Quote from: Arkansan;783511Here is something I wondered, is there any indication of just how common leveled types are supposed to be? I seem to recall that 1st edition had a suggested ratio in the DMG and I was wondering if there is or will be something like that suggestion for 5e. I was thinking for my campaign world something like 1:100.  I think this is more important than it may seem because it says quite a bit about the world at large. I know up thread it was discussed that some people may be powerful but lack a class per se, however to my way of seeing it there really isn't much difference. I suppose maybe a better way of putting it would be people worthy of being distinguished mechanically. So far all I see is hints at rarity but not an actual guiding principle.

Nothing I can think of so far.

I hope the DMG presents multiple ratios (1:10, 1:100, 1:1000, etc.) and a discussion how they would affect the setting.


Honestly, I think most game designers don't give it much thought. Most settings and adventures use leveled/classed NPC however it strikes the creators fancy.

Another tidbit after having a closer look at the Find Familiar spell:

*Arcane types don't seem to bond well with animals (that is the sole shtick of Druids, Rangers and a few oddball cases like Paladins of the Ancient Oath or Nature Clerics). All their familiars aren't actual beasts, but rather Fiends, Fey or Celestials who just happen to have similar size and abilities as certain beasts, but actually aren't any. They may also be stowed away and reshaped into completely new form at no costs. Losing a familiar is no big deal - just spend an hour and 10gp to get a new one.

Possible Implications:
*There is no need for familiars to resemble animals - in fact, as they explicitely are no beasts, most shouldn't be, and should be obviously weird to a worldly onlooker. A Celestial Hawk may be an young Eagle of Zeus with a halo of electrical sparks. A Fey Weasel may actually be a zoog snatched from the Dreamlands. And a Fiendish Octopus from the netherrealm of the Archsuccubus... Well, that spray ain't no "ink" spray, and even if it does hardly damage you sure would never want to get grappled by its tentacles!
*Familiars are some extraplanar ooze that is shaped and imbued with some resemblance of whatever beast the magic-user thinks of.
Or maybe establishing a familiar isn't so much bonding and befriending a single creature, but rather some sort of extra-dimensional mancatcher that snatches the weakest suitable denizens from beyond? Maybe the material component of burnt odorous materials isn't so much needed for completing the spell, but rather for luring those victims to the trap that enslaves them to the MU's bidding...?

Quote from: Gold Roger;783515Nothing I can think of so far.

I hope the DMG presents multiple ratios (1:10, 1:100, 1:1000, etc.) and a discussion how they would affect the setting.


Honestly, I think most game designers don't give it much thought. Most settings and adventures use leveled/classed NPC however it strikes the creators fancy.

I agree I don't think most designers, or DMs for that matter, give too much thought to this. It is an interesting question though, just how much bearing does it have on the game world if there is say 1 leveled person per every 100? Or perhaps 1 per every 1000? It obviously says something about the "power level" of the world. Of course you also have to get into out of all the leveled folks running around how many are above level 1 or 2?

Hm. That's interesting. I always think about how many of a class and level in my settings, at least per capita.

1.28% of individuals, not counting the monks and Druids, have class levels in my new campaign world. The same number are 0-level mercenaries and hireling types.

Here's the (ugly) google doc made from the spreadsheet for the setting included in my 0e homage TTRPG.  My excel spreadsheet is much prettier.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&srcid=0B_0ONkhGdLg8MGE4RVVCM2JncGc

Quote from: Scott Anderson;783565Hm. That's interesting. I always think about how many of a class and level in my settings, at least per capita.

1.28% of individuals, not counting the monks and Druids, have class levels in my new campaign world. The same number are 0-level mercenaries and hireling types.

Here's the (ugly) google doc made from the spreadsheet for the setting included in my 0e homage TTRPG.  My excel spreadsheet is much prettier.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&srcid=0B_0ONkhGdLg8MGE4RVVCM2JncGc

As I mentined before the "classed' requirement is quite odd. If there are very low entry requirements for say the Fighter and there are plenty of 0 level hirelings willing to go on adventures in return for a share then why aren't these guys 1st level fighters.  is it Just Because ?

Fighter is a profession. Most hirelings are not going to make a career out of it. Those who do probably pick up a class and level.

But just as many at each level including 0 either die or quit.

Seriously, if you had never been into a proper dungeon before, who knows whether you would survive- and if you did, if you would ever go back?

Compared to a peasant, even a 2nd level thief is rich beyond rich. 1200 GP is like twenty years' salary, all saved up and in one place.

I should imagine that for every couple of greedy murderhobos, there is one who decides not to push his luck.

Yeah there are lots of reason most likely never attain a class. For instance the PHB says that most soldiers are not true "fighters" I take that to mean that for most of them it is a job not a way of life. Also the PHB says that most Clerics are not "Clerics", that true clerics are favored of their deity somehow. The simple impracticality of dedicating their life to path would be a road block for most. I think what the idea is, is that most people are simply average, they don't have the fortitude to stick out gaining a level.

