here, not 5e - since 5e hasn't revealed any dominion or stronghold rules yet.
Quote:rolleyes:
You may roll your eyes at it, but it's pretty much the entire premise of the CM and M series of modules, which are all about high level PCs being qualified to build strongholds become nobles and war against equally high level NPC nobles. It's a major feature of the Mystara setting that goes with the BECMI rules (and which is the world in which the CM and M modules are set).
Quote from: Haffrung;779643I see no reason why rulers need to be high level.
http://www.autarch.co/blog/political-power-personal-power-or-why-julius-caesar-had-70-hit-points
Quote from: Doctor Jest;779761http://www.autarch.co/blog/political-power-personal-power-or-why-julius-caesar-had-70-hit-points
That article has an awful ability to utterly ignore any ruler that doesn't support its claim, as well as taking some prime examples of the fluency you can find between history writing and fiction as fact.
I never read any serious source that said Barbarossa was a great warrior. Yet he was an awesome conqueror.
Really, who cares if the king is a 4 hd guy without class abilities, when he has the best magic items from the kingdoms long history, a bunch of paladins sworn to him, a court mage and the highest level clerics in the area in good favor. You know, on top of actually doing a good job at that ruling thing.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779716None say you must . . .
Quote from: apparition13;779632Usually =/= must . . .
Fair 'nuf - I read "expected" as must, so that's my error.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779716. . . but the Companion Set of BECMI and Rules Cyclopedia . . .
Wait for it.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779716. . . . (the sets with the most comprehensive dominion management and stronghold building rules, and the sets that I was talking about here . . .
Wait for it.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779716. . .I did say this was a bit off topic and not 5e based) . . .
So if you're going to base your arguments on a completely different edition, why'd you label this a [5e] thread again?
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779716. . . make it clear that it's the standard way to gain a stronghold in an established country without simply taking over the whole place.
Quote from: apparition13;779632. . . and he did say setting assumptions, so the idea is to take these assumptions as given and see what happens.
Except calling these
D&D assumptions is simply wrong; they're BECMI assumptions.
Let's take a look at 1e instead.
Quote from: 1e AD&D PHB, "The Fighter," p. 22When a fighter attains 9th level (Lord), he or she may opt to establish a freehold. This is done by building some type of castle and clearing the area in a radius of 20 to 50 miles around the stronghold, making it free from all sorts of hostile creatures. Whenever such a freehold is established and cleared, the fighter will:
1. Automatically attract a body of men-at-arms led by an above average fighter. These men will serve as mercenaries so long as the fighter maintains his or her freehold and pays the men-at-arms; and
2. Collect a monthly revenue of 7 silver pieces for each and every inhabitant of the freehold due to trade, tariffs, and taxes.
No mention of noble titles, other than the level title. No mention of established kingdoms.
But what we do have is mention of clearing land and creating a freehold. To my ears, that doesn't sound much like "an established country" (and "country" is far too modern a concept anyway, but that's an unrelated pet peeve of mine.). It sounds more like clearing a space in the wilderness and proclaiming oneself lord.
So, very different implied setting assumptions with different editions.
Quote from: apparition13;779632I think the assumption is that if you get titles at name level . . .
Does BECMI actually say to award the characters with titles in a hierarchical system of nobility? 1e says nothing whatsoever about this - your title at 9th level is Lord, not baron or viscount or whatever, and your title is Lord whether you construct a freehold or not, which is another bit of interesting implied setting, particularly in light of the entry for Bandit in the 1e
AD&D Monster Manual, which states, "Bandits will always be led by an Bth, 9th, or 10th level fighter . . . " or Beserkers, which reads, "Berserkers will be led by a war chief of 9th or 10th level . . ." or Buccaneer, which says, "Buccaneers will always be led by a captain of 8th or 10th level - 8th if fewer than 200 buccaneers." Clearly 1e operates from a different conception of Lord than 'landed noble.'
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779716. . . [K]illing a noble or royal means chaos and possible wars of succession, and that's really bad for the long term stability of the area, especially if it keeps happening with rival dynasties vying for power.
That's a very good point.
Quote from: apparition13;779632. . . and there are titled NPC around who are 0 level, you can create an opening by easily killing said NPC, so therefore NPC nobles will not be 0 level and will have to be name level, just to survive.
And that's a very bad, poorly thought-out one.
(Hint: can you think of an easier way to paint yourself with a giant bullseye for parties of non-player character adventurers?)
Quote from: apparition13;779632City State did it.
Does it? It includes high level non-player characters, but I don't recall them handing out jobs willy-nilly. Are you thinking of particular JG adventures?
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779716I see it as a feature of the D&D settings that have it, not a problem.
Well, of course you do, because you like that sort of high fantasy bullshit, so the cognitive dissonance of high level characters leaning on lower level characters to do jobs they could readily handle themselves doesn't bother you.
For me, a much more interesting setting is created by the balance of power between lower and higher level player and non-player characters locked in a web of mutual support and antagonism.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779716Although as I said, this is a bit of an off topic drift since it's about BECMI here, not 5e - since 5e hasn't revealed any dominion or stronghold rules yet.
Yes, we've established several times now that you're talking out of your ass with respect to 5e - no need to belabor the point.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779716You may roll your eyes at it, but it's pretty much the entire premise of the CM and M series of modules, which are all about high level PCs being qualified to build strongholds become nobles and war against equally high level NPC nobles.
These reflect an actual setting, so once again, what does any of this have to do with
implied setting as expressed by the rules?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;779776Does BECMI actually say to award the characters with titles in a hierarchical system of nobility?
From the Cyclopedia...
QuoteWhen the character reaches Name level, we normally assume that he has sufficient experience and reputation that the region's rulers approve of him becoming a stronghold ruler, or are cautious or respectful enough of him that they prefer not to oppose him on this matter.
and
QuoteWhen a fighter of 9th level or higher decides to build a stronghold, it is assumed that rumors of the character's great skill soon reach the ruler
of the province or nation. To help gain the good will of the powerful character and his friends, the ruler will probably award some official title
to the fighter. This award is usually that of baronial status; the PC is now entitled to call himself a baron (or baroness, with female characters). In
such a case, the following events take place:
• Before construction starts, or while the stronghold is being built, the fighter is summoned to the ruler's stronghold and is officially proclaimed
a baron or baroness.
Clerics and Demihumans it doesnt actually say...
Druids are kinda ignored and not botherd.
Magic users just get a proclimation to the populace of "Dont bug that guy"
Mystics are just left to their own devices.
Thieves have to get permission from the local Guild.
Followed by suggestions for biding time or just heading out into the wilderness and carving out a place a-la AD&D.
And a section on Noble titles and whatnod pertaining mostly to fighters Im not repeating.
I think all of this is worded so because it is set in Mystara/Karameikos which is fairly settled in that region. Much moreso after the Gazetteers upped the population centers.
BX D&D felt like the region was 85% wilderness. BECMI makes it feel like 50% or less. Personally I prefer the older less settled version.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;779776So if you're going to base your arguments on a completely different edition, why'd you label this a [5e] thread again?
He was looking through the 5e PHB?
QuoteExcept calling these D&D assumptions is simply wrong; they're BECMI assumptions.
The first post is talking about healing and other spells in 5e, not domain management.
QuoteDoes BECMI actually say to award the characters with titles in a hierarchical system of nobility?
Blacky the Blackball is now talking about BECMI, I'm talking here about his setting assumptions. If you go with these assumptions, then his conclusions seem reasonable. You don't have to start with these assumptions when building a setting.
Here's an exercise, take his assumptions as given, and see where
you get.
QuoteAnd that's a very bad, poorly thought-out one.
Really? So what are feudal lords but the bosses of organized crime gangs specializing in protection rackets? And how does one rise to high rank in a gang? By being the baddest MF around. The difference here is high level characters don't need low level soldiers in order to enforce their will, they can do it themselves. Although this seems to be different in 5e, which means 5e is the first edition that actually supports 0 level political figures.
And about Wilderlands, what level was the World Emperor again?
Quote from: Omega;779784From the Cyclopedia...
That certainly explains some of Blacky's preoccupations - he seems to expect settings generally to be as closely tied to the rules as BECMI is to Mystara.
Quote from: Omega;779784Personally I prefer the older less settled version.
I'm not sure I even think of it as less settled, though certainly there are broad swaths of thinly populated frontier; rather, I think of it as less organised.
I look at that
MM Bandit entry, and I see Sir John Hawkwood and the White Company or Arnaud de Cervole and his
routiers, bands of warriors switching from mercenary warfare to brigandage and back as their fortunes dictate.
To me, it's a setting that is one in which what powers exist are weak or ineffectual, or strong but limited in their reach. It is Wizards and Warlords,
Quote from: apparition13;779795So what are feudal lords but the bosses of organized crime gangs specializing in protection rackets? And how does one rise to high rank in a gang? By being the baddest MF around.
While I agree with the analogy of nobility as crime syndicate, it is still only an analogy. One does not supplant a duke by killing him in his hall. One kills the duke's enemies and gets married off to his widowed sister and gains a barony. Whether the duke is 9th level or 0-level makes no difference.
Quote from: apparition13;779795And about Wilderlands, what level was the World Emperor again?
You didn't answer my question: does the World-Emperor dish out adventures to lower-level characters in JG's adventures?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;779776So if you're going to base your arguments on a completely different edition, why'd you label this a [5e] thread again?
It's a thing called thread drift. You know, where a thread starts off talking about one specific thing and then as it goes along it drifts into other topics only tangential to the original one.
It started off talking about 5e, but this stuff about high level nobility isn't about that edition. It came up in the thread because of apparition13's comments about adventuring as social climbing, and I made that clear (both about it being off topic and also about it being mostly about BECMI) at the time:
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779157Rather off topic for this thread (since we've not seen anything of the 5e "settling down" rules from the DMG yet - if they even exist), but I find that the rules for settling down and ruling a dominion from earlier editions - particularly the Companion set in BECMI [...]
-----
Quote from: Omega;779784From the Cyclopedia...
You're quoting quite selectively there, just from the character creation section. The chapter on dominion management goes into more detail about where and how dominions are gained, and that's the bit that talks about been given land grants in countries or having to go off into the wilderness where no-one cares. At least, it does in the Companion Set which I had a look in last night before posting. I don't have my RC with me at the moment.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;779805While I agree with the analogy of nobility as crime syndicate, it is still only an analogy. One does not supplant a duke by killing him in his hall. One kills the duke's enemies and gets married off to his widowed sister and gains a barony. Whether the duke is 9th level or 0-level makes no difference.
It might not make a difference to what happens after they're dead, but it makes a huge difference to how vulnerable they are and how easy it is to kill them.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779809It might not make a difference to what happens after they're dead, but it makes a huge difference to how vulnerable they are and how easy it is to kill them.
The point is, you're not killing the duke to advance. You advance in the duke's service. That may mean killing his enemies, or capturing them for ransom, or protecting the duke's person, or serving in his ducal court, or a dozen other ways that have absolutely zero to do with the duke's hit points and armor class.
The problem these threads always get into is that D&D as a quasi-medieval analogue never works when you drill down too closely, the reason of course is the cosmology of the setting and the gods or lack thereof.
It's kind of hard to look at how Europe developed with Christianity and the Great Chain of Being and translate that accurately to a poly or heno-theistic world where priests have power, the will of God or Gods can be known and the lowliest peasant can, if stats, luck and will all align, eventually become a Wizard who can change the course of history with a single spell.
The implied D&D setup is very American in that way, not related to feudal Europe at all.
Why doesn't a warrior come in and kill a low HP king?
1. Because he's the King, ordained by the Will of God, possessing Divine Right.
2. Even if no one actually believes that, we all say we do, so since you went outside the System, the System now has free reign to kill you in return.
3. In Medieval Europe there are no HPs and despite having won 75 battles, you can still be killed by a 12 year old girl with a hatpin.
So while the "Dude, it's D&D" argument is overused to a ridiculous level, sometimes you do gotta realize you're trying to measure coin weights with a truck scale when you delve too deep.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;779811The point is, you're not killing the duke to advance. You advance in the duke's service. That may mean killing his enemies, or capturing them for ransom, or protecting the duke's person, or serving in his ducal court, or a dozen other ways that have absolutely zero to do with the duke's hit points and armor class.
We seem to agree on that. But a few posts ago you just called advancing in the duke's service "the cognitive dissonance of high level characters leaning on lower level characters to do jobs they could readily handle themselves".
Just because the duke
can do stuff himself doesn't mean he
wants to. That's the whole point of him having people like PCs in his service.
I feel comfortable that D&D is a genre in it's own right and that the system has dictated all the things listed.
Otherwise I get all bothered.
If I want to play a dirt farmer or a pigsticker I'll play DCC, and then my life will turn randomly upside down and purple (I love the bonkers of that game but it's not D&D).
If I want to play a mythical quester after truth in a barbarian world of gods and high magic and social ties I'll play Glorantha.
So I enjoyed and agree with your summary. In fact, if it wasn't the for villains and monsters, the D&D world is in fact pretty damned cosy.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779807You're quoting quite selectively there, just from the character creation section. The chapter on dominion management goes into more detail about where and how dominions are gained, and that's the bit that talks about been given land grants in countries or having to go off into the wilderness where no-one cares. At least, it does in the Companion Set which I had a look in last night before posting. I don't have my RC with me at the moment.
I went straight to the section labeled Domains where the majority of the actual rules are rather. And I noted above that it says you can go off into the wilderness instead.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779809It might not make a difference to what happens after they're dead, but it makes a huge difference to how vulnerable they are and how easy it is to kill them.
Historical kings were easy to kill. Stab or poison them - dead.
If succession in a D&D world is commonly by violent usurpation, there wouldn't be any strong, lawful, cohesive states. At all. If you usurp a king, you need a power base of your own or your head will be on the chopping block in a month. And if you have your own power base, it's because they expect to be rewarded. Okay, so what do you do with the former people who held the positions you've promised to your followers? Try to kill them? Then you have civil war.
You need a stable lineage and/or legitimacy granted by the priesthood in order to have government. There's a reason even those medieval kings who gained the throne by civil war went to tremendous pains to have the histories and coats of arms changed so they could pretend to be descended from a legitimate king.
Quote from: tzunder;779837If I want to play a dirt farmer or a pigsticker I'll play DCC, and then my life will turn randomly upside down and purple (I love the bonkers of that game but it's not D&D).
It's a codification of how a lot of people have always played D&D.
Quote from: Haffrung;779863Historical kings were easy to kill. Stab or poison them - dead.
If succession in a D&D world is commonly by violent usurpation, there wouldn't be any strong, lawful, cohesive states. At all. If you usurp a king, you need a power base of your own or your head will be on the chopping block in a month. And if you have your own power base, it's because they expect to be rewarded. Okay, so what do you do with the former people who held the positions you've promised to your followers? Try to kill them? Then you have civil war.
What gives you an idea medieval states were lawful, cohesive states? Hells, Renaissance ones were not.
Quote from: Rincewind1;779866What gives you an idea medieval states were lawful, cohesive states? Hells, Renaissance ones were not.
Uh, read it again.
Since in the REAL WORLD kings were easy to kill, medieval states WERE NOT lawful/cohesive.
The only reason they are in D&D is because you don't get random shitbag knocking off the level 10 king.
Quote from: Rincewind1;779866What gives you an idea medieval states were lawful, cohesive states? Hells, Renaissance ones were not.
Quote from: Will;779877Uh, read it again.
Since in the REAL WORLD kings were easy to kill, medieval states WERE NOT lawful/cohesive.
The only reason they are in D&D is because you don't get random shitbag knocking off the level 10 king.
I am reading what Haffrung wrote differently than either of you. Haffrung is examining the following Succession Premise.
Succession Premise: If it is relatively easy to murder a ruler, than murder will be the usual form of succession.
Haffrung takes the following two premises as true.
True Premise 1*: If the usual form of succession is by murdering the current ruler and succeeding them, than cohesive, lawful states will not exist.
True Premise 2**: Some D&D domains are lawful and cohesive.
Haffrung than uses these two premises to disprove the Succession Premise for any D&D game world where there are cohesive, lawful states.
Haffrung goes on to use real world history to disprove the Succession Premise for the real world. Specifically the historical fact that murdering the ruler was not the usual form of succession in medieval Europe. While some rulers in medieval Europe were in fact succeeded by their murderers, this was not the usual or most common form of succession. Moreover when murder was used, those murderers were not ignoble mercenaries from outside the ruling order (the equivalent of D&D adventurers), but were in fact other members of royal family and thus were part of the normal succession.
Conclusion: The fact that it is relatively easy to murder a ruler tells us nothing about whether or not murder will be the usual and common form of succession.
Corollary: High level rulers are not necessary to avoid the Succession Premise being true in a D&D world.
* Haffrung supports Premise 1 with examples of consequences for this type of succession e.g. civil war, repeated successions, possible anarchy.
** Presumably Premise 2 is clear to those familiar with several D&D settings where some D&D domains are both lawful and cohesive.
The other thing to bear in mind is assassination is a lot less effective when people can be brought back from the dead. It doesn't matter what level the King is if the Grand Vizir wants him alive and has resurrection.
Quote from: Bren;779881Conclusion: The fact that it is relatively easy to murder a ruler tells us nothing about whether or not murder will be the usual and common form of succession.
