Law, Chaos, the UK, America, Teutonic Knights, Orcs, and Just What the Heck is Going On With 9th Level Fighters?!

  This one is going to be weird, folks, so strap in.

  The sons and I were talking about gaming (like we do every day) and about some of our other shared passions; history, the Church, and books. We were also talking about my main campaign and how I was always surprised that the handful of guys that made it to 9th level did not get 'all fortressy' but rather angled to take over existing positions within the game

  What I mean is the few characters to hit name level who could then establish a demense all finagled with NPC rulers to take over existing fiefdoms rather than build from scratch.

  Which is, naturally, fine. My oldest speculated that he, himself, might never build beyond the border because there were so many interesting places on the map already; Dwarf Hill, Wyvern Keep, Skull Mountain, the Vanishing Manor, the Tower of the Air, etc. But then we began speculating;

  Why is the assumption that everyone from warriors to priests to mages will strike out into deep wilderness and hack out a corner for themselves?

  I mean, think about it; that is a tremendous amount of expense and risk. Why not do what people in my campaign did and just - get a promotion and retire rather than contend with plague, famine, and orc hordes?
  And why, oh why, would people flock to follow you if, and only if, you did that hugely risky thing?! And not just guys with levels! 0-level men, their wives, their kids! Pilgrims might come and just - settle. I mean, what is going on?

  For a while we speculated that the default D&D world is a lot like the America of the past - vast, largely unexplored, and daring people struck out to make their way.

  [We had the discussion Sunday, I started writing this Monday, and I saw this in my google+ feed Tuesday. Small world!]

  That might be part of it, sure, especially how followers appear and why random encounters sometimes stick around. But does the 'untouched wilderness' really apply to something so Dying Earth as D&D? As the great blog The Hill Cantons points out, based on the wilderness encounter charts the typical AD&D world is littered with ruins of past fortresses, cities, etc. all thrown down to ruin by war or time. And in a manner very similar to North America, D&D wilderness isn't 'untouched', it is full of intelligent being. Berzerkers, cavemen, orcs, hobgoblins, nomads, goblins, kobolds, etc., etc., etc. Heck, you leave patrolled demi-human areas and the 'wilds' are crawling with intelligent creatures. Sure, they're malevolent, but still!
  Plus the AD&D world isn't modeled after 2015 North America or even 1975 Europe, is it? No, the 'place in time' of the real world that seems closest to the default assumptions of AD&D is somewhere between 770 AD and 820 AD; yes, yes, this is speculation, but I can talk about that in another post. Sure,  there are anachronisms for that but that is my guess.
  Now,  modern Europe looks like this;

In 800 Europe looked like this;

Look at the differences! As I point out in my second most popular post ever, in the year 1000 AD the place that is now the Berlin Metropolitan Area, the 6th largest city in Europe, was uninhabited, howling wilderness. 780 AD is 400 years before the first Germans settled on the banks of the Spree!
  In other words, at the time that seems most like AD&D's assumed setting in history Europe was cheek-by-jowl with howling wilderness and hostile forces.
  This means that in the context of the setting and place well behind the curtain of AD&D (Charlemagne's Europe as described in the Matter of France) Europe looked a lot more like 1870's America than most people realize (Although Andy Bartlett did explicitly mention this in the article I linked above). In both places the average person who wanted a better life and who had the courage and resources (or just a lot of courage!) could, and did, set out into the wilderness and start a new life, Heck, that's where little towns like Leipzig and Berlin came from!

