NPC levels

[Green Knight]

Note: This thread is inspired by the ongoing Chamberlain thread.

To me the NPC levels assigned in the various BR products seemed haphazard at best. When looking at all the BR products that were made, it seems to me that there were very little thought given to what were reasonable character levels.

Well, with 3E this bothered me even more than it did in 2E. 3E is more internally consistent than the previous edition, so the great variety in levels really started to bother me. I wanted some consistence for NPCs' personal power and the arrival of 3E was a perfect opportunity to do something about it.

So, for my RoE PBeM campaign (using 3E) i started assigning levels anew...the rule of thumb was that no regent be under 6th level unless there was a really good reason (youth, incompetence, whatever). At the same time there would be no regents over 10th level...unless there was a really good reason. And no "normal" mortal NPC would be allowed a level over 15th (I think Aeric Boeruine was allowed to be a 15th lvl Fighter, but that was the highest).

I really didn't look too closely on the level assigned to various BR products, nor what classes they had. I looked more at their descriptions and how they fit into the campaign. I also wanted there to be a certain link between personal power and domain power...but not absolute, if the situation warranted it there were weak characters with strong domains and vice versa.

Aeric is mentioned above. A powerful fighter with a powerful realms. Avan was also pretty simple. He turned out a 12th level noble. Others needed more though. Siele Ghoried (a female IMC) was also made a Noble/Rogue 4/3 to reflect that IMC she was the rightful heir to Ghoried province and had a fair bit of diplomatic skill and a nice upbringing. Aelies got to be 20th level...but I nerferd his spellcasting a bit by giving 4 druid levels :D Jaison Raenech were to have a special place in the campaign, so he got a serious boost to Bbn 1/Fighter 13 (to allow him to fly into mindless rages). And so on.

It should be noted that I also gave thought to the lower levels AND the VERY high levels. I decided that 2nd level was the average for a trained adult, working up to about 5th level for skilled (and often older) professionals - for example a skilled soldier in a standing army would be a Warrior 2, a trained and bloodied knight a Fighter 4, the old Gamekeeper an Expert 5, etc. Some exceptions here too - the master smith of Baruk-Azhik might be an Expert 12 for example.

I had some very high lvl NPC too. Aelies was mentioned above. The Chamberlain was one such too (but he wasn't really that much of a combatant despite a very high level). And then there were Epic character...Rhuobhe (25th) and the Gorgon (30th level) are obvious examples. The Emerald Queen also got to be a (low) Epic level character.

Now, I'm not saying this is the RIGHT way to assign NPC levels, I'm just arguing that even the Wiki NPCs should be subject to some regimen aimed at providing internal consistency. It seems less useful to the average player to have access to NPC descriptions that are "all over the place" with regards to design philosophy. I just looked at the Gorgon and found him having 46 character level + various blood and other abilities, I'm sure his CR is over 50 :eek:

Actually, with the benefit of hindsight, I probably would have toned ALL levels down a bit. But 3E was new at the time and I wanted to get a spread of levels. And it was internally consistent and that was a major boon to me....and I think the Wiki could benefit too.

[epicsoul]

So... are you basically advocating that Realms should have Challenge Ratings?

A realm with a certain amount of power has a ruler with a certain level?

I always thought that the realms were basically divided along the lines of blood line ability, rather than level. This was because in 2e, the level of the ruler didn't really matter for the purpose of who was a better ruler - few skills/proficiencies, no real way to increase those, no way to increase ability scores, etc. Instead, it was about getting enough regency based on your blood score.

3e BRCS made it so that level is a bit more important for the purpose of realm management - thus the noble class, for instance - although any player can create a character at about 2nd or 3rd level that can maximize their regency gains for almost any realm anyways.