Corollary: High level rulers are not necessary to avoid the Succession Premise being true in a D&D world.
Exactly. I can't imagine any lawful society governed by whoever can kill the current leader. Unless the succession is part of some formalized tournament of arms (which would be kind of cool, actually). Though I'd say even in that case you have a lawful evil society.
And there would be relentless challenges, because how do you know that leader is a tough as he says he is? It's not as though D&D characters have a glowing 'level 10' hovering over their heads. Maybe he got lucky when he killed the previous ruler. Maybe he didn't really clear out the Necropolis of Gak like he claims. Unless he lives in paranoid seclusion in his castle, surrounded by arcane wards and mercenary guards, he will be exposed to combat at some point. And the bigger the kingdom, the more difficult it is to hold by personal authority and raw power alone. Even in the very small polities of Greek city-states, tyrants typically had a short rule that was terminated by assassination or exile. And tyrants had the benefit of a strong base of support among the common people.
No, without substantial support among the ruling class, whether it's aristocrats or the priesthood, your reign will be short. And support from aristocrats only happens if you're an aristocrat yourself, and you make the right marriages and alliances. In fact, it would probably be easier for a PC in D&D to take over a priesthood and set up a theocracy than to rise to the top of a feudal system.
Quote from: Rincewind1;779866What gives you an idea medieval states were lawful, cohesive states? Hells, Renaissance ones were not.
Sure, they were often bloody and chaotic. But how many states were taken over by itinerant mercenaries? If you wanted your rule to last more than a few years you needed the legitimacy of a successor, aristocratic blood (and/or lots and lots of money), and the blessing of the church. And while I'm happy to play in campaign worlds as treacherous and ruthless as England during the Wars of the Roses, or renaissance Italy, that's certainly not the way most D&D fantasy worlds are portrayed.
Quote from: jadrax;779885The other thing to bear in mind is assassination is a lot less effective when people can be brought back from the dead. It doesn't matter what level the King is if the Grand Vizir wants him alive and has resurrection.
All the more reason for the king to be a 0-level patsy of the Grand Vizier.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;779824Just because the duke can do stuff himself doesn't mean he wants to. That's the whole point of him having people like PCs in his service.
And if the duke is lower level?
Consider a duke who's the equivalent of a 4th level fighter. He may be outclassed with a sword in his hand, but there is no way for the adventurers to reach his social station solely by being higher level than he is. The duke wants the adventurers in his service precisely because they are more badass than he is, and the adventurers accept the duke's service because the duke opens doors they cannot open by mere badassitude.
And if they decide that killing off the duke creates "openings" (:rolleyes:) for advancement? How do you think the rest of the nobility will react to that? If the player character adventurers make themselves a threat to the social order, they invite the nobility to band together against them, plus attract the attention of other social climbing non-player character adventurers who will earn their own favor by knocking the players characters off.
William Marshall and Pierre Terrail de Bayard were two historical player character-quality badasses; Marshall became a count by marriage and served as regent for a time, while Bayard was a simple knight until his death.
Again, social rank is a setting conceit that can exist independent of character level.
Quote from: Haffrung;779904Sure, they were often bloody and chaotic. But how many states were taken over by itinerant mercenaries? If you wanted your rule to last more than a few years you needed the legitimacy of a successor, aristocratic blood (and/or lots and lots of money), and the blessing of the church. And while I'm happy to play in campaign worlds as treacherous and ruthless as England during the Wars of the Roses, or renaissance Italy, that's certainly not the way most D&D fantasy worlds are portrayed.
All the more reason for the king to be a 0-level patsy of the Grand Vizier.
If we're talking about adventurers rather than precisely mercenaries - actually a lot, especially in the early - middle medieval periods. And of course nobody'll actually hold power without having one of those things you mention, but often enough, a wonky claim on one and determination was enough. Might made right in the medieval world, heck, it even did for the most of Renaissance. And some of them created quite stable dynasties.
Rurik's conquest of Rus
Rollo's grant of Normady
d'Hautevilles career in Souther Italy, especially Robert Guiscard, who fits to the bone a "Noble" background in DnD, since he wasn't much liked by his cousins and when he started, he had nothing except armour to his name
Crusader States - especially Syria and Antioch.
Latin Empire - a special case as compared to the rest, because it was ultimately basically based on mutiny.
Basil I's ascension of the Byzantine Empire (admittedly more of a bureaucrat than an adventurer, but he was born a peasant).
Timur the Lame's takeover of Chagatai Khanate
Raise of the Mamluks
That's off the top of my head. And that's just Europe (mostly) and success stories - take a look at Byzantine Empire if you want it to go really wild, it's literally one civil war after another. Not to mention you will find many mercenaries being granted land thanks to their services, some of them also engaging in attempts to take over their lords - again, we need to look mostly to Byzantium and Lombard Italy for that, but to be fair - those were the states who were heavily using mercenaries during that period, at least where Europe is concerned. So there is some precedent not only to actually explaining why they'd try to take over, but success stories as well.
Quote from: Haffrung;779900Exactly. I can't imagine any lawful society governed by whoever can kill the current leader. Unless the succession is part of some formalized tournament of arms (which would be kind of cool, actually). Though I'd say even in that case you have a lawful evil society.
And there would be relentless challenges, because how do you know that leader is a tough as he says he is? It's not as though D&D characters have a glowing 'level 10' hovering over their heads. Maybe he got lucky when he killed the previous ruler. Maybe he didn't really clear out the Necropolis of Gak like he claims. Unless he lives in paranoid seclusion in his castle, surrounded by arcane wards and mercenary guards, he will be exposed to combat at some point. And the bigger the kingdom, the more difficult it is to hold by personal authority and raw power alone. Even in the very small polities of Greek city-states, tyrants typically had a short rule that was terminated by assassination or exile. And tyrants had the benefit of a strong base of support among the common people.
No, without substantial support among the ruling class, whether it's aristocrats or the priesthood, your reign will be short. And support from aristocrats only happens if you're an aristocrat yourself, and you make the right marriages and alliances. In fact, it would probably be easier for a PC in D&D to take over a priesthood and set up a theocracy than to rise to the top of a feudal system.
Raising to the nobility was actually pretty common (relatively to the later years at least). Despite the misconceptions, the higher social classes really started to very much codify and start to enforce laws against new members entering them during the late XIV - XVII centuries. And it was mostly provoked by Black Death and peasants uprisings. It's all very complicated, and a lot of it does not make sense if you don't have Augistine's Divine Hierarchy or an event that wiped out most of the workforce in the setting.
Yes, there were definitely elements of treating such people as newcomers and upstarts, but it was possible at all, and the "stain" of such usually disappeared in the second generation tops. This also depended state by state.
And yes, people who took the power by literally waltzing in with nothing else than power of their own arm usually did not last long (and history of Roman empire is actually full of those), but..it never stopped anyone, did it?
And really, in D&D, you may have people literally capable of standing their ground against an entire army, or casting a spell capable of decimating an entire castle at once. Why'd they not just carve themselves out a kingdom, a weakling king tossed away like rag? Fantasy isn't just Medieval Europe With Magic. Especially if you go with DnD to emulate a setting, which does facilitate people just getting unbeliveably more powerful than a "common man", and out of range of being killed by a random commoner with a lucky shot from a crossbow at some point. Yes, not all kings need be 9 - 10th levels, but
some rulers may and most likely will be.
Will king make war when a 4th level duke is killed by an 11th level Fighter, or will he offer said Fighter a pardon (perhaps with included proof of Fighter's grievance against the duke or such) as long as he swears an oath of allegiance? Both options put the king in a miserable position - if he wants to avenge the duke as law dictates, he's fighting a monstrocity that can take out half his army, but if he names the Fighter a new duke, he faces angry nobles and said duke's family. So perhaps it's best to just prove that the Fighter was a long lost elder brother of the Duke all along?
Of course, you can also ignore the ways how mechanics could influence the world, and just go ahead with the feel of medieval society and it's cosmetics. But then, why not play a game that'll fit the world better? As Kruger noted, DnD is really more "Medievalistic Fantasy Meets American Dream", amplifying the real life chances of growth in medieval societies tenfold.
So either play Harn, or accept that DnD is a game where 11 - 14th level adventurers may be people who can (though may choose not to for various reasons) just rally bloodthirsty mercenaries, and grab blooded crowns from the corpses of the kings they just killed in their own throne rooms. Of course, that kind of makes the PCs the big bads of the setting, which means that perhaps some other groups of adventurers could start coming after them...
Or agree that despite mechanics saying one, world works in another way.
Quote from: Rincewind1;779930Will king make war when a 4th level duke is killed by an 11th level Fighter, or will he offer said Fighter a pardon (perhaps with included proof of Fighter's grievance against the duke or such) as long as he swears an oath of allegiance? Both options put the king in a miserable position - if he wants to avenge the duke as law dictates, he's fighting a monstrocity that can take out half his army, but if he names the Fighter a new duke, he faces angry nobles and said duke's family. So perhaps it's best to just prove that the Fighter was a long lost elder brother of the Duke all along?
As you've described the situation the only rational response is to have the Fighter assassinated. He's already proven he is a current and immediate threat to the exisiting social order that supports the king. The King himself may be his next target.
QuoteAnd really, in D&D, you may have people literally capable of standing their ground against an entire army...
Didn't bounded accuracy eliminate one person destroying an entire army?
QuoteSo either play Harn, or accept that DnD is a game where 11 - 14th level adventurers...
Given that I played D&D for years and never saw a single PC at those levels, obviously these aren't the only two choices for how to run a D&D world.
Quote from: Bren;779944As you've described the situation the only rational response is to have the Fighter assassinated. He's already proven he is a current and immediate threat to the exisiting social order that supports the king. The King himself may be his next target.
Yeah, but if we're talking about a world of 1 - 3 lvl Kings, who'll exactly assassinate that uberpowerful rarely levelled fighter? And if the fighter survives, the King goes to war with a monster.
Of course, it itself opens some fun ideas - perhaps the King has the Court Wizard summon a powerful demon to kill the Fighter. Or the assassin demands an extraordinary price that makes the situation even worse once the task's done.
QuoteDidn't bounded accuracy eliminate one person destroying an entire army?
A lots of HPs and some damage reduction, and wizard's support will take care of that as well. Of course, it was always for a given value of army which is an exaggeration - if you fight 2000 mooks, some of them'll roll 20s in older editions as well. But of course such Fighter needn't actually engage 2000 at once - he just needs to go to the castle, kill the King, and just stand in the throne room's doorway ;). Or actually bring some hungry for titles and gold mercenaries with them, I mean how much do they cost, 3 GP per day? He surely got some loot by the time he got to 11th level.
QuoteGiven that I played D&D for years and never saw a single PC at those levels, obviously these aren't the only two choices for how to run a D&D world.
Well, obviously if the PCs keep to levels 1 - 5 the issue never raises even if the world has NPCs that are level 4 tops.
Quote from: Rincewind1;779950Yeah, but if we're talking about a world of 1 - 3 lvl Kings, who'll exactly assassinate that uberpowerful rarely levelled fighter?
That world's version of the Old Man of the Mountain.
I get that some people really, really like their
PCs UBER ALLES tropes. And if they like that they should play it. But high level PCs being some unstoppable, world ruling force is in no way required by logic, historical accuracy, or the 5E game rules.
Quote from: Bren;779956That world's version of the Old Man of the Mountain.
:cheerleader:
Great historical allusion, Bren.
Quote from: Bren;779956That world's version of the Old Man of the Mountain.
I get that some people really, really like their PCs UBER ALLES tropes. And if they like that they should play it. But high level PCs being some unstoppable, world ruling force is in no way required by logic, historical accuracy, or the 5E game rules.
Oh, I definitely agree. Perhaps you mistake my intentions - I am not arguing for a world where PCs are the most powerful, but actually arguing that a world where 11th level is pretty much reserved for PCs will result in a world where adventurers take over kingdoms all the time. I think there should be some powerful, high level npcs in the world, and quite many of them will be some rulers, whether ruling a powerful organisation of assassins controlling a duchy, to the warrior - kings. There may be some low level rulers, but then they should better get high - level, very very loyal, bodyguards.
In a way, I'm arguing more to embrace the options that DnD mechanics provide, rather than be baffled by them in the search of realism and historical emulation. If you have 11th level Assassin, who's stopping him from killing all the kings if they are 4 - 5th levels? Perhaps it's his religion, perhaps the royal families need to live so that the ancient demon Phagnarak doesn't escape the prison, as the blood of 12 Original Kings is what keeps him imprisoned, and that assassin actually goes after any (N)PCs trying to upset the order. Perhaps most wizards of levels 10+ retreat to solitude, disgusted by the world and afraid of their powers, choosing to study - or perhaps the magic itself warps their minds, causing them to lock away and burn in their own energy. Or perhaps the wizards of such power are more concerned with fighting for position in the World's University of Wizards, knowing it to be the true power of the world. And then you can have the occasional outcast, who suddenly starts to manipulate a certain king, to slowly take over the world.
But if you have a world where the top dogs have 0 to 5th level tops, then it does beset a question why that 11th level Fighter will not just conquer it all.
Quote from: Rincewind1;779964Oh, I definitely agree. Perhaps you mistake my intentions...
It seems clear you think Class Level = Political Power.
QuoteI think there should be some powerful, high level npcs in the world,
As do I, for whatever version of powerful makes sense for a particular setting.
Quote... and quite many of them will be some rulers
This is where we disagree. There is no necessity for this to be true. And thus no reason aside from preference to conclude this.
QuoteIn a way, I'm arguing more to embrace the options that DnD mechanics provide, rather than be baffled by them in the search of realism and historical emulation.
Speaking for myself (though I strongly expect Haffrung and Black Vulmea agree on this point), I'm not at all baffled by DnD mechanics. We just prefer a setting where individual personal power and political power are separate things.
QuoteIf you have 11th level Assassin, who's stopping him from killing all the kings if they are 4 - 5th levels?
Game world consequences.
People who run about upsetting the existing social order frighten and annoy those who already have political power as part of the existing social order. And the existing social order will treat them like rabid dogs to be hunted down and killed (also rendered unresurrectable/unreincarnatable) for the good of society. And by the good of society I mean the good and the safety of the rulers of society.
QuoteBut if you have a world where the top dogs have 0 to 5th level tops, then it does beset a question why that 11th level Fighter will not just conquer it all.
It's not like this is some new point of view. This problem was considered and dealt with decades ago. All that is required is for the world to be a functioning social system and for the people in power to act like people in power usually act when threatened by outsiders.
The thing is, power is power.
And in the real world, anything that translated to power was used to get different or more power.
I frankly don't see how that wouldn't be reflected by things like levels or the ability to fart fireballs.
Although I think it's likely the leaders will be very high level BARDS.
Quote from: Bren;779974People who run about upsetting the existing social order frighten and annoy those who already have political power as part of the existing social order. And the existing social order will treat them like rabid dogs to be hunted down and killed (also rendered unresurrectable/unreincarnatable) for the good of society. And by the good of society I mean the good and the safety of the rulers of society.
It's not like this is some new point of view. This problem was considered and dealt with decades ago. All that is required is for the world to be a functioning social system and for the people in power to act like people in power usually act when threatened by outsiders.
If PCs do routinely gain power by force of arms, every institution of power in the land - aristocrats, merchants, priests, etc. - would be unrelentingly vigilant of adventurers who were gaining enough power to threaten the status quo. If wandering tomb robbers took over the throne 30 years ago kicked off a decade of strife, what with stirring up dragons and battling sorcerors across the land, you can bet that any future wandering tomb robbers would be treated with extreme prejudice.
Even when threatened by other insiders. Classical Greece and Rome were intensely competitive societies. But when an individual showed signs of pulling away from the pack, he was hounded out of the society or killed. So other wizards, clerics, warriors, and rogues would always be on the lookout for a PC making a power-grab. Wizard guilds would deny access to scrolls and components. Priests would kick power-mongers out of the temple. Rogues would use the power of the Thieves' Guild.
Quote from: Rincewind1;779930As Kruger noted, DnD is really more "Medievalistic Fantasy Meets American Dream", amplifying the real life chances of growth in medieval societies tenfold.
I agree with that. There's no sense in D&D settings that the peasants are tied to the land or really owe allegiance to anyone. They're all freemen smallholders of a Midwest libertarian bent.
Quote from: Bren;779944As you've described the situation the only rational response is to have the Fighter assassinated. He's already proven he is a current and immediate threat to the exisiting social order that supports the king. The King himself may be his next target.
I imagine any religious authority would look darkly on strong-men taking over kingdoms willy-nilly. How do they know the new ruler will be supportive of their temple? That he will foster the kind of stability they need to prosper? The equivalent of excommunication (no heals or cures of any kind) by every state-supported religion would be a very effective curb on rogue PCs.
Quote from: Will;779984The thing is, power is power.
But personal power doesn't equal political power. Rather than welcoming or accepting some homicidal grave robber into the leading position in society, the leaders of that society may well decide these people either stay in their place (e.g. those rough taverns down by the dockside where the quest giving bearded old men hang out) or society eliminates them as a threat.
If you want to play a game where the PCs are more powerful than the surrounding society you can, but that seems more like playing Galactacus or some other over the top cosmic villain in a Stan Lee inspired comic book than anything that the rules of 5E necessitate.