  There is also the very mildly controversial topic of the Northern Crusades. In a very high level gloss not meant to dive into the complex, nuanced issues associated with the Northern Crusades, but only to illustrate how it relates to the point at hand over a century of mutual conflict between pagan peoples in North/Northeastern Europe with the Catholic nations to their West and Orthodox nations of their East, where peaceful missionary and diplomatic activity failed, led to a call for a Crusade and a subdual of the pagans by force in the belief that decisive victory would cause the interminable wars to end.
  What followed was some pretty serious and organized expansion and battles from the West. Part of this was having some of the toughest fighters from the West build fortresses in the pagan areas, establish domains, and maintain the peace.
  Sound familiar?
  Heck, sometimes when there were no opportunities to set up in established areas tough, popular leaders would travel even beyond the pagan lands, set of a stronghold, 'subdue the wilderness', and attract people who wanted a better life who could count on the protection of this leader from bandits, etc.
  That had better sound familiar!
  So there is, interesting enough, at least one historical period where something vaguely like Name-level characters starting the 'domain game' did occur, which is pretty cool.

  But I think there is a bit more meta going on, here. In Three Hearts and Three Lions (as well as other books, like Operation Chaos) the author speaks of Law and Chaos as being opposed to each other in a sort of ongoing struggle. But this concept of Anderson's (that seems to have also influenced Dickson in The Dragon and the George) is a lot more complex and nuanced than the shallow, never actually quantified, Law vs. Chaos of Moorcock. Anderson's Law and Chaos (as well as Dickson's  Chance and History) are very much about Virtue/Civilization/Good (Law/History) against Amorality/Wilderness/Evil (Chaos/Chance).
  This was explicitly stated in Three Hearts and Three Lions;

"Holger got the idea that a perpetual struggle went on between primeval forces of Law and Chaos. No, not forces exactly. Modes of existence? A terrestrial reflection of the spiritual conflict between heaven and hell? In any case, humans were the chief agents on earth of Law, though most of them were so only unconsciously and some, witches and warlocks and evildoers, had sold out to Chaos."

  It is also essentially stated that the Church is Law while Chaos is a tool of the Devil. The faerie and their uncaring capriciousness? Chaos, because they could not be trusted.

Despite the desire of contemporary people to think of the faerie/sidhe as fun-loving hippies in folklore they're are much, much more like the Weeping Angels - inhuman, utterly other creatures that if you were lucky will only cast you decades through time away from all you know and love.

  This sort of 'axis' is pretty clear in OD&D where you are Lawful (good) or Chaotic (bad) and it was very much a fantastical experience of fey vs. man.

  But it is more complex and such in AD&D with both the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil axis and the Neutral section. But the core concept remains valid: when a party goes into the (wild, uncivilized) dungeon and destroys monsters the PCs are championing civilization against it's opposite, wildness; when a Lord goes into the wilderness, builds a stronghold, attracts followers, etc. he is championing civilization versus wildness, just on a different level.
  And no, I am avoiding the term 'barbarism' for a reason; woad-painted warriors, nomadic tribesman, etc., can be forces for Law or Chaos, it depends upon if they build or destroy, if they are trustworthy or capricious as a people.

  In my post on how I handle religion in my campaign I mention that the big divide between demi-humans and humanoids is if they are (in general) within the Church or outside of it. But the difference is also 'do those races build civilizations or destroy them?'. Sure, hobgoblins, orcs, etc. are organized, they have skills, etc. But they are wreckers, not creators. In my world they have no cities, they live in what they capture from demi-humans and humans; they have no trade, only plunder; they have slaves who often are worked to death; they have at best war chants but no music, enough writing to issue orders but no literature; etc. Where they go they push back civilization, scrubbing away cities and towns, fences and fields, and leaving behind only brambles, thickets, end desolate ruins.

  So a fighter, wizard, or cleric going into the wilds, building a strong place, attracting followers, and all the rest is, in a very real way, pushing back darkness, ignorance, savagery, and evil. Where there were brambles and thickets he puts fields and orchards; where there was a bare hill he puts a cozy home; where there was darkness there are the lights of a village; where there was isolation and fear he puts friendship and hope.
  No wonder those who want a better life follow.

  So why do 9th level fighters spend all that money and take all that risk? Because they are fighting evil an a new, more important, way.