[AndrewTall]

A large powerful realm is going to be the target of major internal issues if its ruler is 'a child'. I'd expect that in the event that Avan, Ghoere, Boeruine died with just a L1 heir, the nobility et al would make sure that either a more worthy candidate took the throne, or was at least set-up as the 'key advisor'. Boy-kings make for great novels but lousy administrators. Low level regents should be temporary one way or the other.


Regents who have ruled their realm for a long time need to be high enough level to be competent at facing pretty much any challenge they will meet - otherwise how did they keep their throne?


This need for competence also holds true for ability scores (any Int 5 regents out there?) bloodline (they should be able to get at least half the RP generated by their realm), diplomatic skill, etc.


Any ruler short on one of these personal attributes, like a realm short on one of gold, soldiers, etc) is going to be short lived.

[Green Knight]

Side note: It also depends a bit on how heavily the DM/players buy into the "Hero-Kings" thingy. If rulers are not only rulers, but ALSO heroes (or villains), then it makes even more sense to make them stand out. And this being DnD character levels is THE way to make a character a somebody :D

[Capricia]

A large powerful realm is going to be the target of major internal issues if its ruler is 'a child'. I'd expect that in the event that Avan, Ghoere, Boeruine died with just a L1 heir, the nobility et al would make sure that either a more worthy candidate took the throne, or was at least set-up as the 'key advisor'. Boy-kings make for great novels but lousy administrators. Low level regents should be temporary one way or the other.


Regents who have ruled their realm for a long time need to be high enough level to be competent at facing pretty much any challenge they will meet - otherwise how did they keep their throne?


This need for competence also holds true for ability scores (any Int 5 regents out there?) bloodline (they should be able to get at least half the RP generated by their realm), diplomatic skill, etc.


Any ruler short on one of these personal attributes, like a realm short on one of gold, soldiers, etc) is going to be short lived.


That's over generalizing somewhat. I've seen lower level or low blooded regents inherit thrones by force or accident and cope just fine. I've also seen higher level regents do a piss poor job of running their realm. The level is just a number, the higher it is the easier it can be to control the larger realms. Ultimately a player who can role play, act with diplomacy and work with intelligence and forethought can do very well with a lower level (but reasonably well created) regent.

I have a pet peeve about obsessing over levels and abilities. I'm a book keeper, I deal with numbers all day. I game to role play, not crunch numbers.

[Green Knight]

So... are you basically advocating that Realms should have Challenge Ratings?

A realm with a certain amount of power has a ruler with a certain level?

I always thought that the realms were basically divided along the lines of blood line ability, rather than level. This was because in 2e, the level of the ruler didn't really matter for the purpose of who was a better ruler - few skills/proficiencies, no real way to increase those, no way to increase ability scores, etc. Instead, it was about getting enough regency based on your blood score.

3e BRCS made it so that level is a bit more important for the purpose of realm management - thus the noble class, for instance - although any player can create a character at about 2nd or 3rd level that can maximize their regency gains for almost any realm anyways.

Not quite that exact, but I am implying that as a general rule (exceptions will apply) a powerful domain should have a powerful ruler. I also tend to think that any powerful domain that has a competent ruler should also have a decent blood score.

I don't use the BRCS so this is not a factor here. Internal consistency is. And I would disagree that character level was not important in 2E. Regents are not just rulers on the domain level...they are characters that also interact on the "hero" level.

So there should be at least some links between domain power - character power (and perhaps blood power as well). NOT a fixed formula...just some guidelines to make making NPCs for the Wiki more internally consistent. IF, for any reason, a good story-driven reason exists for the guidelines to be broken...that's just very good...

[AndrewTall]

That's over generalizing somewhat. I've seen lower level or low blooded regents inherit thrones by force or accident and cope just fine. I've also seen higher level regents do a piss poor job of running their realm. The level is just a number, the higher it is the easier it can be to control the larger realms...

Of course it is an over-generalisation - although I was considering NPC's only and hadn't considered applying it to PC's. For NPC's - which is what all characters are before taken over by players - there should either be a match to the realm, or a reason for the mis-match, even if the reason is metagame (your wizard realm is crappy, so I'll give your PC extra levels to compensate).