Quote from: Haffrung;779989...you can bet that any future wandering tomb robbers would be treated with extreme prejudice.
They may become the D&D society equivalent of the bomb throwing anarchist in Victorian times.
QuoteI imagine any religious authority would look darkly on strong-men taking over kingdoms willy-nilly. How do they know the new ruler will be supportive of their temple? That he will foster the kind of stability they need to prosper? The equivalent of excommunication (no heals or cures of any kind) by every state-supported religion would be a very effective curb on rogue PCs.
Yes, that is another possible consequence. When all the temples decide to say "Sorry, but no" to every attempt to raise a dead PC despite the fact that when alive they were able to leap tall towers in a single bound or smash armies with their mighty sword of might, suddenly your career as a powerful but anti-social badass becomes a short one.
Quote from: Bren;779974As do I, for whatever version of powerful makes sense for a particular setting.
Yeah, it's not like I'm arguing or Bren's arguing that everyone except the adveturers needs to be 0-level shlubs. For a setting in which most of the rulers are warlords whose authority extends as far as their reach, then most leaders are likely to be fairly high level. For a setting with more established nobility, then marcher barons along the frontier are more likely to be higher level while those of established families near the core provinces are likely to be lower level, or 0-level, unless they have extensive military service in the monarch's name.
An intelligent, charismatic 0-level king who rules by guile and patronage may be served loyally by a 9th level champion and a 10th level marshal and a 9th level archpriest and an 8th level wizard-vizier, because in part they are invested in maintaining the
status quo which also happens to be their meal ticket.
For me, this makes for a richer setting than one which is predictably tied to character levels.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;779998An intelligent, charismatic 0-level king who rules by guile and patronage may be served loyally by a 9th level champion and a 10th level marshal and a 9th level archpriest and an 8th level wizard-vizier, because in part they are invested in maintaining the status quo which also happens to be their meal ticket.
For me, this makes for a richer setting than one which is predictably tied to character levels.
Obviously this works better if the game system doesn't tie high intelligence or charisma to level. OD&D would be a classic example of not being tied to level.
That may be a flaw with 5E. I'm saying "might be a flaw" because I haven't studied the rules enough to know whether it is or isn't a flaw.
Quote from: Bren;779944As you've described the situation the only rational response is to have the Fighter assassinated. He's already proven he is a current and immediate threat to the exisiting social order that supports the king. The King himself may be his next target.
Not 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.
QuoteDidn't bounded accuracy eliminate one person destroying an entire army?
Only in 5e, it doesn't has any impact on earlier editions.
QuoteGiven that I played D&D for years and never saw a single PC at those levels, obviously these aren't the only two choices for how to run a D&D world.
So you're saying your experience doesn't include play at this kind of level, which makes you qualified to talk about it how?
Quote from: Bren;779974It seems clear you think Class Level = Political Power.
It certainly = potential political power.
QuoteAs do I, for whatever version of powerful makes sense for a particular setting.
Agreed.
QuoteThis is where we disagree. There is no necessity for this to be true. And thus no reason aside from preference to conclude this.
There is also no reason for it not to be true, so why not pretend it is and see where that leads?
QuotePeople who run about upsetting the existing social order frighten and annoy those who already have political power as part of the existing social order. And the existing social order will treat them like rabid dogs to be hunted down and killed (also rendered unresurrectable/unreincarnatable) for the good of society. And by the good of society I mean the good and the safety of the rulers of society.
If you have a setting in which high level adventurers settle down to become political powers, why would you assume you would have something that includes rule by inheritance rather than a "meritocratic" system where rule is based on who can hold the fief against the monsters? If Baron Michael can't do it anymore, then he resigns (or dies trying to protect the fief) and Baroness Wilma Bloodyaxe gets appointed to it.
Titles don't have to be hereditary, or even for life. If monsters are the primary threat to peace and order in a setting, then those who can protect the masses from the monsters the best being the rulers in that setting is a perfectly reasonable outcome.
Quote from: Haffrung;779989If PCs do routinely gain power by force of arms, every institution of power in the land - aristocrats, merchants, priests, etc. - would be unrelentingly vigilant of adventurers who were gaining enough power to threaten the status quo. If wandering tomb robbers took over the throne 30 years ago kicked off a decade of strife, what with stirring up dragons and battling sorcerors across the land, you can bet that any future wandering tomb robbers would be treated with extreme prejudice.
If that's routinely the case, then
it is the status quo, and institutions will be of a type that can deal with that.
QuoteI imagine any religious authority would look darkly on strong-men taking over kingdoms willy-nilly. How do they know the new ruler will be supportive of their temple? That he will foster the kind of stability they need to prosper? The equivalent of excommunication (no heals or cures of any kind) by every state-supported religion would be a very effective curb on rogue PCs.
Rogue PCs that likely include a Cleric in their party? Religious authorities of every alignment, who you think will lock-step support the existing powers, even if they are of completely opposed alignment? Why on earth would Clerics of a lawful good diety oppose a lawful good party out to overthrow the Lich King?
Remember, powerful NPCs need not be good, and if a party of good PCs is of a level where they think they can take out an evil ruler isn't it their duty to do so?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;779998Yeah, it's not like I'm arguing or Bren's arguing that everyone except the adveturers needs to be 0-level shlubs. For a setting in which most of the rulers are warlords whose authority extends as far as their reach, then most leaders are likely to be fairly high level. For a setting with more established nobility, then marcher barons along the frontier are more likely to be higher level while those of established families near the core provinces are likely to be lower level, or 0-level, unless they have extensive military service in the monarch's name.
This actually is pretty similar to how I would imagine the setting based on Jane Austen that I mentioned earlier could work.
Whats to stop an assassin from killing off all the kings?
The kings powerful servants: He isnt holding that crown THAT long without several.
Magic. Various wards can be set up to baffle these attempts or at least slow them down. Or afterwards track them down.
Adventurers: This assassin needs putting down. Some king on the hit list hired them. A relative hired them. They are friends with the noble. Just because. etc
Other assassins: Bad for business.
No profit in it vs the effort needed: Assassins oft work for hire. Of course a "just because" assassin is possible. But likely isnt going to last overlong.
etc.
We can extrapolate just as many reasons why rampant crazy gets curbed as we can why it doesnt.
Find what works for you. But at some point is starts to sound like an exercise in trying to break the game setting, trees for forest, or just trolliing.
Well, let's break it down.
How did people gain power in the first place?
Through the ability to kill people who disagreed, to provide a mutual assurance of other armed folks, providing protection, keeping OTHER folks from coming in and taking everyone's stuff.
How, in D&D, would that become separated from level?
Quote from: Bren;779996If you want to play a game where the PCs are more powerful than the surrounding society you can, but that seems more like playing Galactacus or some other over the top cosmic villain in a Stan Lee inspired comic book than anything that the rules of 5E necessitate.
You keep bringing this up as if those of us suggesting that nobles might be higher level are advocating this. But we're advocating the exact
opposite.
We're suggesting that the people in power should have class levels and be higher level than the PCs.
It's those of you who are suggesting that the nobility should be 0th level and that class levels should be incredibly rare that are positing a setting where the PCs are more powerful than everyone else.
So it's rather ironic that you are trying to characterise the sort of setting that we prefer as being some kind of - as you put it in another post - "PCs Uber Alles". Because your preference is far closer to that than ours.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;780051It's those of you who are suggesting that the nobility should be 0th level and that class levels should be incredibly rare . . .
Please quote the posts where anyone said "the nobility" - which, you understand, refers to all nobles - should be 0-level and that class levels should be "incredibly rare."
Quote from: Will;780048Through the ability to kill people who disagreed, to provide a mutual assurance of other armed folks, providing protection, keeping OTHER folks from coming in and taking everyone's stuff.
And that's why the President of the United States is a Navy SEAL, of course.
I wasn't aware we were talking about predominantly democratic republican governments in D&D. I stand corrected!
But I refer you to my 'bard' comment and that if this were GURPS, Obama clearly put a lot more points into whatever-the-heck GURPS' equivalent of Diplomacy is than a lot of people.
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.
That doesn't follow at all. Whether or not the king is 14th level he may still not want his political power base being upset by outsiders assassinating the current rulers. Promotion by murder sets a bad precedent from the perspective of those who are already in power.
QuoteOnly in 5e, it doesn't has any impact on earlier editions.
Maybe you are looking for a thread with some title other than "[5e] Looking at the world through the prism of the PHB." Also in OD&D name level PCs would not be able to defeat entire armies.
QuoteSo you're saying your experience doesn't include play at this kind of level, which makes you qualified to talk about it how?
Because I can deconstruct illogical arguments.
QuoteIt certainly = potential political power.
And potential political power <> political power. That's why it's called "potential." Do try to follow the thread of the conversation.
QuoteThere is also no reason for it not to be true, so why not pretend it is and see where that leads?
I never claimed it couldn't be true. In fact I said at least a couple of times that people who want to play their setting that way can and should. Also I don't need to "see where that leads." I know where it leads. The result is predictable and one that I find is not to my taste. Feel free to explore it to your heart's content though by all means.
QuoteIf you have a setting in which high level adventurers settle down to become political powers, why would you assume you would have something that includes rule by inheritance rather than a "meritocratic" system where rule is based on who can hold the fief against the monsters?
Because I don't have that as a setting conceit. Because I find the result uninteresting. Feel free to run your setting that way if you find it interesting. Just don't claim that your setting is a natural result of the 5E rules rather than a result of your specific setting conceits.
QuoteRemember, powerful NPCs need not be good, and if a party of good PCs is of a level where they think they can take out an evil ruler isn't it their duty to do so?
If they are lawful good they are unlikely to become the new ruler of the undead legions or rely for their kingdom's wealth on the labor of the hordes of zombie slaves. Which sinks this as an example of the kill your way to rulership paradigm that you are advocating.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;780051You keep bringing this up as if those of us suggesting that nobles might be higher level are advocating this.
Because you and others keep suggesting that the PCs will kill and then succeed the current rulers and this will not cause consequences that are fatal to the PCs. One of the explanations given for why the consequences wouldn't be fatal is the claim that the PCs can destroy armies or change the world with a wave of their hand. And the only way all that is plausible is if the PCs are much tougher than whatever force the rulers can bring to bear. If they aren't much tougher, than consequences will naturally occur to most usurpers and disrupters of the existing social order. Unless the existing social order is some sort of survival of the toughest, might makes right mix of tyranny and anarchy. And that only occurs as a deliberate setting conceit. Not as any sort of natural consequence of any rules.
QuoteIt's those of you who are suggesting that the nobility should be 0th level and that class levels should be incredibly rare that are positing a setting where the PCs are more powerful than everyone else.
Black Vulmea already covered this. Who, other than you, has suggested this?
QuoteSo it's rather ironic that you are trying to characterise the sort of setting that we prefer as being some kind of - as you put it in another post - "PCs Uber Alles". Because your preference is far closer to that than ours.
It's not ironic. PC Uber Alles is one way (probably the best way) to explain your idea that murderous grave robbers can succeed to rulership without fatal consequences from the powers that be in any society more organized than a Mad Max post-apocalyptic dystopia.
This article (http://matt-landofnod.blogspot.com/2014/08/twelve-kingly-archetypes.html)has some interesting ideas for 12 different types of kings - many with suggested class levels and a few without.
Quote from: Will;780062I wasn't aware we were talking about predominantly democratic republican governments in D&D. I stand corrected!
Oh, so you're one of those who doesn't realize that republics have been around for thousands of years? Good to know.
But I know full well you understood my point.
I hope you appreciate mine, then.
Democracies like the US are rare in history, and some might argue how much 'rule of force' doesn't apply to the US.
And, again, in the real world? Skill in persuasion and politicking isn't linked to kills or military ability.
It is in D&D.
Unless you are applying a mod where a 0 level Noble can have Diplomacy competitive with, say, a 10th level Rogue or Bard...
Now, grant you, the scaling in 5e is different enough that maybe this isn't such a big deal. The proficiency difference between, say, a 1st level character maximizing Diplomacy/Sense Motive and a 10th level character isn't nearly as much.
But I think it's fair to say that this HAS been an issue for at least 2 prior editions, and we don't have good firm information on whether it will likely be relevant to 5e.
Quote from: Will;780125It is in D&D.
Not in OD&D or AD&D. Now it may be linked to levels in 3E and 4E - I seem to recall something like that for the Star Wars d20 playtesting I did. But how 3E and 4E did things is no more relevant to how things will work in 5E than is how things worked in OD&D or AD&D.
In a well designed system being the king should give you a positive situational modifier on getting people to do what you want them to do. Because you are the king. After all, it's not like the President of the USA has to persuade his staff to do what he tells them. Though persuasion will be helpful in getting them to want to do the job well.
QuoteNow, grant you, the scaling in 5e is different enough that maybe this isn't such a big deal. The proficiency difference between, say, a 1st level character maximizing Diplomacy/Sense Motive and a 10th level character isn't nearly as much.
Add in some reasonable situational modifier for being the actual legal ruler and there you go. A problem from two past issues appears to be solved. :)
Quote from: Black Vulmea;780057And that's why the President of the United States is a Navy SEAL, of course.
The Navy SEAL ain't the one with the magic football. But we don't live in a D&D setting, so your point is moot.
Quote from: Bren;780117That doesn't follow at all. Whether or not the king is 14th level he may still not want his political power base being upset by outsiders assassinating the current rulers. Promotion by murder sets a bad precedent from the perspective of those who are already in power.
His power is his political power base. And if he doesn't like it he can gather up the old gang and ride out and chop/burn/backstab heads.
QuoteMaybe you are looking for a thread with some title other than "[5e] Looking at the world through the prism of the PHB." Also in OD&D name level PCs would not be able to defeat entire armies.
Threads discussions tend to move around a bit, do try and keep up.**
QuoteBecause I can deconstruct illogical arguments.
Please, you're like a virgin talking about sex when it comes to high level play.**
QuoteAnd potential political power <> political power. That's why it's called "potential." Do try to follow the thread of the conversation.*
That's asinine. Class levels as potential political power means that some but not all characters with class levels may have power now (the association is less than 100%) and it means that some of those who do not have political power now may have it in the future. Potential <> never going to happen; you know, like "potentially cancer" means enjoy the next couple of weeks until the test gets back.
You're on a computer, use a dictionary.**
QuoteAlso I don't need to "see where that leads." I know where it leads. The result is predictable and one that I find is not to my taste. Feel free to explore it to your heart's content though by all means.
I like playing with ideas; they frequently lead to interesting places.
QuoteJust don't claim that your setting is a natural result of the 5E rules rather than a result of your specific setting conceits.
The setting that's a natural result of 5e is the social welfare fantasy one in the first post; this tangent doesn't necessarily apply as much.
QuoteIf they are lawful good they are unlikely to become the new ruler of the undead legions or rely for their kingdom's wealth on the labor of the hordes of zombie slaves. Which sinks this as an example of the kill your way to rulership paradigm that you are advocating.
I did say Lich King, not Necromancer King, right? Why are you assuming undead legions and zombie slaves? I wasn't.
Besides, even if it was undead legions and zombie slaves, freeing them from undeath and dispelling evil from the land, making it habitable again, is a pretty decent motivation for a high level party of good adventurers.
QuoteBecause you and others keep suggesting that the PCs will kill and then succeed the current rulers and this will not cause consequences that are fatal to the PCs.
I'm not suggesting that would
necessarily be the case. I did talk about a social order in which power goes to those who can best use it rather than by inheritance. There wouldn't be any need to kill for power, you can just rise to the Kingship like someone can rise to CEO. The difference being you're probably better qualified for the duties of your position than the CEO.
QuoteOne of the explanations given for why the consequences wouldn't be fatal is the claim that the PCs can destroy armies or change the world with a wave of their hand. And the only way all that is plausible is if the PCs are much tougher than whatever force the rulers can bring to bear. If they aren't much tougher, than consequences will naturally occur to most usurpers and disrupters of the existing social order.
Which is why rulers would be more powerful. Personally more powerful. Meaning higher level.
In fact the least stable situation would be one in which high level characters are really rare, because that means they can act without competition. The more high level characters there are in a setting, the less power other high level characters will have.
QuoteUnless the existing social order is some sort of survival of the toughest, might makes right mix of tyranny and anarchy. And that only occurs as a deliberate setting conceit. Not as any sort of natural consequence of any rules.
Or the existing social order is a meritocracy in which high level persons are nudged into leadership positions because that is where they can do the community the most good? "Hereditary Monarchy" isn't the only viable political system.
QuoteBlack Vulmea already covered this. Who, other than you, has suggested this?
If you don't deliberately set things up to be otherwise, me? By which I mean it takes deliberate setting conceits to avoid this kind of result. At least in 3e and 4e where high level play might as well be Exalted. 5e isn't certain yet.
*Seriously?
**I can play too. You want to drop the sniping and get back to the heated discussion, or should we continue?
Quote from: Will;780125And, again, in the real world? Skill in persuasion and politicking isn't linked to kills or military ability.
It is in D&D.
That's perhaps true in some editions of
D&D. It's not true for all of
D&D.
Alignment is probably going to matter a lot as well.