Play Report and Important Points on Designing Low-Level Encounters

  I met my lovely wife in August of 1990 just before I left for the Gulf War. The very first thing we did for fun was play the old WEG Star Wars RPG. I thought she was a long-time veteran of RPGs. it was actually her first RPG session, she had just memorized everything about the Star Wars universe.
  A match made in heaven.
  In the 24+ years since she was played all sorts of games, cutting her teeth and learning how to play from some of the best GMs on the planet. Over the years she's made some truly memorable characters, like:
  - The Mysterious Amazon, a barbarian mistress of the spear who was one of the deadliest fighters in Lew Pulsipher's campaign world.
  - Lady the Abbess Gabrielle, a paladin who dual-classed into cleric and went on to name-level.
  - Stardust, the very best thief in my Blackstone campaign.

  She has a strong preference for fantasy RPGs with AD&D 2e S&P being her flat-out, must have a campaign running, favorite. She prefers to play front-line fighters with cleric/paladin a close second and loathes playing mages.
  And she has never, ever, not once, ever dungeon mastered a single game.

  Until yesterday!

  After a few weeks of prep (it is the Christmas season, so she's busy) she ran a simple encounter to get her feet set.

  To prep the Wife used the 1st level dungeon random encounter tables and followed the random rolls to arm, equip, etc. the villains. She stated very clearly that this was a 'practice round' [i.e., no permanent death, no treasure, no experience].

  She asked that we play only the Big Four (fighter, cleric, magic-user, thief) with no specialization, custom classes, multiclasses, etc.

  The Players and characters:
  Me: Thrain Ironhand, 1st level dwarven fighter with an 18/91 strength and 13 hit points. Bardiche, heavy crossbow, splint mail for protection.
  Ja., the oldest son: Justinian the Great, 1st level human magic-user with Charm Person. A dagger and happy thoughts for protection.
  A., the second oldest son: Legas, 1st level half-elven thief with really good pick pockets. Short sword and a bajillion daggers with leather armor.
  S., the third son: Otto, a 1st level halfling thief who is as silent and stealthy as a shadow. Dagger, club, and leather armor.
  N., the fourth son: Bill, 1st level human cleric with a fiery faith. Heavy mace, warhammer, chain and shield.

  The setup was simple; we are old friends on our way to visit a remote abbey when we learn that a small hamlet had been raided and all the chickens had been stolen. We followed a trail of heavy bootprints and feathers to a small, remote cabin. The thieves crept up to see what was going on as all else hid nearby. The cabin had a single door in front, two heavily shuttered windows in back and two open windows in front. The thieves heard indistinct noises and smelled fried chicken. Otto decided to check the back windows, where he heard Ominous Chanting. Legas decided to look in one of the open windows in front-
  and looked right into the eyes of one of the three hobgoblins eating friend chicken around a table.
  No one was surprised so Legas dove into the room through the window, trying to keep the hobgoblins from blocking the door. Thrain, seeing, this, charged up and smashed open the door.
  Battle began.
  In the first round the hobgoblins (with broad sword, spear, and long sword) all missed Legas and Thrain missed. Justinian held his fire, watching the door to to back of the cabin. Otto tried to stealthily open a back window and failed. Bill stood by to step into melee as soon as Thrain could press in.

  In the second round Thrain slew the broad sword wielder in a single blow and stepped up to engage the spearman. Legas missed and was cut down by the long sword wielder, alive but bleeding out with -1 H.P. Bill rushed in and engaged the long sword user. Otto failed to stealthily open the other shutter.

  In third round Otto smashed open a shutter and saw a human cleric sacrificing a chicken at an altar to Maglubiyet as a hobgoblin with a spear rushed him. Otto threw his club at the cleric, hitting for minimum damage but disrupting the ritual. Otto promptly fled for the front.
  Thrain wounded the spearman, the longsword user wounded Bill, and Bill missed. Justinian threw his dagger at the long sword user and missed.