A novice PC's skills can as you say get over-powered by a veteran players skills and vice versa - resulting in the L15 PC with high diplomacy who writes in broken english or insults everyone around them and the L1 rogue with no strategy skill who uses 20 years of playing warhammer et al to slaughter an opposing army. For the DM trying to consider the realms before the players come along the stats are all they have so the stats have to dominate.

Besides as a GM actively running upwards to a hundred NPC's (or even more!), roleplaying each of them as well as the Player will roleplay their dozen of so PC's is hard - the poor DM has enough trouble with the book-keeping side of BR as it is.

[bbeau22]

Are there any specific regents you have in mind to take a look at? Khinasi might be an example of some higher level people. There are a bunch of rulers and advisers at level 10 or above.

I would think that when we are talking about maxed out levels of each domain that each domain would need to be taken into consideration. Khinasi it might be more acceptable to have a few higher level wizards. Brecht might have more higher level rogue/guilders.

-BB

[AndrewTall]

The question to me I suppose is 'at what level should PC's be interacting directly with these people' - once that is agreed we can set level accordingly.

Past L12 or so I find gameplay suffers a lot in D&D, below L6 or so the characters have yet to prove themselves 'head and shoulders' above the common folk so don't fit as rulers. Other people find that it's L12 before PC's start to 'hit their stride'. What sort of level to other people see regents as?

i.e. should a low/med/high level opponent be L5-10/8-12/10-15, or 1-4/3-6/8-12 etc?

I can see some games where the issue would be raising NPC levels not lowering them - it depends a lot on whether people like Darien Avan as 'end campaign' foes, or 'mid campaign' foes.

If they are mid-campaign foes then beefing them makes the 'real foes' need to be epic level, if the campaign is to unite Anuire then they should be the end game foes themselves.

The wiki lets us make several versions of the same character, but each build takes time to build that could be spent on other things...

[bbeau22]

I think ultimately it might be too hard to set levels for all NPC's. I feel their might be too many seperate opinions on what is a good level. Nothing wrong with that of course as all DM's tailor campaigns to fit their tastes.

I would say lets create a list of NPC's people feel are too high of a level and work from there. We can debate each one on their own merits. If we feel in general they might be too high of a level we can add a note on the Wiki that the community feels the level might be a bit high and offer a more resonable level. Or reverse it and have the community level listed but note what the original level was.

If people think this is a good idea let me know and I will list out the Khanasi people with levels above 10.

-BB

[kgauck]

The wiki can't be all things to all people, so even trying isn't worth the attempt.

What we can do is be consistent on issues of contention.

Part of that approach is to offer multiple versions of characters. If we end up with an 8th level Chamberlain, a 16th level, and a 24th level version I think we're doing fine.

I would like to see changes discussed, so that versions that diverge from canon do so on the basis of broad concerns, rather some idiosyncratic take on the character.

[Elton Robb]

It's also best to stay within accepted levels. Few characters in Anuire are actually stronger than Archduke Boeruine or Prince Avan. They all happen to be Awnsheghlien; with the Gorgon and the Manslayer the absolute brick wall.

The Spider is the lesser of the three Awnsheghlien in Anuire.

[Dirk]