The more a society tends towards being Chaotic, the more likely the ruler will be personally powerful. Orcs tend to be led by the biggest and strongest, regardless of who fathered who. Human societies at the edges of civilisation are probably pretty similar.
Quote from: Bren;780117Because you and others keep suggesting that the PCs will kill and then succeed the current rulers and this will not cause consequences that are fatal to the PCs.
Okay. Then it's clear that this conversation has completely broken down and we're talking past each other, because that's not what we are claiming at all (well, speaking for myself at least - I can't speak for others).
So since we're not saying what you think we're saying and apparently (according to Black Vulmea) you're not saying what we think you're saying either, we're not going to get anywhere productive with this discussion and we may as well give up and talk about something else.
I thought it was obvious that the one who rules in D&D's implied setting is whoever has the Super Magic Lucky Charm Ring of Rulership +7.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;780148That's perhaps true in some editions of D&D. It's not true for all of D&D.
This conversation is disappearing up it's asshole.
Waiter, check please.
Quote from: Will;780048Well, let's break it down.
How did people gain power in the first place?
Through the ability to kill people who disagreed, to provide a mutual assurance of other armed folks, providing protection, keeping OTHER folks from coming in and taking everyone's stuff.
How, in D&D, would that become separated from level?
Once you have an established realm THAT is when you get people in power who may not have any actual power other than good managerial skills. Which may be more important later than how many orcs you can fell.
Or someone really good at tactics but not much physically who ends up being the leader and then king. A guy whom under other circumstances would have been a Wizard or Cleric.
Or they may be the front for someone powerfull who doesnt want to be in the spotlight for some reason.
Lots of interesting ways it can play out. And. Yep... you guessed it. Great potential plot hooks. Why IS this guy the king?
Or you can go the "Rule by Combat" route which can be alot of fun too in a more mayhem sort of way.
Quote from: Will;780185This conversation is disappearing up it's asshole.
Will, Bard means very different things depending on the edition. Rogue isn't universal to every edition. Skill points are not present in every edition. There are no zero-level characters in many editions.
Your assumptions are closely tied to specific features of specific editions, as are mine, and Bren's, and Blacky's. If we want to talk about implied setting as dictated by the rules, then we need to agree that the rules can be very different from one another depending on which edition we discuss.
Or you could just assume that your favorite edition is the platonic
D&D, in which case you're wasting everyone's time.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;780056Please quote the posts where anyone said "the nobility" - which, you understand, refers to all nobles - should be 0-level and that class levels should be "incredibly rare."
Still waiting for those quotes, Blacky.
Or are you one of those cretins incapable of admitting you made a mistake?
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;780172Then it's clear that this conversation has completely broken down and we're talking past each other, because that's not what we are claiming at all (well, speaking for myself at least - I can't speak for others).
Actually, Will seems to be pretty close to saying that.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;780172So since we're not saying what you think we're saying and apparently (according to Black Vulmea) you're not saying what we think you're saying either, we're not going to get anywhere productive with this discussion and we may as well give up and talk about something else.
Or you could try reading what's written and responding to that, rather than the argument you've made up in your head.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;780197Or you could try reading what's written and responding to that, rather than the argument you've made up in your head.
And I could say exactly the same back to you, and where does that get us? Nowhere.
Quote from: apparition13;780136Threads discussions tend to move around a bit, do try and keep up.
If you want to talk exclusively about 3E and 4E you might, you know start a thread about that instead of popping in to crap up this one.
QuotePlease, you're like a virgin talking about sex when it comes to high level play.**
You are so precious. What are you 14 years old?
QuoteYou're on a computer, use a dictionary.
:rolleyes: I don't need to look up the definition. I know what potential means. You are the one who doesn't understand the difference between potential and actual. As you have again demonstrated.
QuoteI did say Lich King, not Necromancer King, right? Why are you assuming undead legions and zombie slaves? I wasn't.
Of course the Lich King is going to have evil minions and evil supporters be they undead, demons, trolls, orcs, or what have you. If you want to construct some odd edge case where the Lich King is ruling over a bunch of lawful good types who are just waiting for the awesomely heroic PCs to come along and kill the king and rule them happily ever after then you need to add some details to your example.
If every community in the game world is so beleaguered that the most important trait in a leader is his ability to slay sorcerers and demons, that in itself has all kinds of implications for the setting. No happy-clappy homesteaders, fat jolly innkeepers, and cities rich with luxury goods in a world of such stark and existential threats.
Well, going to renege on my bailing... heh.
Ok, I believe there is a happy fun productive conversation possible in this... so...
The reason I bring up 3e (and, to some extent, 4e) is because 5e is clearly heavily drawing from the overall design of those editions; there's the core ability mod + value thing, the saves being tied to ability scores, and so on.
A lot of the logic of class level ~> skill is there, as is overall power.
In the real world, power basically rests on cultural values and the threat of violence.
If people threaten rule, they will be incarcerated, hurt, or killed, or some combination.
Cultural values help legitimize rule and keep things from having to be enforced. And also help reduce the amount of actual violence or threat necessary to keep peace.
Change in leadership is heavily entrenched in cultural values, again, as a sort of mutual benefit pact between people in power. But, again, countless times in history and present day, when someone is desperate enough or believes their odds are good enough, they will use violence or the threat of violence to take power.
In D&D, generally, high level affords a resistance to death and ability to do big stuff that isn't directly tied to organization.
In the real world, in some small kingdom, you can sicken or poison the king's guards, get your own gang, and take over.
Mind you, the other rulers nearby might not like that and will kill you and take your stuff. So, again, risk, reward, and the ability to convince 50 idiots to back your bid for power.
Unless some neighboring ruler is encouraging you so you charge in, die horribly, and he sorrowfully takes the kingdom.
So the question is, in the real world, why is powerful warrior X not ruling instead of fatcat Y? Because Fatcat Y's warrior ancestors managed to kill opponents, protect the land, and if warrior X kills fatcat Y, he won't get fatcat Y's stuff, a bunch of other dudes will go 'ha ha' and kill warrior X and take it for themselves. Or neighboring guys will.
I'm pretty much talking this out to think of the relationships...
So, ultimately?
You may have a lower level leader, but A) she's likely to have some levels from 'noncombat encounters' (heh, and depending on the game), and B) she's likely to have the support of a cadre of higher level heroes of the realm to defend the legitimacy of her rule, because otherwise who is going to stop the high level gang of murderhobos deciding to take over.
Heck, in editions where GP = XP... wouldn't a leader taxing the populace gain a lot of XP? :)
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;780205And I could say exactly the same back to you, and where does that get us? Nowhere.
When I misread you, I admitted my error.
Now, again, where else have I misrepresented or misunderstood your argument?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;780263Now, again, where else have I misrepresented or misunderstood your argument?
The fact that you seem to think I'm trying to argue a point at all is a misreading.
Quote from: Will;780227Well, going to renege on my bailing... heh.
Ok, I believe there is a happy fun productive conversation possible in this... so...
The reason I bring up 3e (and, to some extent, 4e) is because 5e is clearly heavily drawing from the overall design of those editions; there's the core ability mod + value thing, the saves being tied to ability scores, and so on.
A lot of the logic of class level ~> skill is there, as is overall power.
In the real world, power basically rests on cultural values and the threat of violence.
If people threaten rule, they will be incarcerated, hurt, or killed, or some combination.
Cultural values help legitimize rule and keep things from having to be enforced. And also help reduce the amount of actual violence or threat necessary to keep peace.
Change in leadership is heavily entrenched in cultural values, again, as a sort of mutual benefit pact between people in power. But, again, countless times in history and present day, when someone is desperate enough or believes their odds are good enough, they will use violence or the threat of violence to take power.
In D&D, generally, high level affords a resistance to death and ability to do big stuff that isn't directly tied to organization.
In the real world, in some small kingdom, you can sicken or poison the king's guards, get your own gang, and take over.
Mind you, the other rulers nearby might not like that and will kill you and take your stuff. So, again, risk, reward, and the ability to convince 50 idiots to back your bid for power.
Unless some neighboring ruler is encouraging you so you charge in, die horribly, and he sorrowfully takes the kingdom.
So the question is, in the real world, why is powerful warrior X not ruling instead of fatcat Y? Because Fatcat Y's warrior ancestors managed to kill opponents, protect the land, and if warrior X kills fatcat Y, he won't get fatcat Y's stuff, a bunch of other dudes will go 'ha ha' and kill warrior X and take it for themselves. Or neighboring guys will.
I'm pretty much talking this out to think of the relationships...
So, ultimately?
You may have a lower level leader, but A) she's likely to have some levels from 'noncombat encounters' (heh, and depending on the game), and B) she's likely to have the support of a cadre of higher level heroes of the realm to defend the legitimacy of her rule, because otherwise who is going to stop the high level gang of murderhobos deciding to take over.
Heck, in editions where GP = XP... wouldn't a leader taxing the populace gain a lot of XP? :)
I think you are likey to have cultureal modes of transfering power be they electorial, hereditry or whatever. These can easily pass power to those who are well connected but low level.
If the society is primarily lawful then this leadership is likely to remain in place with good types defending the ruler's divine/democratic right to rule and evil types manipulaing the possibilities of politicking for their own goals.
If the society is chaotic then chances are the rule will be overthrown unless they have access to a large loyal force to defend them. Good types will set up their own separate enclaves or start rebellion if the ruler is evil or if their rule leads to evil being done to the people and evil types will formet rebellion to take over or just ravage the countryside unimpinged.
Eventually if the status gets pitched too much due to internal friction or external threat a new leader will enmege who is likely higher level they will restore a new order and then the cycle settles down and is likely to repeat on continues loop.
this kind of mirrors hisotry where dynasties rise and fall and a powerful leader eventually gives way to weak sucessors who are repalced.
As a tentative convert to the ACKS xp-for-ruling, when I hear everybody talking about lawful succession I like to remember that it was SEVERAL CENTURIES between the Norman Conquest of England and an unchallenged succession without internal revolts...
William II: uncle & brother rebelling in Normandy, rebellions throughout England, Scottish invasion, "killed by an arrow while out hunting".
Henry I: older brother invades from Normandy, five years later invades Normandy, "dies of food poisoning".
Stephen: elected by the barons (usurper), spends 6 years in civil war, ends up declaring his opponent's son his own heir.
Henry II: spends more than half his reign outside England, wars in France, England, Ireland, his wife leads a rebellion against him, multiple rebellions by sons and siblings.
Richard I: rebelled twice against his father, spent a couple of years on crusade, the rest of his life fighting in France before dying from a crossbow bolt.
John: Robin Hood, war with France, Magna Carta, etc.
Henry III: captured in the second Baron's War.
Edward I: crusader, conquers Wales, conquers Scotland, Scots rebel; dies on his way north to re-invade Scotland.
...
They were all trained to war, and all had at least some personal experience leading troops. In my world, they'd all have levels, likely of Fighter (or Aristocrat or ...) With the ACKS ruleset, they might start out low-level, but if they were actually able to administer the kingdom effectively they'd gain levels until they topped out somewhere around 7-10. That's more personal skill than they necessarily had in the real world, but doesn't seem unreasonable to me. (Demographically: with the Domesday population of ~1 million, ACKS considers England to be a Duchy with an expected ruler level of 9-10.)
If you want something at smaller scale, or a little bit later in history, look at any of the chronicles of Italian city-states during the hundreds of years of Guelf-Ghibelline warfare; constant coups, counter-coups, rebellions, and short-term conquests of neighbors. Between Podesta, Capitano, and Gonfaloniere, you probably had some combination of an Aristocrat (noble), a Fighter (mercenary captain), and a Venturer (merchant) in power.
Quote from: Naburimannu;780688As a tentative convert to the ACKS xp-for-ruling, when I hear everybody talking about lawful succession I like to remember that it was SEVERAL CENTURIES between the Norman Conquest of England and an unchallenged succession without internal revolts...
Of course all of the successors came from a very narrow Norman aristocratic class with some birthright claim to the throne.
The 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.
Again, in most games 'doing important stuff' earns Xp and gains levels, so one question would be why a king isn't gaining levels while on the job, even if he starts off low leveled.
I also wonder, in a world where experience translates to dramatic changes in personal power, why birthright would matter more than meritocracy of some kind.
Then again, I keep coming back to 5e's shallower power curve. IF it actually plays out, then I think it would be reasonable to compare it more closely to the real world -- when one guy can't just easily fend off 20 random warriors.
In 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?
This is one reason I liked E6, because it kept the power constrained to a point where one could translate RL ideas without extensive rewrites.
I'm a little leery of stuff like higher level magic, but we'll see how it plays out.
Sometimes you end up with conflicting data.
Orcs are a major threat and attack on sight.
Half orcs are pretty common and even acceptible in some lands.
Lots of ways you can interpret that.
I used to play it that there was much the same variety in orcs as there was in humans. They just tend a-lot more to the rough-house life by nature.
Or you could go the other way and figure theres alot of half orcs by force. Which works your orcs are either more evil or just... er... more randy...
Dopplegangers. Why the hell isnt everyone on the planet a paranoid wreck? (Or a happy doppleganger pretending to be a paranoid wreck...)
Quote from: Omega;780745Or you could go the other way and figure theres alot of half orcs by force. Which works your orcs are either more evil or just... er... more randy...
I made Half-Orcs an actual race that weren't the product of human and orc relations. They were more "human-like" than their relatives. Orcs were huge, pig-nosed monsters and half-orcs resembled the orcs in the Lord of the Rings movies (human proportions, more or less).
And I just didn't have anyone call them half-orcs. Just Orcs. It usually worked out rather well and most of my players were more familiar with the LOTR movies than Warhammer Greenskins.
Quote from: Omega;780745Sometimes you end up with conflicting data.
Orcs are a major threat and attack on sight.
Half orcs are pretty common and even acceptible in some lands.
I consider it analogous to how natives and half-natives were treated in the North American West. Orcs are very dangerous or hated tribes, like the Comanches. Half-orcs are half-Comanches; they're certainly not accepted as part of the mainstream society, but they might be useful scouts, interpreters, hunters, or perform some other role where knowledge of the wilderness and the 'savage' enemy comes in handy.
Quote from: Haffrung;780754I consider it analogous to how natives and half-natives were treated in the North American West. Orcs are very dangerous or hated tribes, like the Comanches. Half-orcs are half-Comanches; they're certainly not accepted as part of the mainstream society, but they might be useful scouts, interpreters, hunters, or perform some other role where knowledge of the wilderness and the 'savage' enemy comes in handy.
Interesting take on it.
Necrozius: what did you call full orcs?
Quote from: Will;780777Necrozius: what did you call full orcs?
Well, the commoners considered the whole lot of them "orcs", just from different regions or types. We just used the Warhammer/Tolkien jargon and called them "Black Orcs" or "Great Orcs", and characterized them the same way (there were fewer of them and they were bigger badasses, like the Uruk Hai).
Quote from: Will;780777Necrozius: what did you call full orcs?
I would go with "Forcs", except in Asian-themed settings, where they're called "chopsticks".
Quote from: Omega;780745Sometimes you end up with conflicting data.
Orcs are a major threat and attack on sight.
Half orcs are pretty common and even acceptible in some lands.
Lots of ways you can interpret that.
I used to play it that there was much the same variety in orcs as there was in humans. They just tend a-lot more to the rough-house life by nature.
Or you could go the other way and figure theres alot of half orcs by force. Which works your orcs are either more evil or just... er... more randy...
Dopplegangers. Why the hell isnt everyone on the planet a paranoid wreck? (Or a happy doppleganger pretending to be a paranoid wreck...)
If the common people learned of dopplegangers, there would be paranoia, hysteria, witch hunts, all sorts of crazy. Just like in the real world.
And many innocent people would suffer.
Quote from: Doom;780788I would go with "Forcs", except in Asian-themed settings, where they're called "chopsticks".
HA!!
Quote from: Doom;780788I would go with "Forcs", except in Asian-themed settings, where they're called "chopsticks".
I would +1 this, if I could. That's fucking funny!
Quote from: Necrozius;780800I would +1 this, if I could. That's fucking funny!
And the "chop" double entendre just adds to the funny. I'd make most full orcs are polearm wielding heavy infantry just to make "chop-stick" work in English.
Quote from: Haffrung;780734Of course all of the successors came from a very narrow Norman aristocratic class with some birthright claim to the throne.
The 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.
I think there are two different arguments going on in this thread:
* Are rulers likely to be high-level classed characters.
* Are high-level classed characters likely to be rulers.
I'm holding for the former. Yes, you need a power-base to take a throne, but it's reasonable to expect personal skills both in the real world and in fantasy campaign settings. Even Henry VIII was a pretty decent tournament fighter.
Your kick-ass Bohemian warrior might not have taken the throne of England, but there are plenty of routes into the lower or middle nobility for him in various countries.
Quote from: Naburimannu;780910I think there are two different arguments going on in this thread:
* Are rulers likely to be high-level classed characters.
* Are high-level classed characters likely to be rulers.
I'm holding for the former. Yes, you need a power-base to take a throne, but it's reasonable to expect personal skills both in the real world and in fantasy campaign settings. Even Henry VIII was a pretty decent tournament fighter.
Your kick-ass Bohemian warrior might not have taken the throne of England, but there are plenty of routes into the lower or middle nobility for him in various countries.