  Fourth round! Thrain missed. The spearman grazed Thrain. Bill missed. Otto arrived. The longsword wielder hit Bill.
  Bill goes down, slumping over the body of Legas.
  At this point Legas is at   -3 H.P. and Bill is at -2 H.P., also bleeding out.
  Otto steps up to fight the long sword user as Justinian scrambles to retrieve his only dagger from the corner.

  Fifth round. The long sword wielder cuts down Otto, who falls next to Bill and Legas at -2 H.P.
  Its looking like a TPK at this point.
  Justinian flees out the front door as Thrain cuts down the spearman.

  Sixth round. Thrain misses. The long sword wielder hits, bringing Thrain down to 5 H.P.
  Legas is bleeding out at -5 H.P., Bill is bleeding out at -4 H.P., Otto is bleeding out at -3 H.P. The magic-user is ready to sprint away, the long sword wielder is fresh as a daisy, and there are reserves behind the door.

  Seventh round. Thrain hits and kills the long sword wielder. The jerk. Justinian prepares his spell.

  Eighth round. Thrain smashes open the door to the back room where the cleric has just finished strapping on his plate mail. Justinian hits the cleric with Charm Person and the foe blows his save. The last hobgoblin, seeing the devastation and that his master has gone all wobbly-headed, dives out a back window and flees.

  The Wife rules that the charmed cleric saves the lives of the downed members of the party and we wrap up.

  All in all it was a great first session. Varied enemies with different H.P., different weapons, etc. We all loved playing the session even when it was grimmest.

  Notes from the DM on her first session

  1) The storytelling was easy and fun for her, but the mechanics was more involved than she expected.
  2) She realized how important reacting to the actions of the players is and that too much prep might result in trying to force the players down the "right" path.
  3) It is shockingly easy to wipe out a party.

  Notes on Making Low-Level Encounters

  In the post-game discussion I went over my own insights and the things I have been taught by other GMs about low-level encounters:
  1) The thing most likely to kill a low level party is the armor class of the enemy. Hobgoblins are A.C. 5 so the mage needed a 17 to hit them - that's one hit out of 5 attempts. Even Thrain, a dwarf with a  total of +3 to hit (strength and racial bonus) needed a 12, hitting only 45% of the time. Even though 2 of the hobgoblins in the main combat only had 2 H.P. and the 'tough' one only had 6 they were so tough for 1st level n00bs to hit they almost wiped out the party.
  2) The thing second most likely to kill a low level party is the number of attacks facing the party each round. Low level parties have the terrible combination of poor armor classes and low hit points. Each extra attack per round increases the odds that a character goes down that round.
  3) Low Hit Die Monsters are, one-on-one, tougher than low-level characters. A hobgoblin has 1+1 HD for an average of 5.5 H.P. Only as tough as a first level fighter, right?
  Wrong. His to hit roll is the same as a 3rd level fighter. A hobgoblin is, in effect, a 2nd level fighter.
  4) The number of characters in the party != the number of combatants in the party. Yes, we all like to have something to do in battle. But this little skirmish was a perfect illustration of my oft-repeated maxims
    A- Fighters are physical offense.
    B- Magic-users are magical offense.
    C- Clerics are magical and physical defense.
    D- Thieves are scouting  and intelligence.
  These are all very, very true at low levels where players haven't had a chance to 'buffer' their roles with magic to add some flexibility. When the thieves got into front-line battle they died. While the cleric did his best to hold the line, he died. When preparing an encounter for low-level parties calculate 1 melee foe per fighter +1 melee foe per cleric +1 melee foe for everyone else.

  Example: With the party above I would have calculated 1 hobgoblin for Thrain, one for Bill, and Justinian, Otto, and Legas would be just a single additional foe, for a total of 3 hobgoblins.

  Trust me, this will be enough.
  For a tough challenge add a spell foe for each mage and a spell defender for each cleric.

  Same Example: Tossing in a witchdoctor adds spell offense and spell defense.

  These are really rough guidelines and YMMV.

  Have fun!

