Tuesday, May 18, 2010
The Specifics of Status
This may seem all very obvious to the gentle reader, but since I am about to outline just how some persons in the society are technically stronger than others, I feel I need to make myself clear. To me, a peasant being less than a king is no different than a goblin being less than an ogre. There is a social hierarchy, and each being has its place within.
before, so I will skip doing it here. Suffice to say that as you move down the list, the status increases, the relative rarity increases, hit points increase and so on. I should have created a line on this table between the attendant and the adherent - as this is the point dividing zero-level persons from leveled persons.
Please note that in no way is this list limited to humans, or indeed to any particular race or even hit die. It would be just as easy to calculate a night hag's stats on this table as anything else - assigning the hag according to what status the reader felt she held in the social system. Obviously the hag is leveled ... and would have to have a high intelligence. What is presented here is a gauge for determining the rarity of a night hag Queen vs. a night hag minion.
Also note that more than 99% of the population is NOT leveled. I have had reason to reconsider that occasionally ... but the reader must be careful in using the table where it comes to a given segment of the population. The table does not mean to give the suggestion that in a town of 29,000 persons, only 216 would be leveled. Members of a town would be the elite individuals of any given state - and it is presumed that a town (pop. 5,000 or more) would be surrounded by a great many manors and other centers of industry. Where a town might have 5,000 persons, the likelihood is that the surrounding environs would have another 25,000, so that within the town itself 1 in 25 persons might be levels (the remaining levels distributed about the hinterland). I know this is not D&D canon - the Monster Manual in particular seems to suggest that leveled persons, even persons above 6th level, are as common as hay - but I find this system works for my purposes.
Moving along. The hit points (HP) column I think is fairly clear, but I would point out that the hit points listed for peasant through exemplary are part of my hit points for mass system ... with comparatively sickly peasants having few, and healthier individuals having more. Attendants and better add hit points according to their skills (with leveled persons adding a lot more hit points), and so it is listed as 'variable.'
Now, the Roll Distribution column may not be clear. What this gives is the number of dice rolled to determine each ability stat. As I said yesterday, a peasant rolls 2d6 for their stats. A laborer does better in that one of their six stats is rolled using 3d6. The artisan gets two stats rolled with 3d6 and so on, to where the adherent, being leveled, gets a jump over the attendant and has all their stats rolled with 3d6.
The zealot, being somewhat better than a mere adherent, is shown here having 1 die roll for stats being 4d6; this would mean the standard practice of rolling four dice and discarding the lower die. The adventurer (which should not be confused with the player character) does better than the zealot in having two stats rolled with 4d6. And so on. Thus the player character fits into the system as being having the best average statistics in the world ... and this I find quite correct, as players are special.
For comparison, the reader can see how the Average Stats go up as status increases.
This is a fair bit of meat, so I'll leave off here - having answered Carl's question - before moving on.
Extra Credit: Consider how this above might be applied to these figures here.