Battle Elves

[geeman]

At 07:54 AM 2/7/2008, you wrote:

>Common sense of the real world does not apply to
>experience and levels in D&D. Even a 1st level
>wizard weaving real magic is beyond everything
>our real world ever saw (if we stick to known
>facts and exclude mythos or religious beliefs).

How does that relate to the issue at hand? NPCs
don`t gain levels because of magic?

>A farmer who plows the same field in the same
>way after taking over the farm from his father
>and does so for the next 30 years will
>eventually not gain any level at all after a few levels of commoner.

OK, let me put it this way. I agree with all the
examples and reasoning you guys have used so
far. A farmer who plows his field the same way
as described above would gain no experience from
that activity. No one will ever gain experience
outside of having encounters and overcoming challenges.

Where we disagree is that you and Irdeggman seem
to be operating under the assumption that during
that 30 year period that farmer is never going to
every do anything other than plow his
field. He`s never going to deliver goods to
market, sell them and then encounter a thief who
tries to pick his pocket. He`s never going to
walk into the local tavern, have a drink and get
into a brawl. He`s never going to meet a soldier
who has deserted from the local militia who seeks
to kill him. A wolf never makes off with any of
his stock and he goes after beast. He`s never
drafted into a unit of levies and has to defend his lands against an invasion.

You guys have to assume that nothing ever happens
outside the course of adventures outlined by a
DM. The other side of this argument assumes that
as DMs we must account for the events of normal
human interaction in order to come up with a
legitimate system of portraying NPCs.

>An adventure is not the same as killing monsters
>but can be anything from successfully
>negotiating a peace treaty with your kings enemys to slaying a dragon.

Exactly.

>No, you were talking about a reason to have more
>levels for NPC´s (and especially for non-human
>or immortal NPC´s )because they´re older.
>If we are discussing why Commoners level
>slowerlier than PC´s I have missed the point the whole discussion.

What`s the difference between NPCs and commoners
in this sense? The issues of level having to do
with the immortality of elves is just the most
stark and obvious example of the issues being described here.

I woke up this morning and it hit me that maybe
the way to do this is to add up all the years of
an NPCs life and then use that to get a die from
which to determine his "random" level. That is,
at 15-17 everyone starts out at 1st level. Every
year adds +1. Every year spent in an active
profession (like soldier) adds another
+1. Whatever modifiers or issue one thought are
prudent. Then it might be a simple table:

Result Die
1-5 d2
6-10 d3
11-15 d4
16-20 d6

Etc.

That way even the older NPCs might still wind up
being 1st level, but they`d be more likely to
average out according to the die. It doesn`t
take into consideration the vagaries of the CR
tables, which level of every four levels or so,
but I`m wondering how much this kind of
demographic should really be bound to that sort of thing....

Gary

Gary

[irdeggman]

Conjurer and Irdeg, do either of you ever have anyone other than the PC's have class levels? Do either of you recognize higher level NPC's among the general populace?

I bet you do, and if so, how do you determine who is of what level?


We who look to age as a guideline merely seek something other than an arbitrary choice. For story encounters with singular characters, arbitrariness as the story dictates is fine. To attempt to determine things on realm level play when you're averaging out statistics demographically to add to the depth of realism in the game (just because we want and/or need that realism for our enjoyment), setting up guidelines is very important.

Yes I do and I try to come with a "history" for each of them, the amount of detail varies on the significance of the NPC.

But each one has "earned" those levels for doing something. If they are very active then they gained those levels quicker (and thus are of younger age) then those who didn't. Note that age does not equal experience, but every character has an age and what they have done with their time determines what they have accomplished.

I find it exceeding difficult to grasp that those who are argueing over such a large amount of detail concerning elven life style and philsophy do not perceive things on this level and instead wish to simply "gloss over it" by saying it is a function of "age".

No age rule yet proposed issues XP strictly for time,

I again point you to the quotes that indicate otherwise.