Quote from: Arkansan;783592Yeah there are lots of reason most likely never attain a class. For instance the PHB says that most soldiers are not true "fighters" I take that to mean that for most of them it is a job not a way of life. Also the PHB says that most Clerics are not "Clerics", that true clerics are favored of their deity somehow. The simple impracticality of dedicating their life to path would be a road block for most. I think what the idea is, is that most people are simply average, they don't have the fortitude to stick out gaining a level.

One thing we used with hirelings was that they were essentially proto-adventurers. People who might eventually take up the standard. Or might allways just be a follower on working to level up "carry stuff"

Quote from: Arkansan;783592Yeah there are lots of reason most likely never attain a class. For instance the PHB says that most soldiers are not true "fighters" I take that to mean that for most of them it is a job not a way of life. Also the PHB says that most Clerics are not "Clerics", that true clerics are favored of their deity somehow. The simple impracticality of dedicating their life to path would be a road block for most. I think what the idea is, is that most people are simply average, they don't have the fortitude to stick out gaining a level.

But nothing in the game supports any of that does it.

I assumed most soldiers were not true fighters meant they were militia/levees farming most of the time but stick on a chain shirt and pick up a shield when the lord says time to go to war. But that doesn't cover the people in say the Roman army, or a mongol horde.

I can see with magic users, who need study, and clerics who need divinity there might be an entry point. Thieves and fighters ... meh

You don;t seem to need much fortitude to gain a level I mean you will be 2nd or 3rd level after a week or two on the road....

Quote from: jibbajibba;783597But nothing in the game supports any of that does it.

I assumed most soldiers were not true fighters meant they were militia/levees farming most of the time but stick on a chain shirt and pick up a shield when the lord says time to go to war. But that doesn't cover the people in say the Roman army, or a mongol horde.

I can see with magic users, who need study, and clerics who need divinity there might be an entry point. Thieves and fighters ... meh

You don;t seem to need much fortitude to gain a level I mean you will be 2nd or 3rd level after a week or two on the road....

But that is only true if everyone gets xp the way PCs do.

In my mind, xp create people who learn incredibly fast, and it is this ability to quickly turn their experince into a whide range of practical skill that seperates classed characters from most of the population.

To be honest I don't think we can imply that much about the number of people with classes. As was discussed on the other thread at length, the game is very inconsistent on the matter.

On the one hand we get statements saying that people with class levels are rare, but then on the other hand we get adventures and entries in the monster manual that show a large number of NPCs as either explicitly having class levels or having monster write-ups that give them the equivalent.

So - unless we get some strong recommendations in the DMG - I think the best we can say about it is that it's inconsistent and that it's up to us what our setting looks like in terms of distribution of classed NPCs.

Yeah, I think when it says people in the 'Fighter Class' are rare it means exactly that. Most people have stat blocks from the Nonplayer Characters section in the Monster Manual, they do not follow the rules for PCs.

So the average Bandit is a 2 Hit Dice Monster rather than being built with class levels.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;783637To be honest I don't think we can imply that much about the number of people with classes. As was discussed on the other thread at length, the game is very inconsistent on the matter.

On the one hand we get statements saying that people with class levels are rare, but then on the other hand we get adventures and entries in the monster manual that show a large number of NPCs as either explicitly having class levels or having monster write-ups that give them the equivalent.

So - unless we get some strong recommendations in the DMG - I think the best we can say about it is that it's inconsistent and that it's up to us what our setting looks like in terms of distribution of classed NPCs.

Very true

Quote from: jadrax;783644Yeah, I think when it says people in the 'Fighter Class' are rare it means exactly that. Most people have stat blocks from the Nonplayer Characters section in the Monster Manual, they do not follow the rules for PCs.

So the average Bandit is a 2 Hit Dice Monster rather than being built with class levels.

which I don't care for though I can see it makes the game easier to run.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;782811Here's another one...

Death, Undeath and the Afterlife

An interesting change in this edition from most previous editions is that being made into an undead doesn't prevent the various Raise Dead spells from working. Most previous editions had wording to that effect within the Raise Dead spell descriptions, but this one is missing that wording.

I think you missed something here:

Revivify is a 3rd level spell that brings back anyone who died within the last minute. Animate Dead has a casting time of 1 minute.

Resurrection is a 7th level spell that says: "You touch a dead creature that has been dead for no more than a century, that didn't die of old age, and that isn't undead".

True Resurrection, a 9th level spell, lacks the wording to that effect, so I'd treat it as a matter of DM discretion, and personally allow it. 9th level spell and all.

I'd definitely not allow a 3rd level spell to do it, even if the simplest method of creating undead didn't use up the window for the spell.