Dungeon Master Tips: Better Narration

  As much as we may dislike it at time, the fact is one of the most critical tasks/skills of the GM is narration.

nar·ra·tion nəˈrāSH(ə)n/ noun
noun: narration; plural noun: narrations
  the action or process of narrating a story.
      "the style of narration in the novel"   a commentary delivered to accompany a movie, broadcast, etc.
      "Moore's narration is often sarcastic"

  Narration sets up not just the parameters for things like combat and to assist the map maker, it sets the tone of the game. For example:

"The ten foot wide corridor goes 90' to another door. What do you do?"

  versus

"The passage here seems to be carved from the living rock of the mountain. Three of you can stand abreast and Jerczy's spear can only touch the arched ceiling with effort. There is a damp chill in the air, accompanied with the smells of wet stone and meat that rotted to slime years ago. You hear your own breathing, the faint drip of water into water from someplace... distant, and the occasional click or scrape as someone in the party shifts their weight.
  "Your torches struggle to light the passage, ultimately failing ahead of you. There is a faint gleam from beyond the torchlight, perhaps of more wet granite."

  Juuuuuust a little different.
  Now, just like sometimes its more fun to say 'you arrive at the dungeon' rather than role play 6 weeks of travel horseback, sometime when the mood is high on its own description #1 is the way to go. Heck, when the party is fleeing from a hoary terror unleashed from its ancient slumber description #1, delivered breathlessly, my be the best choice!
  But especially early one description #2 is 'better' and a great tool for creating an emotional tenor inside the party.
  "Gee, Rick,: I hear you say, "Tell us something we don't know! Its not like you're the first guy to bring this up!"
  Bear with me!

  Years ago when I was in my early teens my Dad got a present from one of my aunts - several of the old radio serials of The Shadow on cassette. My dad (who is older and a WWII vet) had loved those shows when he was a kid and they were new and pretty soon the whole family was listening to them after dinner every Sunday night. My Seaward campaign was already 6 years old and soon my players were mentioning that my descriptions were better.
  I realized - of course!
  The old radio shows relied solely upon narrative description to set the scene and some of the best writers in the world were working to make these descriptions clear, powerful, evocative - and brief! The thrillers and supernatural shows are essentially training courses in better DM narration.

  I listen to Old Time Radio on Sirius/XM satellite radio 5+ days a week. Many of these shows can be found on the Internet Archive, too. Here are a few:

  Some episodes of The Shadow

  The science fiction show X Minus One

  The horror/thriller/sometime supernatural show Suspense

  And don't think this is just for the DM! I think players can learn a great deal from
  Sherlock Holmes
  If you want a real treat you can find an episode of Sherlock Holmes where Holmes is portrayed by Sir John Gielgud, Watson by Sir Ralph Richardson, and Moriarty by Orson Welles here!

  I hope you enjoy!

When the Wise Man Points at the Moon the Fool Looks at the Wise Man's Finger

  [Sorry for the light writing, but October is a busy month around my house with 3 birthdays in 2 weeks.]
  Over the weekend I was talking with my sons about gaming (ok, ok - that can describe every day) when the oldest, J., and I had this exchange:
  J: "Didn't some of the high-level wizards in Greyhawk keep clones on their moon?"
  Me: "Yup"
  J: "How'd they get there?"
  Me: "How do you think?"
  J: "Well, maybe the air doesn't end between the surface and the moon, there. Or maybe they had something like an Apparatus of Kwalish that could fly."
  Me: "Think easier."
  J: .... "Hey! Teleport! Holy Moley - they can see the destination! It isn't even tough! And if they have Teleport without Error it's a cakewalk! Wow! The implications are HUGE!"

  Yes. Yes, they are.
  Let's talk about Teleport and the implications, shall we?
  First, the AD&D 1e (and OSRIC) description of Teleport is pretty fun: It can't cross dimensional boundaries, but distance isn't a factor. That's pretty cool. Add in that the description says 'instantly' so there is no lag. It can be dangerous, though - if you aren't very familiar with where you are going you might end up rather dead. It is certainly meant mainly as a 'get out of jail free' card - in a tight spot you and your pals can get home. And if you are willing to accept some risk you could ambush the jeebers out of someone.