As for elves, I've made most of my argument that they live a much more luxurious and adventurous lifestyle than humans which would warrant much higher levels even within a human's lifetime because of those lifestyles. Over their extra centuries, it surely accounts for something, unless you want most elves to dilly-dally like mindless little sprites happy to dance their lives away in the woods for 3,000 years (in which case they should still have 15 levels of Expert in Perform (Dance), or at least like 30 ranks in it). Do you disagree with my assessment of elves?

And that arguement is at least based on something other than age. Age only allowing them to do more with the life style you have assumed.

Now something else that could be used to justify them not having higher levels is their chaotic and mercurial behavior. Because they are so quick to change they take a lot longer to accomlish anything. (Sort of like a fey with ADD).

[kgauck]

But each one has "earned" those levels for doing something. If they are very active then they gained those levels quicker (and thus are of younger age) then those who didn't.

This is all we've been saying, so you've revealed that you really agree with us.

Note that age does not equal experience, but every character has an age and what they have done with their time determines what they have accomplished.

Ditto

I find it exceeding difficult to grasp that those who are argueing over such a large amount of detail concerning elven life style and philsophy do not perceive things on this level and instead wish to simply "gloss over it" by saying it is a function of "age".

Its this funny thing called intersubjectivity.

I again point you to the quotes that indicate otherwise.

Only if you ignore all those other words around the quotes. Admit it, you're on our side. Said so yourself.

Time to move along.

[Lord Rahvin]

irdegman is facing, not only overwhelming resistance, in this argument but bizzare flanking tactics. He responds to argument A, and then gets attacked with argument B. Argument B gets countered (or at least answered) and he gets criticised for the argument not applying equally to A and C as well.

I think some of the main points of the vast legions of proponents in the Elven Superior team need to be clarrified.

1. Should there be a table or die roll to determine npc level quickly based on age and race? yes/no

2. Is this an argument for adding levels to existing known npcs? yes/no

3. Are you advocating for additional levels in npc-classes or common adventuring classes?

4. Does this logic/paradigm extend to npcs and/or pcs during adventures, or just background world-detail stuff? Are we likely to see higher level fighters in the nobleman`s bodyguard, for example.

5. How should this ultimately extend to elves, the gorgon, etc. how many levels does 500 years of military life get you?

Anything i missed?

-Lord Rahvin

[geeman]

At 01:49 PM 2/7/2008, you wrote:

>1. Should there be a table or die roll to determine npc level
>quickly based on age and race? yes/no

It could come in handy.

>2. Is this an argument for adding levels to existing known npcs? yes/no

No.... at least not systemically.

>3. Are you advocating for additional levels in npc-classes or
>common adventuring classes?

No.

>4. Does this logic/paradigm extend to npcs and/or pcs during
>adventures, or just background world-detail stuff? Are we likely to
>see higher level fighters in the nobleman`s bodyguard, for example.

Yes, yes and yes, but probably not. A noble`s bodyguard would
represent a small cross-section and should, therefore, be
representative of a range of levels and experience.

>5. How should this ultimately extend to elves, the gorgon,
>etc. how many levels does 500 years of military life get you?

The benefits for time and aging would eventually slow down as one
finds it more and more difficult to find appropriate challenges
through "random events."

Gary

[kgauck]

1. Should there be a table or die roll to determine npc level quickly based on age and race? yes/no

Age is one of the weaker traits for level. The NPC's location would be much more likely to tell me something about his level than his age would.

2. Is this an argument for adding levels to existing known npcs? yes/no

No

3. Are you advocating for additional levels in npc-classes or common adventuring classes?

For non-elves, the issue is mostly about NPC classes for villagers. For elves adventuring classes are not unreasonable for very long spans of time.

4. Does this logic/paradigm extend to npcs and/or pcs during adventures, or just background world-detail stuff? Are we likely to see higher level fighters in the nobleman`s bodyguard, for example.

