reverancepavane | idyll thoughts on levels (Reply)

I admit that with this new set of rules I want a much more classic Hong Kong feel to the fighter, in that the personal fighting prowess of the character should also mirror the rank they have in the military. I also want to transfer the idea that "odd" levels are important.

This has lead to me thinking that a company of 100 men (roughly half the size of historic companies) should have a captain (5th level) in charge, with 3 lieutenants/ensigns (3rd level) and sergeants (1st level) each commanding a 30 man troop/platoon (this can be divided into a 10 man patrol/section under the command of either a sergeant or lieutenant).

The next step is regiment. Do I continue the half-strength analogy and consider a regiment to be 3 companies, or take a more historic 6? [Remember, at this level numbers get a lot more rubbery and nation specific.] If I take 6 then a colonel (in charge of a regiment) would be 9th level on average. At 3 companies to a regiment a colonel would be 7th level. Regardless, a major should be midway between a captain and a colonel.

A brigade would be 2 regiments (brigadier: 10th/8th), a division would be 3 regiments (major general: 11th/9th), and an army 6 regiments (13th/11th).

Now if I mix and match it to the nobility that I want (somewhat matched to the ACKS system), then we get Emperor (14th), King (13th), Prince [Grand Duke/Arch Duke] (12th), Duke (11th), Marquis/Earl (10th), Count (9th), Baron (7th) [using the continental rather than English definitions], and Lord (5th), which ties in nicely. So then the question becomes whether a county be able to raise one or two regiments? I think one, making a count the power-equivalent of a colonel. Or a provincial governor.

There is the ancillary question as to whether a general should be the equivalent of a king (in which case a king should definitely be afraid of a successful general - plenty of material implicit in that), or one step below. I think 6 regiments make an army, which makes the general equivalent to a king.

Now the interesting thing with this construct is the fact that we have made the lord equivalent of a captain (5th level) in a more feudal system, although I doubt the ability of a lord to raise a company off his own back - this is a rank equivalency, not an economic equivalency). But the nice thing is that it means a 5th level fighter is expected to be the lord of the manor or the captain of troops, which is much earlier than the 9th level most other forms of D&D assume. Admittedly a 5th level fighter might have a manor house rather than a great stronghold, but it definitely works for me to give them access to this level of general politics so early.

Similar constructs for other classes seem to work as well. For example the leader of a circle is generally a 5th level mage; the leader of a shrine is a 5th level priest; etc.

[I view adventurers as individuals that have left the conventional hierarchy, much like the troubleshooters in Paranoia, but who can slip back into it when the adventure is over. If they survive. Normal characters advance via appropriate action under Heaven (or some such).]