  But can you go to the moon?
  Well, on a clear night you can see the moon, right? Sure, it is far away, but distance means nothing to the spell. I might argue that your inability to see precise details at the incredible range means you'd max out at 'seen casually' until you actually got there, but that risk isn't that bad, and you could mitigate it a little. And once you got there you could certainly find some place, spend a few days there, and have a 'carefully studied' target location for future trips.
  So, yeah - it looks like any 9th+ level wizard with access to the Teleport spell has Faster Than Light space travel, at least to the moon. And if, like me, you have Teleport without Error in your campaign that means that 14th+ level wizards can do so with essentially no risk!

  "But Rick," you say, "The moon is an arid, airless rock! Who could live there?"
  Well, your moon(s) could be different. A little air, maybe a bit of water like a desert? Or perhaps it is another world; unique plants, animals, even its own humanoids and civilizations.
  Sounds like a lot of work, huh?
  But even if it is an arid, airless rock - that's awesome! Between Necklaces of Adaptation, Helms of Underwater Action, and spells a powerful mage is going to see vacuum as a feature, not a bug. After all, it makes his remote wizard's tower even harder to attack, right?
  Imagine it!  An archmage's tower jutting up from the rim of a lunar crater, the crater itself 'roofed over' with Walls of Force and filled with a massive garden and small forest. Other Walls of Force keeping air within the tower. Occasionally servants of the archmage venture out in an Apparatus of Kwalish to retrieve unique gemstones for their master's research.
  Then ages pass. The overgrown garden is withered and desiccated in the vacuum decades after the Walls of Force failed. The now-airless tower still looms over the lifeless moonscape as the archmage lich, unconcerned with breathing, watches over his sterile kingdom....

  That could be a ton of fun.
  Or perhaps the moon is a secret dock for spelljammers and powerful mages control the (rather exotic) trade with other spheres and treat any newcomer as competition or a smuggler?
  Or the moon is the headquarters for an illithid invasion. Or it is the forgotten birthplace of the elves and is still populated by a strange elven race with access to unique magic. Or there is air between the planet and the moon and the moon is the breeding ground and nesting place for the most powerful dragons - the only creatures powerful enough to fly that vast distance. The catch is only the youngest, weakest dragons remain on the planet, meaning that the youngest, weakest moon dragons are larger, smarter, and tougher than any great elder wyrm ever seen....

  No, I'm not done.
  Think of the planets!

  "Whoa, whoa, WHOA!" you say, "Rick, I might let a powerful mage Teleport to the moon with great risk, but planets?! They're just points of light in the sky! I wouldn't even allow a PC to Teleport as 'casually seen!"

  Yeah. I wouldn't either. Or I might let you and have you end up in deep space or the center of the planet.

  But!

  Let's say your mage has been to the moon. She thinks it is nice, but too crowded. Planets are interesting because they act unusually - what if they're like the moon, but further away? Your 15th level mage knows how hideously risky it would be to Teleport towards something so obscure, but she has an idea.

  Ever read the description of the spell Clairvoyance? I mean, really looked at it, especially since you read about jaunting to the moon? Guess what? In 1e, OSRIC, etc. it's like Teleport:
  No range, it just can't cross the planes.
  So if a curious and ambitious mage of sufficient power were to want to they could, over the course of weeks, easily cast Clairvoyance multiple times on a planet until they 'zoomed in' on the surface and could get a clear look at it. They could scan for a safe place to 'land', learn about any local plant or animal life, etc. long before they actually went there.
  Oh, and Crystal Balls work the same way, even with time limits.

  And I don't know about you, but if a 9th level magic-user had Clairvoyance active and attempted to Teleport to the scryed location, I would probably rule that to be 'studied carefully' and no risk at all for Teleport without Error.