I'm not sure I understand the question.
Are you asking:
1) Do characters gain experience for aging while adventuring: No
2) Do characters left behind gain experience while other adventure: Perhaps if the adventure takes years and years. Odysseus may have left Penelope a 2nd level Noble and returned to find her a 4th level noble. Life continues even without inspection.
3) Is this fluff (background world-detail stuff) or crunchy (stat'd out villagers, courtiers, and soldiers) its crunchy and fluffy, like peanut butter. As for a nobleman's body guard, they should be determined by the rank, prestige, and wealth of the noble. The more of that stuff he's got, the high level everyone around him will be, except maybe his friends. Nobles cherry pick the best soldiers, officials, and perhaps even friends, from their subordinates.

5. How should this ultimately extend to elves, the gorgon, etc. how many levels does 500 years of military life get you?

Its not "military life" that gets you anything, its a what kind of CR's at a given frequency of time.

[rugor]

1. Do elves really fight wars? Of course, they`d fight if they were
invaded, but would they really engage in large scale, army against
army battle? Yes, they have in Cerilia`s past at Deismaar, but was
that battle the exception rather than the rule? Given elven
immortality and apparently slow birthrate would elves "spend" their
lives in something like pitched battle rather than favoring skirmish
and guerilla warfare where their skills could be brought to bear?

Gary

I think Elven wars, especially now that their numbers have dwindled from past conflicts which they engaged in on grand scale, would certianly be very different from the way we view war.

The war Rhuobe Manslayer wages on humans is a prime example of how different they think... the very fact that they are immortal gives them a long term view of things that humans just could not fathom.

If you look thru the PS of Tuornen with an eye for what COULD be, there is enough evidence to support the theory that the Manslayer was behind the downfall of Alamie, the most powerful realm in Anuire at the time it broke into warring factions.

Elves were involved throughout Tuornen's history and creation, to the current day, Fhylie the Sword, Laila Flaertes, both half elves, are the most prominent people in Tuornen, and Brandonel has been involved since the very beggining.

Brandonel slays a noble here, a noble there, the Manslayer kills/bloodthefts a Tuornen regent here, and a generation or two later does so again... nothing like the manslayer having his own inside man (Brandonel) to keep Alamie from re-uniting. There is no better cover for such an inside-man, than for him to be known as Rhuobe's greatest enemy.

When you don't have the numbers to destroy or overwhelm your enemy, the next best thing to do is to get them to destroy one another.

[rugor]

As for elves, I've made most of my argument that they live a much more luxurious and adventurous lifestyle than humans which would warrant much higher levels even within a human's lifetime because of those lifestyles. Over their extra centuries, it surely accounts for something, unless you want most elves to dilly-dally like mindless little sprites happy to dance their lives away in the woods for 3,000 years (in which case they should still have 15 levels of Expert in Perform (Dance), or at least like 30 ranks in it). Do you disagree with my assessment of elves?

I think we tend to humanize Elves too much... who is to say how long it takes for them to reach maturity, as far as the ability to rationalize and adapt?

It might take them 100 years to fully mature into what we would consider a 16 year old... 250 years to be able to rationalize and respond to things in a fully adult way... a 500 year old Elf being the equivalent of a 25 year old human.

But I also agree with other who say we demote their abilities too much. That 500 year old Elf should be considered an expert archer, and have off the chart abilities to conceal themselves in forested areas, track, identify creatures, and other things that would fit their nature.

That elf likely fletched each of his own arrows, and has done so ten thousand times before, making him an expert at it, he is probably so familiar with his bow that he would automatically be able to make precise shots even while on the run... even the greatest human archer should pale in comparison to the most common Elven one.

As for what happened to the elves and why they got pushed back. They allowed the Humans to settle at first, there was no war initially. When the humans got numerous and were considered a threat, the elves found themselves up against a tidal wave that beset them; much in the way the Europeans came to colonize America, they just kept coming and coming, and their weapons, their methods of building permanent structures, their way of fighting wars... all very foriegn to the natives whom they pushed further back, or exterminated tribe by tribe.