I think a discussion of Prestige classes for characters from the book. Some of the prestige classes can be used to build a character with a similar feel. In my game I build Caliedhe Dosiere as a Wis/Fit/Eldrich Knight 7/1/9. This gives the character the spell-casting ability of a 15 level wizard character and the base attack bonus of a 13th level fighter. Sure this does not give him all of abilities 12th level fighters or a 16th level wizard abilities but I feel it stays more true to the character then making him a 28th level Character. The major reasons for this is each level in third edition stacks with ever other level. In second edition you only took the best abilities from each class, this translates into a 16/12 level character being much more powerful in 3.5 then in 2nd edition. This issue was addressed during the conversion from 2nd to 3rd. There was a conversion book that came with the first printing of third edition *. In this book multiclass and Duel class characters did not convert levels on a one for one bases.
Another method I used was using cheats when appropriate. Rhoube in my game is a 16th level ranger but he has a few additional abilities. First he also has the spell-casting of a 16th level Wizard and I gave him the weapon specialization and focus feat free for his favorite weapon. I gave him the spell-casting because I didn't have a way working in the system to give it to him but it was an important part of his character. The free weapon focus and specialization I give to many of the ancient martial characters because they have had over a thousand years to perfect their skills.
Both of these methods are focused on staying true to the character. One of the problems with converting to 3rd edition is that people doing the converting don't want to rob the characters of any of there abilities but often don't think about the additional abilities they are giving. Once aware of this pitfall it is easier to avoid.

(* If any one still has this it could be used to convert core characters.)

[epicsoul]

I think a discussion of Prestige classes for characters from the book. Some of the prestige classes can be used to build a character with a similar feel. In my game I build Caliedhe Dosiere as a Wis/Fit/Eldrich Knight 7/1/9. This gives the character the spell-casting ability of a 15 level wizard character and the base attack bonus of a 13th level fighter. Sure this does not give him all of abilities 12th level fighters or a 16th level wizard abilities but I feel it stays more true to the character then making him a 28th level Character. The major reasons for this is each level in third edition stacks with ever other level. In second edition you only took the best abilities from each class, this translates into a 16/12 level character being much more powerful in 3.5 then in 2nd edition. This issue was addressed during the conversion from 2nd to 3rd. There was a conversion book that came with the first printing of third edition *. In this book multiclass and Duel class characters did not convert levels on a one for one bases.
Another method I used was using cheats when appropriate. Rhoube in my game is a 16th level ranger but he has a few additional abilities. First he also has the spell-casting of a 16th level Wizard and I gave him the weapon specialization and focus feat free for his favorite weapon. I gave him the spell-casting because I didn't have a way working in the system to give it to him but it was an important part of his character. The free weapon focus and specialization I give to many of the ancient martial characters because they have had over a thousand years to perfect their skills.
Both of these methods are focused on staying true to the character. One of the problems with converting to 3rd edition is that people doing the converting don't want to rob the characters of any of there abilities but often don't think about the additional abilities they are giving. Once aware of this pitfall it is easier to avoid.

(* If any one still has this it could be used to convert core characters.)


Heh. Yeah, I still have the little conversion booklet. It was your highest class, then 1/3 of your other class levels... that would be your total level. Then, divide as you wish. The conversion basically killed the FMuC, or the FMuT. However, it is important to note that doing it this way also basically reduced Awnshegh in power level on a substantial level - to the point they become somewhat killable without epic adventures (for instance, Manslayer would now *only* be 21st level + his bloodline). Note that strength scores, based on the old percentile system, had a conversion as well - each category above 18 in percentile was an extra pt in strength in 3.0

If you do use that conversion process instead - be aware that you will require yourself to give prestige classes to the Awnshegh in order to keep them having their abilities at a reasonable level.

[cccpxepoj]

It's also best to stay within accepted levels. Few characters in Anuire are actually stronger than Archduke Boeruine or Prince Avan. They all happen to be Awnsheghlien; with the Gorgon and the Manslayer the absolute brick wall.

The Spider is the lesser of the three Awnsheghlien in Anuire.
I always considered the Aeric Boruin as one of the best sword fighters in Anuire, not "the Best" sword fighter. I mean he could not spent his entire life on dueling and fencing, with the all the problems of a statesman. So there must be some lesser noble or commoner characters who have enough time to go on adventures and dedicate them self to martial arts. Same goes for other classes and characters, simply regents don't have enough time and freedom to experience things( and gain levels).