I've been wondering why any of this is a "debate". The older the state, in whatever form it exists, usually the more civilized it is (but not always), and then the less likely the requirement that the ruler be "high level".
I mean isn't the conceit of high-level adventuring that you put yourself at great risk for ever greater rewards that mere mortals couldn't do for themselves? Why attach the assumption that the children of such adventurers are equal in stature? It's possible sure. But that would be kind of presumptuous of the campaign. How many dragons are there? How many Pit Fiends running around? How many Tarrasques?
The idea that any of these things is implicit is kinda silly imo. I mean, it's as arbitrary as the proverbial "20th level Fighter who happens to be a Bartender". I think a few extra steps in game-logic should be applied. In places where there is conflict - there will be people with higher "levels" of experience. In places that have lots of peace (relatively) it will probably be a lot flatter, generally speaking. With, of course the caveats of the GM deciding there are actual reason Prince Dingus happens to be a high-level whatever despite never having left the castle... to the degree that it's believable, well I guess that's a different story.
Except why aren't things like keeping the peace, leading your people, negotiating treaties, and collecting taxes getting the leader XP?
In older editions there was often a direct link between level and leadership, because you gained followers and titles. Or GP = XP, so... hey, taxes.
In newer editions, level has a big impact on skill. And it's hard to deny 'leading' involves skills most of the time.
Overall, the sense of 'commoners are all level 0' or whatnot comes, at least in part, from the idea that they are not doing anything risky or interesting or challenging or... whatever.
Again, I'd argue that's unlikely to be the case for a king.
Quote from: Will;780933Except why aren't things like keeping the peace, leading your people, negotiating treaties, and collecting taxes getting the leader XP?
You'e assuming that everyone in the setting is gaining experience points, that both player and non-player characters have, or need, a universal advancement system.
In 1e, only player characters and henchmen - but not hirelings, even ones with levels in a character class, such as a sergeant-at-arms - receive experience points per the rules as written.
Quote from: Will;780933Except why aren't things like keeping the peace, leading your people, negotiating treaties, and collecting taxes getting the leader XP?
In older editions there was often a direct link between level and leadership, because you gained followers and titles. Or GP = XP, so... hey, taxes.
Note to self, check the XP gain rules in the Rules Cyclopedia. Because there are points in the game's history--I'm thinking of the merchant-rogue kit in Al-Qadim's
Arabian Adventures--where GP earned from business has been explicitly stated to
not count for XP. And I believe the merchant class in GAZ11
The Republic of Darokin splits XP gains from profit out into a whole separate class and level progression.
Quote from: Will;780933Except why aren't things like keeping the peace, leading your people, negotiating treaties, and collecting taxes getting the leader XP?
So do you run your games this way? What kinds of arbitration's are going on in your mind about a given locale and its leadership based on these specific factors? If the assumption you're making is that years of cumulative parchment-pushing, and chair-sitting making decrees and telling underlings to count the gold-collected and presumably subsequently spent equates to earning XP, is this how you gauge it? Serious question as I've never heard anyone make this case before.
So 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;780933In older editions there was often a direct link between level and leadership, because you gained followers and titles. Or GP = XP, so... hey, taxes.
In newer editions, level has a big impact on skill. And it's hard to deny 'leading' involves skills most of the time.
Overall, the sense of 'commoners are all level 0' or whatnot comes, at least in part, from the idea that they are not doing anything risky or interesting or challenging or... whatever.
Again, I'd argue that's unlikely to be the case for a king.
I don't buy this mechanical idea. It's not that you're not correct - 3.x/PF most certainly falls under this idea - but conversely they also had non-adventuring classes which then brought things to parity. In fact I have over 32-pages worth of NPC's for my old PF campaign and most of them were Experts or Warriors or Commoner, some of fairly significant level.
In terms of what skills/levels means in 1e, 2e, and 5e specifically - it's less granular for a reason. Since I think we agree that Class -Levels are themselves measurements of experience. Classes are constructs made of skillsets that denote the type of experiences that the NPC/PC has engaged in (or at minimum what they're most optimal at).
D&D assumes PC's are adventurers. Which in and of itself doesn't lend itself to the hyper-practicality of Feudal society, but of course we ignore that as a conceit of the game. NPC's don't have the particular classes enjoyed by PC's for the assumption that it's too dangerous, and/or social customs preclude it among other reasons. Its not written in stone, or anything, but I don't feel like I'd stretch it so far to say every npc king or personage of social rank has levels.
This is why I tend to evaluate the society at large. Frontier nation? You bet it's likely. Civilized nation with generations of peace? Far less. Your mileage may vary.
I'm not claiming any specific thing is true of all editions, but that there are a host of reasons and precedent to suggest that leaders will have levels.
And, heck, even if, say, that 3e King is a 10th level Aristocrat... that's still a lot. (I think it's maybe roughly on par with 9th level PC class or whatnot).
What about RL history, let alone a fantasy land with ankheg, bulettes, giant spiders, undead hordes, demon portals, and the rest suggests many leaders do nothing but butter toast for 50 years?
It... doesn't seem to add up to me.
I'd also wager published adventures generally have leaders of a significant level, though I'll admit I'm guessing.
Quote from: Will;780974I'm not claiming any specific thing is true of all editions, but that there are a host of reasons and precedent to suggest that leaders will have levels.
Well, looking at the World of Greyhawk Glossography (G. Gygax, 1983) it actually has a list of rulers by class and level on page 17. Which I think gives us some indication of what would be perceived as typical.
Almor: Cleric 12
Bandit Kingdoms: Usually Thief 14-16 or Fighter 12-14
Bissel: Ranger 15
Blackmoor: Unknown
Bone Marche: Deceased
Celene: Multiclass Fighter 7/Magic User 11
Dyvers: Thief 17
Ekbir: Cleric 16
Fruxtii: Fighter 15
Furyondy: Paladin 14
Geoff: Multiclass Fighter 13/Illusionist 15
Gran March: Fighter 15
Great Kingdom: Multiclass Cleric 7/Magic User 12
Greyhawk: Thief 10
Highfolk: Druid 12
Horned Society: Unknown
Cruski: Fighter 14
Idee: fighter 14
Irongate: Unknown
Iuz: Demi-God
Keoland: Ranger 14
Ket: Multiclass Cleric 3/Fighter 14
Lordship of the Isles: Fighter 16
Medigia: Cleric 15
North Province: Assassin 15
Nyronid: Fighter 16
Onwal: Fighter 12
Pale: Cleric 14
Perrenland: Ranger 15
Paynime: no overall control
Ratik: Ranger 13
Rel Astra: Multiclass Assassin 6/Magic User 9
Rovers/Barrens: Fighter 11
Scarlet Brotherhood: Monk 14
Sea Barons: Fighter 13
Sea Princes: Fighter 17
Shield Lands: Multiclass Cleric 7/Fighter 10
Schnai: Fighter 16
South Province: Multiclass Thief 5/Fighter 11
Spindrift: Unknown
Sterich: Multiclass Fighter 7/Thief 8/Bard 9
Stonefist: Fighter 18
Sunndi: Multiclass Cleric 5/Fighter 8/Magic User 8
Tenb: Fighter 12
Tiger Nomads: Multiclass Illusionist 3/Fighter 11
Tusmit: Fighter 15
Ulek (County): Druid 13
Ulek (Dutchy): Multiclass Fighter 7/Magic User 11
Ulek (Principality): Multiclass Fighter 9/Thief 12
Ull: Fighter 13
Urnst (County): Fighter 16
Urnst (Dutchy): Ranger 12
Valley/Mage: Unknown
Veluna: Cleric 19
Verbobonc: Fighter 10
Wild Coast: various petty rulers
Wolf Nomads: Multiclass Illusionist 5/Fighter 12
Yeomanry: Multiclass Fighter 10/Cleric 5
Zief: Multiclass Thief 4/Fighter 13
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;780956Note to self, check the XP gain rules in the Rules Cyclopedia. Because there are points in the game's history--I'm thinking of the merchant-rogue kit in Al-Qadim's Arabian Adventures--where GP earned from business has been explicitly stated to not count for XP. And I believe the merchant class in GAZ11 The Republic of Darokin splits XP gains from profit out into a whole separate class and level progression.
The answer to that is that in both the Companion Set and the Rules Cyclopedia you get XP from some domain income but not all of it. Specifically, you get it from
Resource Income (income from things the dominion produces and exports) and
Tax (income from taxing the population); but you don't get it from
Standard Income (virtual money in the form of free labour that can be used to offset money spent on improving the dominion) or
Salt Tax (money that comes in from other dominions that have sworn fealty to yours).
It makes it explicit that you should get this income even if you sit back and do nothing, but also says the DM should adjust the XP gained from it so that the character doesn't gain more than a level per year to year and a half unless they're also adventuring.
Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;781014It makes it explicit that you should get this income even if you sit back and do nothing, but also says the DM should adjust the XP gained from it so that the character doesn't gain more than a level per year to year and a half unless they're also adventuring.
So 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.
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.
But what you really need is a "ruler" class that levels and gets increases in skills like negotiation, leadership, tactics, but doesn't get combat progression or Hit Points
I 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: jibbajibba;781078But what you really need is a "ruler" class that levels and gets increases in skills like negotiation, leadership, tactics, but doesn't get combat progression or Hit Points
What 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."
Quote from: Bren;780210If you want to talk exclusively about 3E and 4E you might, you know start a thread about that instead of popping in to crap up this one.
I was playing with the ideas, since playing with ideas is fun, frequently illuminating, and usually productive. I don't give a shit about 3 or 4e.
QuoteYou are so precious. What are you 14 years old?
Ooh, ooh, let me say something just as creative: water is wet, news at 11.
Hang on, that's actually the opposite of creative, and really annoying when yet another person trots it out thinking they are being clever. Better luck next time. Maybe there is a random table you can use, assuming it spells the results out in detail so you don't have a panic attack when you have to interpret something.
Quote:rolleyes: I don't need to look up the definition. I know what potential means. You are the one who doesn't understand the difference between potential and actual. As you have again demonstrated.
Potential refers to a possible future actual state, actual refers to a present state. You will die, but there are a great many potential causes. There will be at least two nominees for president in 2016, each of whom could potentially be president, but only one will actually become president. Actual, refers to the present state of the word, potential to a possible future state. Or are present and future too complicated for you to understand?
QuoteOf course the Lich King is going to have evil minions and evil supporters be they undead, demons, trolls, orcs, or what have you. If you want to construct some odd edge case where the Lich King is ruling over a bunch of lawful good types who are just waiting for the awesomely heroic PCs to come along and kill the king and rule them happily ever after then you need to add some details to your example.
So every single peasant in the land is an evil minion? Or might it be the case that the Lich is King because its gang took a kingdom over? You're not only thinking inside the box, you're thinking inside a really tiny box.
If "creatively barren" were a class, you'd be name level.
Quote from: Will;780227Heck, in editions where GP = XP... wouldn't a leader taxing the populace gain a lot of XP? :)
I've always thought the idea that GP earned outside of adventuring could be converted to XP to be stupid.
Quote from: Naburimannu;780688As a tentative convert to the ACKS xp-for-ruling, when I hear everybody talking about lawful succession I like to remember that it was SEVERAL CENTURIES between the Norman Conquest of England and an unchallenged succession without internal revolts...
*snip*
Gosh, that's so unrealistic, everyone knows that medieval kingdoms were paragons of stability. Just like organized crime syndicates are. Paragons. Of stability. And smooth, unchallenged power transfers. Really.
Quote from: Will;780740I also wonder, in a world where experience translates to dramatic changes in personal power, why birthright would matter more than meritocracy of some kind.
It's not like birthright is the only method of succession that has ever been used on earth either.
Quote from: Naburimannu;780910I think there are two different arguments going on in this thread:
There was the whole magical social welfare thing it started with, which I think is more interesting.
QuoteYour kick-ass Bohemian warrior might not have taken the throne of England, but there are plenty of routes into the lower or middle nobility for him in various countries.
That's the basic concept behind my idea for a Pride and Prejudice and Adventurers setting.
Quote from: jadrax;780987Well, looking at the World of Greyhawk Glossography (G. Gygax, 1983) it actually has a list of rulers by class and level on page 17. Which I think gives us some indication of what would be perceived as typical.
*snip*
Man, look at all those 0 level rulers. Oh hang on, they are virtually all in the teens in terms of levels, that Gygax guy must not have known a thing about D&D. That old Coot sure has EGG on his face, huh?
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.
Firstly, the amount of XP it takes to gain levels increases by level, so while getting to the first couple might take a couple years apiece, by the time you reach higher levels advancement will really slow down.
Secondly, it doesn't matter in the first place as far as I'm concerned since, again, XP for GP not earned adventuring is stupid.
The "chop-stick" thing was almost clever, maybe you aren't hopeless.
Thirdly, about the only thing interesting in the last few dozen posts is Naburimannu talking about England in the context of ACKS. Thread seems pretty dead-like. Bored now.
Quote from: Marleycat;778149I'm not thinking the church would be that benign about free health care
Health care is not "free". Part of the fees due to the Church are pooled, and then used to cure those in need. This is how Universal Health Care works.
Of course a neutral or evil Church can ask you a fee as "insurance" and then make you pay a percentage of the money anyway. Or find an excuse for keeping the fee without covering health expenses at all (having a "previous condition", or "practicing a dangerous job - like, let's say, being and adventurer")... You are American so you get the gist.
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."
But....but...that's not RAW!!!!
Agree a million percent. (Yes, I agree more than 100 percent)
Quote from: apparition13;781102I've always thought the idea that GP earned outside of adventuring could be converted to XP to be stupid.
.
So if some theives as part of a city campaign set up a long con to sell real estate on the other side of the river pending the construction of The New Bridge. The money they make is that adventuring money or not?
If a merchant PC gets his goods to market after an adventure of being attacked by bandits, orcs and giant vampire bats do they get xp for the gold made from the sale?
If a lord builds a keep and then clears the land and collects tax does he get xp. If he builds a keep and then goes round stealing gold from all the local folk does he get XP? If he is a libertarian and defines all tax as theft ... :D
So does adventuring only happen "in camera"?
Quote from: Bill;781141But....but...that's not RAW!!!!
Agree a million percent. (Yes, I agree more than 100 percent)
but if you ahve a system with skills and D&D has had such since late 1e then in 20 years hasn't he picked up a few more skills?
One of the problems with the D&D class/level paradigm, and one that gives lie to the fact that D&D isn't all about combat, is that all "classes" gain combat abilities. You don't get levels of priest who can cast high level spells after spending 20 years in holy devotion but are as bad at combat as a 0 level farmer, likewise you don't get levels of sage, king, merchant etc etc.
I think classes without combat, call them non-adventurer classes if you wish, might be a great addition to the game.
The Holy man I mentioned might have great saves and loads of magic but 5 HP and +0 attack.
The king might have spent all that experience on being a better king and have political contacts, diplomacy , engineering , skills, etc etc
Quote from: jibbajibba;781152but if you ahve a system with skills and D&D has had such since late 1e then in 20 years hasn't he picked up a few more skills?
One of the problems with the D&D class/level paradigm, and one that gives lie to the fact that D&D isn't all about combat, is that all "classes" gain combat abilities. You don't get levels of priest who can cast high level spells after spending 20 years in holy devotion but are as bad at combat as a 0 level farmer, likewise you don't get levels of sage, king, merchant etc etc.
I think classes without combat, call them non-adventurer classes if you wish, might be a great addition to the game.
The Holy man I mentioned might have great saves and loads of magic but 5 HP and +0 attack.
The king might have spent all that experience on being a better king and have political contacts, diplomacy , engineering , skills, etc etc
Dnd is only all about combat if you choose to play it that way.
Quote from: Reckall;781138Health care is not "free". Part of the fees due to the Church are pooled, and then used to cure those in need. This is how Universal Health Care works.
It's also worth bearing in mind that basic healing spells don't actually cost the Church or the individual cleric anything but a few seconds of their time in any edition as far as I know.
So in this scenario the Church doesn't even need to "use" some of the tithes it has pooled.
The people pay their tithes, some of which pays for the cleric's lodgings and lifestyle; and in exchange the cleric performs rituals, services, marriages, funerals, and heals people. It's all part of their priestly duties and healing people isn't any more onerous, time consuming, or costly than any other part.
To me it's not so much a case of "why would the cleric heal people as part of the parochial service they provide" as "why
wouldn't they".
It's not a case of "free" healthcare any more than it's a case of "free" spiritual care and guidance. The people are paying tithes that cover both.
Or am I - as a lefty Brit - out of touch with ultra-capitalist US culture? Do churches in the US charge their members for individual services on top of asking their worshippers to tithe 10% of their gross income? Or are the tithes expected to cover the pastor's activities?
Now high level stuff like raising people is a different matter, because in some editions that actually costs the cleric money in terms of the material components that are used to cast the spell.
I suggested that since they're out of the price range of most people they might be paid for in instalments (which might even be paid in advance as a form of insurance payments against a potential future accidental death that needs reversing). And it's possible that the church might be in a position to subsidise the cost of the materials themselves for the deserving. But that's a more controversial (and more speculative) position. It works fine in my campaigns but clearly others prefer their campaigns to have a different feel.
Quote from: Bill;781163Dnd is only all about combat if you choose to play it that way.