  If I may engage in a little emotional display.
  ahem
  Sweet Baby John the Baptist! Do you know what this means?! This means every wizard that knows both Clairvoyance and Teleport is effectively a one-man space program with access to FTL travel!
  If you have Teleport without Error or similar in your campaign it means there isn't even that much risk involved!

  Let that sink in for a moment. Savor the possibilities. Here's a few off the top of my head:
  - Multi-genre adventures in any campaign.
  - Every intelligent race came from other planets
  - Evil space-thieves smuggling blaster rifles to the Hobgoblin King
  - Encounters with a group of people in strange clothes that ask to be 'beamed up' and then vanish in front of the players
  - The ability to hire mercenaries from another planet
  - Remaking Episode I in my 1e campaign with monks FROM SPACE, bards FROM SPACE, and a horde of zombies for the bad guys

  I mean, talking about what could be done with this would be a year of blog posts.

  So - what are YOU going to do with space-mages?

Lies, Mistakes, False Confidence and Your Campaign

  I hope you will forgive me if I get a bit wonky.
  Thanks in advance.
  Many years ago I spent an entire Summer studying demographics (some details here as to why a 10 year old would do that) and concluded that I would reject what was being written about by lepidopterists, science fiction writers, and others about overpopulation and, rather, agree with actual demographers, all of whom insisted overpopulation wasn't a problem then and wouldn't be for a long, long time. The doomsayers of overpopulation stated 1970 was far too late to prevent hundreds of millions of people from starving to death in the 1970's and that nothing could prevent famine from wiping out England by 1980.
  Turns out the demographers were correct and the popular voices were wrong.
  Now several major nations are grappling with rapid underpopulation and the contraction of world population should begin within my own lifetime.

  During Desert Shield I encountered a group of journalists, the leader of whom was very excited. Why? He  had a big scoop - he said he had caught the army lying. You see, the army had said the PATRIOT missile system was operating at more than 90% success but he had proof - proof! - that less than 1 in 4 launched missiles was even reaching the target; the rest were blown up in mid air remotely!
  I said,
   "Of course, that is how the system works, but it doesn't change the success rate."
  You see, when a potential target is spotted 1/2 of all available launchers fire an intercept missile. Why? Safety! There isn't enough time to launch one at a time, so you launch multiples in case the first or even more miss, and then remotely destroy any that aren't needed.
  I spent the next two hours fruitlessly trying to explain the critical difference between 'individual element accuracy' and 'system success rate'. He ignored me, broke his "scandal", and made headlines.
  To this day I know people who know the army lied about the success of the Patriots because of that journalist.

  This phenomena where someone who is incompetent at something but believes they are competent at it, even has a name - the Dunning-Kruger Effect. This state, in very simplified terms, that people who are unskilled in a certain task tend to honestly believe they are very skillful, even masters, of the task while people who are very skillful at the same task tend to rate themselves as mediocre.

  "Wait a minute, Rick," you say, "I've heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, sure. But I know/googled/looked up/etc. overpopulation and the Patriot missile system and, well, they are terrible examples because overpopulation is a huge issue/the Patriots don't work!"

  Actually, we're just getting to the point of this post, so thanks for chiming in.

  Because this post is about misinformation in your campaign.