[AndrewTall]

Duration as a child
I tend to assume that most races have a fairly similar progression from childhood to adulthood simply as a prolonged adolescence serves little if any purpose - most races mature in the minimal time required to become functionally proficient in their bodies as these interact with their environment. If a race for whatever reason was mentally childish for a prolonged period this would impact on survival rates and breeding success, the latter is in accordance with elven behavious indicated in canon and various sources, but the first is not - elves are otherworldly and fey but not generally described as immature or incapable. I'd note in any event that learning is generally faster during childhood - something that would compound the racial power curve not retard it.

Skills
In most games advancement (by level, skill, whatever) relates to overcoming challenges. Challenges occur with a strong dependence on time and level of chaos in a society thus when looking at a population as a whole the level of advancement possessed will form a normal curve with a strong dependence on a) age of population b) frequency of challenges in the culture (i.e. the number of challenges faced by the members of the society) and c) ability to learn and remember and d) relevance of skills/etc learned by the elf in relation to the games power mechanics (i.e. ability of the members to learn from those challenges).

Accordingly unless elves become skilled in matters completely outside the power mechanic (i.e. I'm a 20th level 'forest shaper', I get no combat bonuses, saves, feats, etc but I can grow a mean mulberry bush in just 6 months or less), or elves are prone to bizarre memory lapses (yesterday I was a 20th level archmage, today I forgot all that magic stuff and started afresh as a barbarian, huzzah!) then one would expect that the elven normal curve would centre over a far higher power mean than most other races - a natural consequence of living many times as long. Dwarves may be an exception as they have long lives, but constantly wage war against orogs, are industrious aiming to produce items only of the finest quality (i.e. have frequent challenges) etc, etc.

I can see goblins for example having a far more aggressive and challenging society leading to a rapid increase in skills over a short time (i.e. the average 30 year old goblin would be expected to be a higher level in D&D terms than the average 30 year old elf). Similarly humans would initially advance more swiftly on average before with the average elf 'catching up' and then surpassing the average human in time (quite possible long after the average human died of old age).

Unless elves have major learning / forgetfulness issues (which would impact PC advancement severely) I can't see a strong argument against common elves routinely having 4-7 levels of so in D&D terms (after that challenge ratings to give xp are few and far between and the system automatically slows advancement). This would have little if any impact on the game - characters as noted by Kenneth are exceptional and face far more challenges than less rambunctious compatriots therefore advancing far more quickly than the norm, although an elven campaign would be likely to have far more people 'not to mess with' than a human campaign where human challenges rapidly reduce in scope (at least in gross physical terms). The level disparity would also force elven PC's to think 'outside the box' in human terms if they wanted to make an impression on their peers - which could be used to spur a mixed race party which would otherwise be quite difficult in BR.

Rulership failings in the human wars
I wonder if one reason that earlier elven realms endured under a single ruler for thousands of years is simply because that ruler, in practice, did very little. Scattered tribes of goblins can be fought by scattered groups of elves without any real need for central organisation - the elf - king is then simply the ultimate arbitrar when disputes cannot be settled 'in-house'. This sort of very loose government has many strengths in terms of freedoms granted, but is very poor at forming mass central armies and the like that would have been needed to oppose the humans - or the wave of goblin, orog, etc migration caused by the human settlement.

The profound changes in government needed would likely have taken the elves a very long time to come to terms with - quite possibly centuries particularly given the strength of the individualism in the culture and rejection of command by a central authority typically seen as key to the elven psyche in BR.

[rugor]

To quickly add to the last part of your post Andrew, would be the value they placed on their own lives.

They may mot have been willing to sacrifice 10 elves to kill 200 humans, or they may have grown weary of taking such losses, and seeing the humans repopulate so quickly after almost being wiped out.

That would lead to them finding alternate means of fighting them, while they hid away in their most Ancient forests... like stirring Humanoids against them, or getting them to fight one another (Manslayer) and forgetting about the elves (for the most part).