An odd take way from the post.
My point is you can not have a holy man who can cast miracles who isn't also great at fighting. Make of it what you will that is what he rules give you.
Of course you can change the rules with is what my non-combat classes were suggesting.
I agree that it is odd that no main-stream edition of D&D has figured out how to frame a Cleric class or sub-class that looks like a priest of any real world religion. The notion that priests can be raging homicidal maniacs is fine. That they must be is not. I'm not sure what I make of this; it seems like something that would need to be fixed by creating a separate class with lower HP progression, a different set of proficiencies, and is compensated in some way with greater spell casting or divine powers.
Quote from: Bill;781163Dnd is only all about combat if you choose to play it that way.
Given how many folks in this thread say a ruler shouldn't have class levels because they haven't been in adventures and combat, or don't need to be highly combat-capable, and probably shouldn't be gaining XP while doing leadership stuff...
I'd say people generally think D&D is mostly about adventuring (IE: combat).
I don't play that way, but I also have no PROBLEM with that. But there are issues of game assumptions where it comes to NPC rulers -- namely, skills.
In a game without skills as such, Black Vulmea's idea makes sense. You're essentially adding an NPC class 'rule' to reflect someone with certain game-relevant characteristics who doesn't generally have adventuring levels.
Black Vulmea's snark is unwarranted, though, given many of us aren't playing early editions of D&D, this is (as several folks have pointed out) a 5e thread. Also, given the whole point of the thread is the implication of RAW, saying 'but you can change it' sounds a little Oberoni...
Quote from: Larsdangly;781168I agree that it is odd that no main-stream edition of D&D has figured out how to frame a Cleric class or sub-class that looks like a priest of any real world religion. The notion that priests can be raging homicidal maniacs is fine. That they must be is not. I'm not sure what I make of this; it seems like something that would need to be fixed by creating a separate class with lower HP progression, a different set of proficiencies, and is compensated in some way with greater spell casting or divine powers.
That Clerics are designed as, more or less, caster/warrior hybrids is an accident of history that doesn't really suit most conceptions of what a priest would be.
It's one of the many 'D&D'isms, where people's natural impression of what things should be like in fantasy smash against a bunch of old decisions and tweaks that don't really fit standard fantasy.
I usually write up a caster-focused divine type class, myself.
Quote from: Will;781171That Clerics are designed as, more or less, caster/warrior hybrids is an accident of history that doesn't really suit most conceptions of what a priest would be.
It's one of the many 'D&D'isms, where people's natural impression of what things should be like in fantasy smash against a bunch of old decisions and tweaks that don't really fit standard fantasy.
I usually write up a caster-focused divine type class, myself.
But even a 10th level wizard can dodge blows (hp) hit things and deal more damage etc far more competantly than a 0 level balcksmith that weilds a 4 lb hammer for 8 hours a day.
Classes that get no combat advancement at all might seem counter intuitive but would make a lot of sense in the context of experience, skill, etc. Then we might even revisit the standard temple cleric to make them more like the acolyte presented in the 5e rules. 3rd level non-adventuring priests. Give them some spells and saves and skills but no combat skills above those gained at 0 level.
(As an aside in my games priests are just MU that use divine magic - want to be a holy warrior then be a warrior who is holy and maybe if you are lucky you might get accepted into paladinhood at some point)
I think at that point you're probably better served by a point or skill based system.
Although, again, 5e just might do a better job at designing NPC classes than 3 or 4e...
You could write up a Noble class with no weapon proficiencies or combat abilities.
Which would mean that the 10th level Noble with 10d6 hit points is harder to kill than the 1st level Blacksmith, but the proficiency difference is only 2 (assuming you do have at least one weapon proficiency or the Noble is a dwarf or elf), and the Noble has ... absolutely no special spells/attacks/etc. She's still plinking away with 1d6 or 1d8 points of damage a round while a 10th level fighter has multiple attacks and whatnot.
The Noble does, however, have good Diplomacy, and possibly some special social abilities to persuade and be attended by lots of loyal soldiers. And given 5e's design, those 20 loyal soldiers (Warrior 1) in the castle will fuck your shit up good...
Quote from: Will;781171I usually write up a caster-focused divine type class, myself.
The joy of 5e, Take Class 'Wizard', Take Background 'Acolyte', Job Done.
Quote from: jibbajibba;781165An odd take way from the post.
My point is you can not have a holy man who can cast miracles who isn't also great at fighting. Make of it what you will that is what he rules give you.
Of course you can change the rules with is what my non-combat classes were suggesting.
If I wanted a holy man with miracles that could not fight, in 1E dnd, I would use a cleric, and give him minimum HP, 15 or less strength, and a staff.
If he was level 9, he could cast the specific spells that fit the theme I was shooting for, like raise dead, Augury, etc...
AC 10, 9 HP, 1 attack for 1d6 with relatively lame thaco.
He is only great at fighting if I make him that way.
Quote from: Larsdangly;781168I agree that it is odd that no main-stream edition of D&D has figured out how to frame a Cleric class or sub-class that looks like a priest of any real world religion. The notion that priests can be raging homicidal maniacs is fine. That they must be is not. I'm not sure what I make of this; it seems like something that would need to be fixed by creating a separate class with lower HP progression, a different set of proficiencies, and is compensated in some way with greater spell casting or divine powers.
I do that framing as the GM. In my group I'm notorious for taking Divine Caster-classes more seriously than presented RAW.
My reasons are as follows (this assumes I'm doing Greyhawk/Realms/Golarion/Mystara kitchen-sink type worlds). Edit - I do not do this in all my games. Just where the Gods are much more intimately tied to the world at large.
1) If the Gods are very active - then they are making moves. They're playing cosmic chess against all the other Gods to control reality and push their sphere of influence.
2) That means Divine Casters (Clerics and Paladins) are the their primary chess pieces behind their followers (their pawns) and their God will use them as such.
Now it doesn't mean that every campaign means each divine-PC is going to be on holy crusades etc. It largely depends on their portfolio. I try to impress upon them that there is a BIG difference between them and the lay-clergy who do not take whatever rituals required to be a PC Divine-class, nor can they do so out of hand. The presumption is that that Clerics and Paladins *have* met those standards, whatever they are, and are now agents of that divine entity. This means that Clerics and Paladins that are itinerant wanderers might find their wanderings have more meaning than just "murder-hoboing" across the landscape. The Gods will use their agents to spread their "love" as it were.
I also add some color to the mechanics of Clerics and Paladins and how they work their "magic". I try to draw strong distinctions between the effects based on their God's portfolio. I do this so Clerics don't feel like Wizards of a different stripe. I make it very clear that Clerics aren't "just casting spells" - they're channeling the powers of the Gods themselves through them. Consequently when a Cleric of Eldath (Goddess of Peace) casts a Cure Light Wounds, in effect, I make it known while mechanically the Cleric is "casting a Cure Light" - in the reality of the game, the Cleric is beseeching Eldath to grant the Cleric the power to heal someone. I customize the effect for the God in question - if a Cleric of Eldath heals you, you feel an extreme sense of comfort and well-being, like being embraced by your mother as a child, etc. If a Cleric of Tempus heals you, it's like having a hot-iron staunching a wound. It feels like horrible sharp pain that burns to a dull ache taking the wounds with it.
And yes - the portfolio of that God, the Cleric and who is the recipient matters in my games. This is why temples don't make a fortune churning out "FREE HEALS!!!!" because it possible that their God would find it an abuse of *THEIR* power. Which it is - that's where Divine Magic comes from.
The consequence of this is - I make sure that commoners and nobles alike treat Clerics and Paladins with a bit of reverence and/or fear depending on their God. They *are* special by dint of who they are. It also makes for very interesting political intrigue. Nobles dealing with a Cleric of Tempus? What will the people think?
Quote from: Bill;781184If I wanted a holy man with miracles that could not fight, in 1E dnd, I would use a cleric, and give him minimum HP, 15 or less strength, and a staff.
If he was level 9, he could cast the specific spells that fit the theme I was shooting for, like raise dead, Augury, etc...
AC 10, 9 HP, 1 attack for 1d6 with relatively lame thaco.
He is only great at fighting if I make him that way.
okay ... but as you are changing the rules but not rolling HP just chosing them why not you know change the rules and say okay I can have a priest class that is just like a cleric but gets no combat advancement and no additional HP beyond 1d6.
The 9th level guy still gets a +3 combat to hit advantage over the backsmith and 2 times the HP (by your measure) .
I can't see the adversion to non combat classes what is the big deal?
Like Will's noble why give him extra HPs ? they represent his ability in combat to avoid damage and turn a deadly blow into a bruise.
just give the guy 4 HPs loads of social skills and contacts etc
If you want to make these PC classes you could do so and work out a lower xp threshold per level but have XP gainsed as a matter of time spent int eh profession so by doing X, Y and Z a Hermit will gain 200 XP per month. Your warrior could take a year out become a Hermit and sit in a cave praying and when he emerges maybe he is now a 3rd level Hermit 5th level Warrior and as such he has eother acquired the "Hermit background" in 5e parlance or in 3e a bunch of skills. Maybe he can also meditate or get by on less food or even cast a couple of cleric spells.
You can surely see the possibilities.
Quote from: Larsdangly;781168I agree that it is odd that no main-stream edition of D&D has figured out how to frame a Cleric class or sub-class that looks like a priest of any real world religion. The notion that priests can be raging homicidal maniacs is fine. That they must be is not. I'm not sure what I make of this; it seems like something that would need to be fixed by creating a separate class with lower HP progression, a different set of proficiencies, and is compensated in some way with greater spell casting or divine powers.
Wasn'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).
Quote from: Larsdangly;781168I agree that it is odd that no main-stream edition of D&D has figured out how to frame a Cleric class or sub-class that looks like a priest of any real world religion. The notion that priests can be raging homicidal maniacs is fine. That they must be is not. I'm not sure what I make of this; it seems like something that would need to be fixed by creating a separate class with lower HP progression, a different set of proficiencies, and is compensated in some way with greater spell casting or divine powers.
Clerics are probably the most peculiar and awkward thing about D&D. As a class, they're modeled on holy christian crusader knights. But the game is set in worlds where people worship Poseidon, Set, Thoth, and their fantasy setting equivalents.
One of the things that irks me in 5E is the turning undead is automatically a divine power, regardless of which domain you choose. Why the fuck would a priest of Ares or Crom automatically have the power to turn away undead?
If 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. ;)
Quote from: Haffrung;781218Clerics are probably the most peculiar and awkward thing about D&D. As a class, they're modeled on holy christian crusader knights. But the game is set in worlds where people worship Poseidon, Set, Thoth, and their fantasy setting equivalents.
OG has documented the bizarre amalgamation of elements that produced the original cleric, and has also stated that the original game didn't even differentiate gods beyond "Lawful temple" and the like until later on.
Give me a time machine that works on the hobby, and one of the first things I'd do would be to go back to the mid-80s and tell Zeb Cook. "Yes, you ARE going to shuffle off clerics to
Legends & Lore and create a new class to fill their niche in the game. I don't CARE if it was a thought experiment or trolling in the "WHO DIES?" column, you are going to DO IT!" :)
(I'd also be tempted to go back to 1983 and convince the higher-ups at TSR to use the new 'Dragonlance' idea to boost the mass-market appeal and tone of Basic. That would arguably have produced stronger and more distinct identities for both D&D and AD&D, which may have resulted in a broader, healthier, happier hobby.)
QuoteOne of the things that irks me in 5E is the turning undead is automatically a divine power, regardless of which domain you choose. Why the fuck would a priest of Ares or Crom automatically have the power to turn away undead?
TRADITION!
Actually, 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. :)
Quote from: Haffrung;781218Clerics are probably the most peculiar and awkward thing about D&D. As a class, they're modeled on holy christian crusader knights. But the game is set in worlds where people worship Poseidon, Set, Thoth, and their fantasy setting equivalents.
Actually Clerics were developed as a Van Helsing type with a dash of Charlemagne's Bishop Turpin to counter the overwhelming power of Dave Fant's vampire PC.
Vampires were the original badass monster.
Quote from: Haffrung;781218Why the fuck would a priest of Ares or Crom automatically have the power to turn away undead?
Well there are some systems were it is the 'Faith' itself that undead fear, regardless of what that faith is in. So the holiness of the priest repels the undead, the god has very little to do with it.
Quote from: apparition13;781102Ooh, ooh, let me say something just as creative: water is wet, news at 11.
That captues the limits of the creativity of your ideas in this thread quite well, actually. Well done.
QuoteHang on, that's actually the opposite of creative, and really annoying when yet another person trots it out thinking they are being clever.
This also nicely critiques your ideas in this thread.
QuotePotential refers to a possible future actual state, actual refers to a present state.
Very good I commend you on your ability to read a dictionary. Notice that possible does not imply that the actuallity will or need ever occur. Each of your examples miss this distinction.
Here is an example that makes clear the distinction. Your writing to date shows you have the potential to scribble a lucid, interesting idea at some point in the future. That future point may or may not ever occur. Meanwhile, the rest of us are patiently waiting, and waiting, and waiting....
QuoteSo every single peasant in the land is an evil minion?
There may be no living peasants at all. Just zombies as far as the eye can see. No it's not the usual Disney evil ruler thing. No it's not the Sauron and his hordes of orcs and slaves thing. It just happened to be the first thing I thought of with Evil Lich King.
QuoteOr might it be the case that the Lich is King because its gang took a kingdom over?
Yes it might. That would be certianly be the stereotypical Disneyesque version of the Lich King. His evil reign only has a surface effect on the ruled and the hero PCs can save the day and free all the sturdy, happy peasants who have been totally unaffected by their evil overlord while waiting for some PCs to wander over and save them. BTW, nice cartoons on that box you are in there.
Quote from: Haffrung;781218One of the things that irks me in 5E is the turning undead is automatically a divine power, regardless of which domain you choose. Why the fuck would a priest of Ares or Crom automatically have the power to turn away undead?
I don't even want all clerics to heal.
So I agree.
But I would just swap out the turn undead for something else.
Maybe give a priest of Crom an extra attack at level 5 instead.
Quote from: tenbones;781193I make it very clear that Clerics aren't "just casting spells" - they're channeling the powers of the Gods themselves through them. Consequently when a Cleric of Eldath (Goddess of Peace) casts a Cure Light Wounds, in effect, I make it known while mechanically the Cleric is "casting a Cure Light" - in the reality of the game, the Cleric is beseeching Eldath to grant the Cleric the power to heal someone. I customize the effect for the God in question - if a Cleric of Eldath heals you, you feel an extreme sense of comfort and well-being, like being embraced by your mother as a child, etc. If a Cleric of Tempus heals you, it's like having a hot-iron staunching a wound. It feels like horrible sharp pain that burns to a dull ache taking the wounds with it.
I like the customization.
I'd go one step further and make the clerical "spells" invocations and give the cleric some sort of divine rating as to how blessed they are by their god at this point in time. Emulating the god and acting in ways the god approves of increases their blessedness. Acting contrary to the god decreases blessedness. Going up in level would probably increase blessedness. Blessedness would be between the cleric and their god, not anything controlled by the temple heirarchy so their is the possibility of clerics who are popular in the temple but not so popular with their god and vice versa.
Quote from: jibbajibba;781195okay ... but as you are changing the rules but not rolling HP just chosing them why not you know change the rules and say okay I can have a priest class that is just like a cleric but gets no combat advancement and no additional HP beyond 1d6.
The 9th level guy still gets a +3 combat to hit advantage over the backsmith and 2 times the HP (by your measure) .
I can't see the adversion to non combat classes what is the big deal?
Like Will's noble why give him extra HPs ? they represent his ability in combat to avoid damage and turn a deadly blow into a bruise.
just give the guy 4 HPs loads of social skills and contacts etc
If you want to make these PC classes you could do so and work out a lower xp threshold per level but have XP gainsed as a matter of time spent int eh profession so by doing X, Y and Z a Hermit will gain 200 XP per month. Your warrior could take a year out become a Hermit and sit in a cave praying and when he emerges maybe he is now a 3rd level Hermit 5th level Warrior and as such he has eother acquired the "Hermit background" in 5e parlance or in 3e a bunch of skills. Maybe he can also meditate or get by on less food or even cast a couple of cleric spells.
You can surely see the possibilities.
I have no aversion to non combat classes.
Yeah, I often modified clerics. I really liked the idea of 2e clerics, and while 3e made me go 'wow, awesome!' in nearly all respects initially, the cleric design seemed very regressive.
Thankfully, PF and other stuff help build the groundwork to changing that.
I mean, easy to swap what you turn (you turn elementals), or add a different domain (turn undead -> animal companion), or even other minor class abilities (trap sense, extra feat, whatever).
I've come to the conclusion that clerics work best if you don't consider them priests at all. I rather see them as saints, chosen, prophets and orakels.
People blessed with their abilities by a good for some reason (may be a specific purpose, because the god likes them or even as a curse).
Certainly, priesthoods seek to gather the blessed into their numbers and priests are more likely to receive such blessings, but a cleric might just as well be a not very religious scoundrel that curses "his" god as he flees from a priesthood intend on putting him into a tempel to cast divinations and heals all day.
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."
Its kinda like the old arguments of "If elves live for hundreds of years. Why arent there level 50 elves running around?"