[kgauck]

I would quibble with the last part, that rulers don't have enough time to experience things. I would say that few other people are as obligated to acquire experience. The problem is that its experience at the totality of running a domain, not just fighting. The man who controls his time can specialize. The ruler must devote most of levels being good at what he must do.

But in terms of experience, and levels, I think only exceptional people match the leading rulers.

[cccpxepoj]

i didn't express myself precisely enough. Ruler can have a lot of experience, and according to that a levels, but he or she can't have the same amount of feats and skills, that ordinary character( fighter, rogue, wizard) has, otherwise he/she is a poor ruler. Other thing is that rulers life is too substantial, so he/she can't risk it in a duels, battles and adventures, and many experience(points) go to the other people, those best of the best(those who have same amount, or more levels than he) ruler can employ.

[kgauck]

That's sensible, but looking at the late medieval/ early modern period, not how leaders actually acted. Louis II fought the Turks at Mohacs, Francis at Pavia, and even into the 18th century we get Peter and Charles at Poltava. Frederick fought 16 battles.

Leaders did take risks and expose themselves to danger.

If one is also an Arthurian, kings go on quests as well.

[cccpxepoj]

Did they really fought or they were just present there, and we must take in consideration that those information are coming from chronicles they funded, and of course medieval time is full of overrated reports from battles.
The example of warrior king is Richard Lionheart, he was a great warrior, we don't know was he the best in whole England but one of better for sure, but he was a poor statesman.

[Exile]

An obvious example of someone ruling what would be a _huge_ domain in BR - the Black Prince. He was directly involved in hand-to-hand combat at the age of 16 at Crecy (where the King of Bohemia and his son were killed in the melee), and went on to run the Duchy of Aquitaine and act as his father's leading general during that phase of the Hundred Years War. Less successfully, one could look to the array of Scots kings killed or captured in battle (against their own nobles or while invading England), right up to the 16th century.

Of those real-world adventurers who wound up ruling Birthright-sized domains... stand-out examples would be the array of Norman conquerors in the Mediterranean (Southern Italy and Sicily) and the Crusaders (Normans and others) who carved out realms in the Levant and from the Byzantine Empire. Precious few of those shirked direct involvement in combat.

In later periods, kings were rarely permitted to risk themselves in the line of battle... but lords ruling lands of the size of BR domains quite often did so as subordinate commanders or in their own local wars. Leading from the front remained somewhat fashionable for the braver types even into the 18th century (well after the periods on which BR is based), before being revived again on a large scale by the French revoluationary and Napoleonic wars.

-----

For myself, I always liked the lower power-level of BR. Fewer magical items, fewer combat-capable mages, fewer high-level characters of any type.... Even the awnshegh were one-off living legends, not examples of "enemy" races that PCs could wade through in search of XP and treasure. It very much played up the original notion of (A)D&D, that characters in "adventuring professions" were at least a little bit special (2e BR has the full-time bodyguards of a PC regent default to "Normal Men", not level 1 Fighters) - and that as soon as you'd begun levelling up you were starting to be quite noticable indeed.

Ilien being ruled over by a 3rd level Wizard didn't, to me, suggest that Rogr Aglondier was incompetent - just that he'd got limited talent (or perhaps time) for magic... but as a blooded Wizard regent, his "real" power didn't lie in trying to learn how to throw a fireball, it lay in his ties to the land and to his Sources... and he's still someone who can turn invisible, put assailants to sleep, create illusions.... _Any_ blood ability was noteworthy, and any Realm Spell was awe-inspiring to the vast majority of people - including many other regents....

True, the switch to 3rd edition makes for a bigger difference in competence as rulers between 1st and higher level characters - but you can begin getting synergy bonuses for your skills at 2nd level, probably racking up quite respectable scores in areas of particular interest to you. As for raw power compared to the common man - a couple of levels will let you far out-class almost any commoner, while the little matters of blood abilities, rank, vastly superior equipment, your retinue, and the bonus hp of a regent come on top....