Character Competency

The question being posed is this: At what, if any, point does a character become competent, either in a singular ability, or as a whole, in your RPG/Game/Setting.

A list, in order of competency:

 CoC: I have never played, but my impression is: The idea of the game is that your characters will never be wholly competent, they may become competent in a skill or two, or many, but they can never beat Cthulhu.

OSE: At 4th level I would say the characters become competent in their fields, at 7th they are competent as a whole and at 10th they are hyper-competent in their fields/niches.

5e: The characters start competent, become wholly competent by 5th level and hyper-competent past 9th level, effectively (and sometimes literally) becoming immortal by max level.

Lone Wolf Fists: Characters start competent in a few areas and progress exponentially from there, high-level play sees them fighting deities and the idea of reality itself.


But I'd like to go into more detail in the area I'm most familiar with, that being old school D&D.

Because the number are largely the same between: OD&D, B/X (and BECMI), AD&D (1e and 2e), OSE, OSRIC, ACKS, Basic Fantasy, Swords and Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, DCC, my home game and many other hacks and home-brews.  I would say that the following numbers should be equally applicable whichever is chosen.

So, I would list a competent fighter as one with a +4 bonus to hit, and at least +1 to damage.  I'll mostly be comparing fighters here, since it is a relatively simple class, and the area of competency is obvious.

This is not to say that fighters below this point are entirely incompetent,  though that would be the strict definition, but rather that they have not reached the point of competence. There is no good abbreviation.

OD&D: A bit unusual but C is reached at levels 4-5.

B/X/BECMI/OSE: C is reached at 4th level if other bonuses have been accrued, or at 7th level if none.

AD&D (1e, 2e): Different steps of calculation between the two, but C is reached at 5th level.

ACKS: C is reached at 7th level.

Home Game: Its possible to reach it at 3rd level, but C is usually reached by levels 4-5, and no later than 7th at the worst.

In total, the character, at least of a fighter, becomes competent around 5th level, and it would be out of the question for this point to not be reached by 10th level in any of these systems.  As well, the home game seems to outpace the others.

Monsters

It would be pertinent, as well, to calculate when monsters become competent.

If we were to compare this to fighters, then the answer would obviously be at 4HD, however, I would propose a different point of calculation, that being:

The point at which a monster becomes a genuine threat to a commoner.

NOW, a "commoner" doesn't so much exist in AD&D, as it is rather a 0-level fighter for calculations.  This would put a commoner at 1d10 hp, +0 to hit, no damage bonus. Therefore, under these conditions, a monster would simply have to have more than a commoner in, I would say, two (or more) of these key areas.

This means that the generic definition for a competent monster would be any of: 

3HD, +0, +0 

2HD, +1, +0 / 2DH, +0, +1

1HD, +1, +1 / 1HD, +2, +0 / 1HD, +0, +2

1/2HD, +2, +1 / 1/2HD, +1, +2 / 1/2HD, +0, +3 / 1/2HD, +3, +0 

In AD&D, the Hobgoblin, with its AC of 5 (5 better than a commoner), fits the bill, assuming (as I do) that it has a +1 to hit.

In ACKS the numbers are relatively the same, with men having around 1 HD and no bonuses, and Hobgoblins having the same 1+1 HD and high AC.

In OSE normal humans have only 1/2 a HD, while hobgoblins have lower AC, though the ratio, as it were, still holds.

In my Home Game, I would say most normal humans would have 1HD, though Hobgoblins have 1+1HD, +2, +2, so very competent, though the minion rule mean that if it is a minion, it dies in one hit so: a hobgoblin minion is what I would put as a normally competent monster.  

A Question Arises

What happens when the monsters advance at a faster rate than the characters?

It simply means that the world is more dangerous as a whole. 

Be seeing you.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An unhinged review of Baptism of Fire

Image
 For quick reference: when it comes to setting material I would set Oriental adventures at a 5 and most modern shlock as 1. [1] BoF comes in at a 3 for setting material Is this an attack on the author? No.   A ridiculous idea to any sane man, I know, but this will be important later. In point of fact, I happen to like it.   The overall quality I would put at a 5, with the layout being a 4.   In Specific When I read through setting material, I like to find those pieces which scream flavor. The introduction could have been half the length and gotten across the same information, this is due in part to the introduction being repeated, it appears in the first page of the actual book, and again in the introduction section, a minor annoyance.  In Character Creation 3d6 standard is respectable, but a piece of real interest, in the form of social class presents itself immediately afterward.  Though I like the system provided, I still found it lacking, at l...
Read more

There are only three gaming cultures

 Those who joined the hobby from playing board games, those who joined the hobby from playing video games and those who joined the hobby having played no games. Some establishing information Wargaming, as it existed before D&D (excluding Braunstein-like material) could be considered a subset of the board game hobby.  That is, from at least one key viewpoint: the players involved read the rules, and followed those rules.  As well, the boardgame hobby tends towards trying out new games, often every week (this from observation), and the wargaming hobby, again of the late 60s/early 70s seems, also from observation, to have been similar in this aspect as well. The thesis 1. Those who played the game at its inception were those individuals drawn from the war-game hobby. 2. Due to the advancing popularity of video games, at or around the 1990s and culminating during the 3rd edition of the game, those who joined the hobby came from the background of playing video games. 3....
Read more

The W40k Rant

 I don't like the lore, I don't like the gameplay, I don't like the company who makes it.  My seething fury towards this terrible game was started by three separate incidents, relating directly to the three issues above, but which do not encompass the whole of my distaste for this game.  The three events would be: A frankly off-putting lore video, the first and last I can remember attempting to watch, before being quickly deterred.  The fact that the official rules require actual physical miniatures, all of which are purposely and prohibitively expensive.  And finally, an event which occurred long before I was aware of it: that the company had copyrighted the term "space marine" a horribly generic term which they had the gall to claim.   Now, I do not know the current situation regarding the copyright, but the rest still stands. Furthermore The lore. The video which I found, this was years ago by now, and I believe I have thoroughly forgotten which cha...
Read more