Personally I think if there is a wilderness "frontier" area or the whole campaigh is wilderness frontier. Then you are likely to see stronger characters having carved out and then held their little kingdoms.
But in an established area you might see people leading who are even level 0. But who are very charismatic or tactical minded.
Or even a situation like Bartholomew Roberts who was forced from position of navigator to that of captain by the crew due to his skill. He then started levelling up "pirate"... (He is a relative on the Welsh side of the family.)
Quote from: Bill;781184If I wanted a holy man with miracles that could not fight, in 1E dnd, I would use a cleric, and give him minimum HP, 15 or less strength, and a staff.
You can get that in AD&D just from rolling. normally. Not all clerics are back up combat monsters.
Moreso in OD&D or BX.
Quote from: Omega;781263You can get that in AD&D just from rolling. normally. Not all clerics are back up combat monsters.
Moreso in OD&D or BX.
Clerics in 1E were pretty good at fighting. The example I gave, was to make one even less good at fighting.
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 :D
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."
Quote from: Bren;781675This 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.
I didn't call them out because I didn't think they were made seriously -- they were mainly snarky suggestions about what the poster thought OTHER people would want. IE: the first two posters weren't proposing it as something they wanted or thought was sensible.
As for the third poster... that there was one leader who was a nigh demigod wasn't the point, the point was that D&D products _routinely_ set class levels for NPC leaders and characters, and have done so for most editions (I'm not sure about the earliest editions, and from what I understand about 4e it generally doesn't do NPC levels)
And most of the examples were NPCs level 8-12.
Quote from: Bren;781675I 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.
It depends, but in 3e (and I think 4e), you are probably thereabouts by level 10 or so -- you can routinely fly and shoot heat rays, if you want, and even a wizard can probably ignore the bullets of countless schlub Commoners.
This is one of the observations of, say, E6, is that spells and magic items shift genre from gritty low fantasy to TV spy movie to superheroes to demigods over levels.
The point of my statement was about power scale, not specifically Superman. That is, a level 10 guy is _weirdly personally more powerful_ than all first level people. This is different than the real world on several profound ways, so it's going to limit how easily one can assume things will translate, unless you specifically embrace 'this game is symbolic of the real world' and detach from the kind of simulation worries that a lot of traditional games partially incorporate.
Also... you're weirdly fixating on specific details rather than their context. What's up with that?
Quote from: Bren;781675With 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.
Then ask, and now you have.
Level 10 is enough in several editions to drastically change personal power. A level 10 character in 3e and 4e is essentially a superhero.
Quote from: Will;781696I didn't call them out because I didn't think they were made seriously -- they were mainly snarky suggestions about what the poster thought OTHER people would want. IE: the first two posters weren't proposing it as something they wanted or thought was sensible.
My internet telepathy is less accurate than yours. It is very unclear what people were proposing and when they are being hyperbolic.
QuoteAnd most of the examples were NPCs level 8-12.
I don't think you are correct that most of the examples are 8-12, but as I said I haven't calculated an average. Have you?
re: SupermanI'm confused by what you mean by 10th level characters = Superman. In addition to flying and having raygun eyes, Superman can lift hugely heavy things like moons and shit, can 10th level 3E characters do that? I ask because I don't know.
Also demigods > Superman seems like an incorrect scaling of power to me. In a comic book sense, Superman seems easily the equivalent in power of demigods, if not more powerful. Aren't Wonderwoman and Aquaman demigods, for example? And Thor is a comic book god. But he doesn't seem lots more powerful than Superman. Kind of equivalent it seems to me.
QuoteAlso... you're weirdly fixating on specific details rather than their context. What's up with that?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "weirdly fixating." You seem to veer between using words very loosely and using them very precisely. I didn't intend level 20 as an extremely accurate representation of what people have been saying, but it doesn't seem wildly inaccurate for what some people have been saying. But you now seem fixated on the number 20 rather than the context.
To me, you and several others also seem to be oddly fixated on 3E or 4E, especially in a thread labeled 5E. As if somehow those two editions are more predictive of 5E even though the games seem very different. As just one example, is not level in 5E currently capped at 20, in contrast to 3E and 4E. I have no context for 3E and 4E, since I never played them, but from people's post on various forums those two editions seem to feature people playing at levels well beyond the high teens. So when you say high level 3E that does not connote to me that you mean levels 8-12 as being high level.
Now in contrast to 3E and 4E, in OD&D the experience tables actually stopped providing much mechanical benefit after level 10-12 so high level would mean level 10-12 or so. AD&D seemed to stop providing much benefit in the teens somewhere or when wizards got access to 9th level spells so that would be high level. High level OD&D and AD&D is exactly the levels (demigod excepted) that we see in the quote that Jadrax posted for Grayhawk rulers.
QuoteLevel 10 is enough in several editions to drastically change personal power. A level 10 character in 3e and 4e is essentially a superhero.
More powerful than an ordinary commoner and equal to a powerful comic book superhero are very different levels of power.
Now in OD&D a Superhero was level 8, but by Superhero the D&D rules did not mean someone like Superman, the Hulk, or Thor. I'd be surprised if 10th level 3E characters are as powerful as those three superheroes, but as I said, I have no context for 3E. Are 10th level 3E characters really that powerful or are was that analogy also not meant seriously?
Quote from: Bren;781718My internet telepathy is less accurate than yours. It is very unclear what people were proposing and when they are being hyperbolic.
It's not internet telepathy so much as, well, reading, but ok.
Quote from: Bren;781718I don't think you are correct that most of the examples are 8-12, but as I said I haven't calculated an average. Have you?
No, admittedly, it could be higher. The point was, I believe, a counter to the idea that NPCs with credible levels are not standard to D&D or somehow weird for D&D.
(If the OP meant something else, feel free to pipe up if you can follow this)
Quote from: Bren;781718re: Superman
I'm confused by what you mean by 10th level characters = Superman. In addition to flying and having raygun eyes, Superman can lift hugely heavy things like moons and shit, can 10th level 3E characters do that? I ask because I don't know.
Also demigods > Superman seems like an incorrect scaling of power to me. In a comic book sense, Superman seems easily the equivalent in power of demigods, if not more powerful. Aren't Wonderwoman and Aquaman demigods, for example? And Thor is a comic book god. But he doesn't seem lots more powerful than Superman. Kind of equivalent it seems to me.
This is weirdly fixating.
Ok, I'll be more literal:
10th level characters in 3rd and 4th edition (and possibly earlier, but it's been way long since I've played pre-3e) can routinely do and survive things that are flat-out impossible for, say, a first level fighter.
In 3e, a wizard could fly reliably and fire blasts of weirdness, summon giant tentacles to WTFsmack stuff, turn invulnerable to most regular low level attacks (Stoneskin), and so on.
Druids... man. They can do a lot.
Quote from: Bren;781718I'm not quite sure what you mean by "weirdly fixating." You seem to veer between using words very loosely and using them very precisely. I didn't intend level 20 as an extremely accurate representation of what people have been saying, but it doesn't seem wildly inaccurate for what some people have been saying. But you now seem fixated on the number 20 rather than the context.
What is the context?
Quote from: Bren;781718To me, you and several others also seem to be oddly fixated on 3E or 4E, especially in a thread labeled 5E. As if somehow those two editions are more predictive of 5E even though the games seem very different.
I addressed this earlier. I use 3e and 4e as examples because 5e, rules-wise, looks like it is drawing very heavily on rules ideas and design from both, much more-so than any other edition.
Now, it's definitely trying to loosen things up and change power scale somewhat, but (as I mentioned in another post in this thread) we have yet to see how that plays out. The ability of a bunch of low level guys to threaten a high level guy does help mitigate some of the problems I've mentioned. Because, again, there's a certain balance of politics possible when someone can't just wade through a horde of folks who disagree with him.
(I posted examples and thoughts about, say, a 10th level Noble who is very persuasive, but doesn't have the various combat abilities of a Fighter or caster that would drastically change combat ability)
Quote from: Bren;781718As just one example, is not level in 5E currently capped at 20, in contrast to 3E and 4E. I have no context for 3E and 4E, since I never played them, but from people's post on various forums those two editions seem to feature people playing at levels well beyond the high teens. So when you say high level 3E that does not connote to me that you mean levels 8-12 as being high level.
I've used level 10 as a benchmark for discussion about leaders because level 10 is reasonably achievable AND noticeably overwhelming compared to level 1. In my estimation (and this is a broad and admittedly not super rigorous) it is more reasonable to assume a leader of some decent kingdom to be level 10, given how 3e plays out, than level 18+.
Also, 3e DMG has laid out rules for the level composition of random NPCs in various populations. I can't recall if they explicitly say any of these NPCs are leaders, though.
Quote from: Bren;781718Now in contrast to 3E and 4E, in OD&D the experience tables actually stopped providing much mechanical benefit after level 10-12 so high level would mean level 10-12 or so. AD&D seemed to stop providing much benefit in the teens somewhere or when wizards got access to 9th level spells so that would be high level. High level OD&D and AD&D is exactly the levels (demigod excepted) that we see in the quote that Jadrax posted for Grayhawk rulers.
More powerful than an ordinary commoner and equal to a powerful comic book superhero are very different levels of power.
Now in OD&D a Superhero was level 8, but by Superhero the D&D rules did not mean someone like Superman, the Hulk, or Thor. I'd be surprised if 10th level 3E characters are as powerful as those three superheroes, but as I said, I have no context for 3E. Are 10th level 3E characters really that powerful or are was that analogy also not meant seriously?
From what I understand, the powercurve of 3e is _incredibly_ more gonzo than it is in prior editions.
Some example 5th level spells a 10th level wizard can easily cast:
Cloudkill - 20' radius cloud, flat-out kills anything 3 HD or less; 4-6 HD has to make a Fort save -- fail, you die, succeed, take 1d4 Con damage each round.
It also rolls slowly, great for mowing down schlub armies.
Baleful polymorph. Turn enemies into frogs.
Various mind control stuff lower level characters are very unlikely to resist, overland flight, enabling you to fly for hours at a time, mind fog/feeblemind to fuck with people (reducing mental stats a lot)
And that's not even getting to magic items, which add all sorts of other abilities (particularly since wizards don't generally worry about magic weapons).
Now, 5e's scaling should help, but I remain skeptical, given the scaling of magic may end up to have many of the same problems.
Quote from: Will;781741No, admittedly, it could be higher. The point was, I believe, a counter to the idea that NPCs with credible levels are not standard to D&D or somehow weird for D&D.
If the bolded bit was the point you were trying to make, then your inclusion of your inaccurate guess at the most common levels listed detracts from the clarity of your stated point. The exact levels don't matter in an example of a TSR product having NPC rulers at double digit levels. The list matters as an example. The only thing your 9-12 comment does support is an unrelated point: that is, your belief, based on your experience of 3E, that 10 is a reasonable default level for rulers.
QuoteThis is weirdly fixating.
I'm trying to understand what you think the default power level is supposed to be. So far you seem all over the map as to what you think Level 10 is equivalent to in power. Ranging from what seems (absent the silly stone skin spell) to be the equivalent of a 10th level OD&D MU to comic books superheroes like Superman and Thor. And since the army defeating abilities of a single character don't seem to be a feature of 5E, I don't really see how your 3E analogies are all that apt.
QuoteWhat is the context?
The context is, as it has always been, do the rules of D&D (and specifically 5E) require that all rulers be high level, or to use your now stated definition of 10th level, do all or most rulers need to be around 10th level or higher to be feasible given the game rules?
QuoteI addressed this earlier. I use 3e and 4e as examples because 5e, rules-wise, looks like it is drawing very heavily on rules ideas and design from both, much more-so than any other edition.
Yet the impression I am getting from you and others is that in 3E/4E 20 normal humans with halberds weren't a threat to 10th level characters while they are a threat in 5E. So 3E and 4E seem like particularly poor examples to use compared to say 0E or 1E where 20 men-at-arms were still somewhat of a threat to a high level PC. Which makes your insistence on applying 3E kind of suprising.
QuoteSome example 5th level spells a 10th level wizard can easily cast...
Cloudkill was in 1E maybe even Grayhawk. So not so different. Actually the problem is the infinite/long duration flying invisible and stoneskin. Some twit in robes casts cloudkill, but if he isn't invisible and he isn't in skin of stone, then before the cloud gets to the 20 archers they target the wizard and he gets hit with a couple of rounds of archery for 8 arrow hits averaging 28 points of damage (OD&D terms), which may just kill him (with OD&D or 1E hit points).
Quote from: Bren;781747If the bolded bit was the point you were trying to make, then your inclusion of your inaccurate guess at the most common levels listed detracts from the clarity of your stated point. The exact levels don't matter in an example of a TSR product having NPC rulers at double digit levels. The list matters as an example. The only thing your 9-12 comment does support is an unrelated point: that is, your belief, based on your experience of 3E, that 10 is a reasonable default level for rulers.
There are people claiming that NPC rulers don't need to have any levels, class, or that they need only be first level Nobles or something. Or suggesting that giving NPCs levels was weird.
Jadrax (I thinK?)'s list is evidence that's not really standard.
My 8-12 comment was more meant to suggest that leaders having a decent number of levels was expected from most versions of D&D, but doesn't need to be super high level/max/20/whatever.
Admittedly, the levels look higher than my initial impression.
Quote from: Bren;781747I'm trying to understand what you think the default power level is supposed to be. So far you seem all over the map as to what you think Level 10 is equivalent to in power. Ranging from what seems (absent the silly stone skin spell) to be the equivalent of a 10th level OD&D MU to comic books superheroes like Superman and Thor. And since the army defeating abilities of a single character don't seem to be a feature of 5E, I don't really see how your 3E analogies are all that apt.
The problem with 3e and (I think) 4e have mainly stemmed from the vastly expanding power of magic. And some of the consequences were unexpected when they first surfaced.
The reason I bring up 3e and 4e is to illustrate principles that affect how power translates into the implied setting of the game.
Maybe these principles will apply less, or not at all, in 5e. Maybe they will apply in an unexpected way. Maybe they will apply only if folks use Option Rule Block C in the DMG.
I'm not indicting 5e based on 3e, or stating that 3e is absolutely how all D&D will operate forever. I'm pointing out how personal power can warp the implied setting. With examples and diagrams.
Quote from: Bren;781747The context is, as it has always been, do the rules of D&D (and specifically 5E) require that all rulers be high level, or to use your now stated definition of 10th level, do all or most rulers need to be around 10th level or higher to be feasible given the game rules?
Or 'does the natural consequence of the rules suggest that rulers will be 10th level'
Quote from: Bren;781747Yet the impression I am getting from you and others is that in 3E/4E 20 normal humans with halberds weren't a threat to 10th level characters while they are a threat in 5E. So 3E and 4E seem like particularly poor examples to use compared to say 0E or 1E where 20 men-at-arms were still somewhat of a threat to a high level PC. Which makes your insistence on applying 3E kind of suprising.
It remains to be seen how much of a threat the example turns out to be in 5e. It _seems_ that it'll be better, but I'm worried about the potential of magic or common options in the DMG to change the equation significantly.
I 'insist' on applying 3e because... it's one of the more recent, similar games that's comparable, it shows how things can get warped, and until we know more about 5e this is all theorizing anyway.
My biggest concern is whether the scaling fails to limit magic nearly as much as other stuff. The lack of class level affecting spells, saves being flatter, and other things suggests there's at least some scaling. But we'll see.
Quote from: Bren;781747Cloudkill was in 1E maybe even Grayhawk. So not so different. Actually the problem is the infinite/long duration flying invisible and stoneskin. Some twit in robes casts cloudkill, but if he isn't invisible and he isn't in skin of stone, then before the cloud gets to the 20 archers they target the wizard and he gets hit with a couple of rounds of archery for 8 arrow hits averaging 28 points of damage (OD&D terms), which may just kill him (with OD&D or 1E hit points).
If I were doing it in 5e I'd probably rather summon something powerful to go eat a bunch of guys while I stay behind something, but I'm sure charop guys have even more horrible tricks to pull.
Speaking of all that spew of mine, I'm VERY interested in hearing what people's experiences are like over an arc to mid to high levels.
I eventually moved to E6 mod of 3e specifically because I grew to hate the power ballooning that occurs in 3e.
After seeing the party druid bend the campaign like a pretzel by level 14 or so, I vowed never again...
Quote from: Will;781758There are people claiming that NPC rulers don't need to have any levels, class, or that they need only be first level Nobles or something. Or suggesting that giving NPCs levels was weird.
Jadrax (I thinK?)'s list is evidence that's not really standard.
Actually the list Jadrax provided is evidence that Grayhawk after some point in time (I'd guess around 1980 so maybe six years after the game came out) had that list as a standard. Other D&D settings probably had different standards. Certainly the standards of every one of the dozens of DMs I knew before 1980 varied significantly. OD&D didn't have a clear standard except that when adventuring in wilderness areas (as opposed to civilized areas) strongholds would tend to have name level rulers which were around levels 8-12 depending on class. But D&D from the very first published rules left it up to the DM what sort of campaign they would run. Which is why each of the dozens of DMs I encountered had a different setting. That's also why some of us, e.g. Black Vulmea and myself, have been arguing that an expected level based on the rules without regard to the setting at the table is a useless thing to talk about.
Jadrax specifically listed what sort of setting he ran which resulted in a lower level of rulers than was shown in the Grayhawk list. Similarly, it would not be difficult to envisage a setting where the rulers were some other level (lower or higher) or, in some cases e.g. a stable government with a smooth method of succession, a civilized capital, strong government, etc. might have very different, i.e. much lower power requirements to be the ruler.
I already pointed out that in OD&D and AD&D stats remained pretty close to the rolled stats and were not higher for higher level characters. In addition there was no Diplomacy type skill so the persuasiveness of a ruler with a good Charisma was at least equal if not better than that of many a high level PC. In addition, I would assume that the ruler would have a bonus to their command by virtue of the fact that they are the ruler – he or she is controls the treasure, the guard, the palace appointments, has the consent of the governed or the divine right of kings to back up their claim to rulership. None of that is stuff that a PC would have.
Now if you use 3E or 4E, where AFAIK, stats seem to go up as level goes up and persuasion ability definitely increases as level increases. If that is your assumption for stats and the use of talky skills, then the situation would be different. And it would make it more difficult to play rulers who had the same persuasive ability as a 1st level PC. I said all that quite a few posts ago so you may have missed it.
QuoteMy 8-12 comment was more meant to suggest that leaders having a decent number of levels was expected from most versions of D&D, but doesn't need to be super high level/max/20/whatever.
If you didn't mean super high, it might have been helpful not to use Superman as an example of what you meant by the required level.
QuoteThe problem with 3e and (I think) 4e have mainly stemmed from the vastly expanding power of magic. And some of the consequences were unexpected when they first surfaced.
I can't comment. As I said, I've no real basis of experience. I've only played 3E and other D20 games a handful or so times. The rules seemed like a cluster to me, but I'm not fond of the sort of feats and complex feat trees that were in the rules I read. Too much complexity required to create a new character. The fact that such complexity resulted in things being in some sense broken shouldn't be much of a surprise. It's something I expected from even a cursory reading of other people's rule books.
It also seems like there were a lot of groups playing 3E and 4E who had no one at the table willing or able to say "I know the rules say this, but the result is overpowered and kind of silly or boring. Why don't we change that rule so it isn't such a cluster?"
My experience in gaming for a lot of years in a lot of systems is that any game is broken or unfun for any given group at some point in the power or experience curve. For some people that is OD&D at first level where their mechanical character class options are too limited for their fun. For other people the system is broken or unfun somewhere on the higher end of the power curve. Being able and willing to just not play stuff that isn't fun fixes those problems – whether you don't play it by house ruling to fix the problem, changing the setting to fix the problem, picking up a different set of rules, starting characters at higher power levels, retiring characters once they reach a certain power level, or whatever. Expecting to treat the rules as if they were carved in stone and then complaining about the result when you play using those rules seems pretty silly to me.
I will not defend 3e at all against comments about it's weedy Byzantine rules. My idea of a proper rules system is Risus, so.
That said, while the complexity of the rules are open season for abuse and exploits, the problem is the _basic game itself_ is designed to inflate rapidly in power, particularly with casters. Without any tricks or charops shenanigans.
The problem is that Superman _is_ moderate level in 3e D&D. ;) (Although, mind you, it depends on which version of Superman... which is amusing, since his various power levels and scope sort of mirror the various power levels and scope of D&D...)
At level 18, the party druid could turn into whatever celestial servitors she'd met, small dragons, anything, while casting spells with wild abandon. She was effectively a limited god. Wizards, much the same.
Anyhow, while 5e is very promising, my problem comes from some lack of faith that the designers didn't move far enough apart from the issues of 3e and 4e.
I'm _very_ curious to find out how, say, 10th level wizards work out in actual play.
Quote from: Will;781762Speaking of all that spew of mine, I'm VERY interested in hearing what people's experiences are like over an arc to mid to high levels.
I eventually moved to E6 mod of 3e specifically because I grew to hate the power ballooning that occurs in 3e.
After seeing the party druid bend the campaign like a pretzel by level 14 or so, I vowed never again...
I hope to hell 5e works well past level 10, because I never want to run or play in 3.5 at that level ever again.
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.
Iuz is special; an actual demigod.
Quote from: Bren;781718My internet telepathy is less accurate than yours. It is very unclear what people were proposing and when they are being hyperbolic.
I don't think you are correct that most of the examples are 8-12, but as I said I haven't calculated an average. Have you?
re: Superman
I'm confused by what you mean by 10th level characters = Superman. In addition to flying and having raygun eyes, Superman can lift hugely heavy things like moons and shit, can 10th level 3E characters do that? I ask because I don't know.
Also demigods > Superman seems like an incorrect scaling of power to me. In a comic book sense, Superman seems easily the equivalent in power of demigods, if not more powerful. Aren't Wonderwoman and Aquaman demigods, for example? And Thor is a comic book god. But he doesn't seem lots more powerful than Superman. Kind of equivalent it seems to me.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "weirdly fixating." You seem to veer between using words very loosely and using them very precisely. I didn't intend level 20 as an extremely accurate representation of what people have been saying, but it doesn't seem wildly inaccurate for what some people have been saying. But you now seem fixated on the number 20 rather than the context.
To me, you and several others also seem to be oddly fixated on 3E or 4E, especially in a thread labeled 5E. As if somehow those two editions are more predictive of 5E even though the games seem very different. As just one example, is not level in 5E currently capped at 20, in contrast to 3E and 4E. I have no context for 3E and 4E, since I never played them, but from people's post on various forums those two editions seem to feature people playing at levels well beyond the high teens. So when you say high level 3E that does not connote to me that you mean levels 8-12 as being high level.
Now in contrast to 3E and 4E, in OD&D the experience tables actually stopped providing much mechanical benefit after level 10-12 so high level would mean level 10-12 or so. AD&D seemed to stop providing much benefit in the teens somewhere or when wizards got access to 9th level spells so that would be high level. High level OD&D and AD&D is exactly the levels (demigod excepted) that we see in the quote that Jadrax posted for Grayhawk rulers.
More powerful than an ordinary commoner and equal to a powerful comic book superhero are very different levels of power.
Now in OD&D a Superhero was level 8, but by Superhero the D&D rules did not mean someone like Superman, the Hulk, or Thor. I'd be surprised if 10th level 3E characters are as powerful as those three superheroes, but as I said, I have no context for 3E. Are 10th level 3E characters really that powerful or are was that analogy also not meant seriously?
Superman is in a class that a dnd character can't touch.
He moves and thinks at lightspeed; both reaction time and travel time.
He can lift weights on a planetary scale; like Atlas holding up the heavens in mythology.
He is nearly invulnerable if you ignore stupid kryptonite, and magic works on him somewhat.
Then he has senses that are a million times or so greater than normal, heat vision, flies, etc...
So I would say superman is more like a Greater God Pantheon Leader, or whatever, in dnd.
Swap out Superman for the 'Paladin in Hell' and Hell might lose.
However, I do agree that a level 10 character compared to a level zero or level 1 character is pretty darn superior, if not 'superman'
You guys realize that all the widely distributed classic settings had leveled NPCs.
City-State of the Invincible Overlord/Wilderlands
Greyhawk
Mystara
Dragonlance
Forgotten Realms
Now that I think about it, I believe the meme I heard of the PCs being special and the only leveled characters in a setting are heroes or villains only gained traction when internet discussion became big in the late 90 and early 00s.
I am sure it was done before the internet but it just was considered a minor variant on how to setup a D&D campaign.
As for the whole 10th level = Superman thing.
The original premise of Chaimail was that a hero was worth 4 veteran fighters and a super hero 8 veteran fighters. And the rules reflected that premise.
Dungeons & Dragons sort of had premise but it quickly fell by the wayside due to Alternative Combat System. 10th level isn't 10 times as effective as 1st level. It a lot higher but not an order of magnitude higher. (4 to 5 times as effective)
There are only two mechanics that retained the original design. Hit points and the number of attacks a fighter had against 1st level or lower character/creatures.
Just for humor; isn't one of the fighters 'level titles' "Superhero" ?
Quote from: Bill;781846Just for humor; isn't one of the fighters 'level titles' "Superhero" ?
Yup 8th level.
Quote from: estar;781843You guys realize that all the widely distributed classic settings had leveled NPCs.
Yes. I eventually did use the City State map (though that was around 1982 when I used it for the City of 10,000 Magicians in my Runequest Campaign), but I didn't have the stats of CSotIO or Greyhawk so they didn't have much of an impact on play. The other stuff was well after my world creation, and that of the first set of DMs I gamed with was done.
Quote from: estar;781844The original premise of Chaimail was that a hero was worth 4 veteran fighters and a super hero 8 veteran fighters. And the rules reflected that premise.
It's a picky point - and no doubt I only mention it because I am, apparently, weirdly fixated on certain details ;) - but I believe that a Hero was equal to 4 fighter figures (and the Superhero was equal to 8 fighter figures. Since this was miniatures battles a fighter figure might stand for 5 or 10 humans, whereas a Giant or Dragon figure generally stood for but a single creature.
Quote from: Bill;781846Just for humor; isn't one of the fighters 'level titles' "Superhero" ?
Yes indeed it is, you must
have missed my reference to that. It was buried in my post you quoted. ;)
Quote from: Bill;781835Quote from: Bren;781718...Now in OD&D a Superhero was level 8, but by Superhero the D&D rules did not mean someone like Superman, the Hulk, or Thor....
Quote from: Bren;782126Yes. I eventually did use the City State map (though that was around 1982 when I used it for the City of 10,000 Magicians in my Runequest Campaign), but I didn't have the stats of CSotIO or Greyhawk so they didn't have much of an impact on play. The other stuff was well after my world creation, and that of the first set of DMs I gamed with was done.
It's a picky point - and no doubt I only mention it because I am, apparently, weirdly fixated on certain details ;) - but I believe that a Hero was equal to 4 fighter figures (and the Superhero was equal to 8 fighter figures. Since this was miniatures battles a fighter figure might stand for 5 or 10 humans, whereas a Giant or Dragon figure generally stood for but a single creature.
Yes indeed it is, you must my reference to that. It was buried in my post you quoted. ;)
I was supporting this statement
" More powerful than an ordinary commoner and equal to a powerful comic book superhero are very different levels of power.
Now in OD&D a Superhero was level 8, but by Superhero the D&D rules did not mean someone like Superman, the Hulk, or Thor. I'd be surprised if 10th level 3E characters are as powerful as those three superheroes, but as I said, I have no context for 3E. Are 10th level 3E characters really that powerful or are was that analogy also not meant seriously?"
Quote from: Bill;782212I was supporting this statement
Gotcha. :)
Quote from: Will;778140Most of you are falling into the trap that leads to inconsistent confused games.
There is an implicit setting. That doesn't mean it's the only setting you can ever run, but if you aren't aware of the way the rules skew, you end up thrashing about any time anything emulative happens. Unless your group just doesn't care, at which point the setting is somewhat irrelevant.
So, for example, at some point someone is going to say 'hey wait, if half the party can cure diseases, and we clearly aren't that unusual, how the hell is disease a problem in the Middle Kingdom?'
There are a bunch of ways to answer that, but it'll probably save you some grief to work that out ahead of time.
You completely missed what both sides were actually saying. The "most of them" don't fall into your trap; they adapt the game to their campaigns to get rid of the trap! The other guy works a "cosmic warp" to change the world into conformity with the latest official game company line -- or else is not running an ongoing campaign in the first place, instead starting from scratch.
Quote from: estar;781844As for the whole 10th level = Superman thing.
The original premise of Chaimail was that a hero was worth 4 veteran fighters and a super hero 8 veteran fighters. And the rules reflected that premise.
Since the rules had a 1:10 or 1:20 figure:man scale depending on model size (ground scale being constant), that's
40-80 or
80-160 men.
Except that they were
invulnerable to non-fantastic figures that failed to score 4 or 8 kills
in a single round: no cumulative nickle-and-dime attrition as in D&D!
Quote from: Phillip;782297You completely missed what both sides were actually saying. The "most of them" don't fall into your trap; they adapt the game to their campaigns to get rid of the trap! The other guy works a "cosmic warp" to change the world into conformity with the latest official game company line -- or else is not running an ongoing campaign in the first place, instead starting from scratch.
In my experience a lot of people hammer down problems as they see them, rather than doing a deeper analysis of why the problem is there. Not all solutions are equally usable, and I've seen campaigns dissolve into piles and piles of house rules as the GM frantically tries to correct the game.
If you already are doing a deep, strategic change, then hey, I'm not talking about you. ;)
For example, in 3e, lots of groups reduced magic items for various reasons. And, hey, you know what? That fucks up the game. (Unless you do other stuff, TOO)
Quote from: Will;782311In my experience a lot of people hammer down problems as they see them, rather than doing a deeper analysis of why the problem is there.
Not all solutions are equally usable, and I've seen campaigns dissolve into piles and piles of house rules as the GM frantically tries to correct the game.
Maybe I've been fortunate in my GMs or maybe what you describe is predominantly a 3E centric problem, but I've never seen a campaign dissolve based on GMs frantically correcting the game with house rules. And I've played with a lot of house rules. Like sooner or later every RPG ends up with some house rules.
House rules are just a subset of RPG game rules. And it's not like the original RPG designer was some Da Vinci-like genius whose thoughts mere mortals cannot follow. Yes, changing some RPG rules requires the players to go along with the changes and yes there are some players who have a problem with any rules being changed (and it may be impossible to get their buy in), but changing some rules doesn't and shouldn't need the analysis required to do brain science or rocket surgery.
It might very well be more of a 3e issue, or an issue with systems past a certain level of complexity.
I mean, I don't expect to encounter much troubles modifying, say, Risus.
It's particularly on my mind precisely because magic items and magic level in 3e bothered me a lot, so I'd read up on folks' experiments to modify it. And I attempted all sorts of modifications to get what I wanted. It wasn't until I got to E6, which effectively lops off 2/3 of the game, that I managed to easily hit what I wanted.
But also I read a lot more of various house rules about specific things, and people going 'oh fuck, look what happened next.' Maybe some of it was a greater degree of internet kibbitzing about the game with 3e than previously, I'm not sure.
I Think it could be a 3e specific problem, yeah. 3e isn't very tinkering-friendly.
Quote from: Will;782332It might very well be more of a 3e issue, or an issue with systems past a certain level of complexity.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by complexity. From the 3E and D20 rules I've read that system in particular seems opaque rather than transparent in design. What I mean by opaque is that that the nested feat trees, bonuses for this and that, etc. make it difficult to easily see what a change may do because the system doesn't even make it easy to see what the existing system will do as characters level up and choose new feats that stack with existing feats. Added to that is a change in play styles (that started under TSR but was taken even farther by WotC) to try to consciously set difficulty or challenge levels to match the party so that changes to various rules now may throw off the metrics used to set "appropriate" challenges. Thus the stakes for unintended consequences now are much greater.
In contrast, OD&D/AD&D are trivially easy to modify. Changes might have consequences, but the disparate systems used tended to compartmentalize a lot of consequences and the play style did not assume or need the sort of balance in encounters or party composition that seems such a thing in 3E and 4E. There was no need to balance the challenge so if a house rule made an encounter harder or easier than what it would have been without the house rule that didn't matter since there would be other encounters that were harder (including too hard for the party to survive much less defeat) or easier anyway.
Runequest 3 (Avalon Hill version) is probably at the limit of system complexity that I find at all useful in a game. However because the basic RQ/BRP D100 system is centered on a consistent, elegant, and simple system modifiying any game using it is easy. Every different version of the BRP system (e.g. Call of Cthulhu) can really just be considered a set of house rules or modifications. And again, none of these games have a play style that presumes a balance between an enounter and the party strength.
WEG's Star Wars D6 2nd and 3rd editions has an underlying universal system and it is pretty easy to modify. One does need to watch for consequences, especially to any change involving Force users, but that seemed pretty manageable to me. And the system needs some mods for mid-high level Force users (e.g. 5D-8D in Force skills).
Honor+Intrigue seems tactically a lot more complex than the original BoL, but again not too hard to house rule things and the classification of opponents as Pawns (mooks), Retainers (lieutenants), and Heroes and Villains (PCs and Big Bads) makes it easier to balance encounters. Both Star Wars D6 and H+I play presumes the PCs are heroic in a dramatic sense (not necessarily in a white hat sense) and that while they may be defeated today, eventually they will prevail over their enemies.
QuoteBut also I read a lot more of various house rules about specific things, and people going 'oh fuck, look what happened next.' Maybe some of it was a greater degree of internet kibbitzing about the game with 3e than previously, I'm not sure.
I think a lot of this has to do with people who kibbitz about games. First they often spend more time and energy memorizing and learning rules than does the average or casual player. Also there is a subset of those folks who play a lot of games at cons or in various gaming societies where they gain an expectation that rules will be run in almost exactly the same way from group to group. Which makes their time and energy spent memorizing the rules useful across multiple groups. But house ruling overturns that expectation. This makes the people who have that expectation and who spent all that time and energy learning the rules in the book, predictably unhappy. Thus complaints.
Whereas if one is less invested in having the rules be the same from group to group, then one is likely to be upset only if the changes make the game unfun to play rather than being upset just because the changes made the game different than the RAW.