  In my campaigns there are things everyone knows to be true that aren't and things everyone know to be false that aren't. And you might need to consult a sage to find this out.
  Here is an example from Seaward:
  Maury looked grim, "My divinations and research have explained the strange things that Sessy saw and heard; the new master of thieves is a rakshasa."
  "A rakshasa!", exclaimed Sessy, "this is foul news indeed."
  "What is a rock-shasta and if it bleeds, why do I care?" asked Eirik.
  "Rakshasa," corrected Maury, "a magical creature from a far land. Virtually immune to magic and proof against all but the mightiest enchanted weapons it cloaks itself in a nigh-perfect illusion of being a person or creature you trust and then destroys you when you are unwary. They are cunning and powerful."
  "But not invincible," added Brother Reynaud, "I recall hearing from another cleric that the merest scratch from a crossbow bolt that has been Blessed can slay them."
  "I had heard this rumor, as well, " agreed Maury, "and my research in the Imperial Library confirms it. We shall confront the evil with Eirik and his henchmen armed alike with a score of Blessed  bolts!"
  [2 weeks later]
  The series of ambushes and traps from the thieves had been bad enough, but the two doppleganger servants of the rakshasa had been even worse. The adventurers were all bleeding from various injuries and Sessy was on her way back to the surface with half the surviving henchmen guiding her; the poison-induced blindness should wear off in a few days.
  With surprising ease they made it to the Master's Room. The interior was well lit and empty except for a figure lounging on the gem-encrusted throne in in the far wall. The figure looked like a tall, powerfully-built man with the head of a tiger. The rakshasa put down his hookah pipe and smoothed his silk robe as he stood, revealing that his thumbs were on the 'wrong' sides and that his fingers curled backward, not inward.
  Brother Reynaud called out, "Prepare for your death, foul one! Your doom is here!"
  It took a moment for the adventurers to realize the rumbling growl was a chuckle.
  "Fools," growled the creature, "my minions and traps have done naught but prove you cannot harm me."
  The rakshasa strode toward them, it whiskers twitching.
  "Fire, men, fire!" called Eirik as his 3 surviving henchman joined him in launching crossbow bolts. Two struck true with Eirik's own quivering in the beast's throat. Soundlessly the rakshasa slipped to the ground. 
  Eirik leapt forward with a shout of triumph. But as he prepared to collect the thing's head it leapt up, snarling. After a swift exchange of blows Eirik drew back, bleeding from half a dozen new wounds. The rakshasa paused to pluck the bolts from its hide, the wounds sealing up instantly. He briefly sniffed one of the bolts before tossing it aside.
  "Run," hissed Eirik, "run for the surface. If I live I will rejoin you."

  As players in my Seaward game now know, very well, rakshasa are not harmed by crossbow bolts that have been Blessed. Crossbow bolts that have been Consecrated, however, are instant death to the horrible creatures.

  Yes, my players were horrified. Yes, at least one was indignant ('but the Monster Manual says!'). But why not? After all, plenty if people think that 15th century Europeans thought the world was flat. They didn't. Indeed, the main opposition to Columbus was because the majority of scholars agreed on  the circumference of the earth and expected him to run out of supplies before he reached land. Columbus was wrong about the Earth's circumference (the scholars were really close, actually), there was just a landmass or two that were not as well known in the way. But not only is this belief ['15th Century Europeans thought the world was flat'] common it can be found in school textbooks and even books in college reference libraries.

  So add some facts to your campaign and make some of them fun, interesting, and true ['adding a drop of red dragon blood to the components of a Fireball makes it hotter' and give a +1 per die if they do this; 'the ichor of a slithering tracker makes you immune to a gelatinous cube's paralysis for an hour', etc.] make some of them them fun and false ['adding a drop of blue dragon blood to the components of a Lightning Bolt makes it more powerful' when it doesn't; 'if you tie the death shroud of a murderer across your face as a mask ghast stink doesn't affect you' but this doesn't work, etc.]. Also have things that 'everyone knows' be false [like the rakshasa] and that everyone disbelieves be true [for example, only superstitious peasants nail brass keys to the lintel of their door frames with a single iron nail - educated and sophisticated people sneer at this superstition.
  But what if it does prevent intelligent undead from entering the home? Maybe it only works for actual family homes with a relatively small total square footage, or an average value or less, or some other limitation that means it doesn't work on castles, or wizard's towers, or churches, or the town homes of rich merchants but it does work. That isn't going to break anything, skew the campaign, or help players with their lordly manors, but it might be an interesting plot point and, is handled right, can really mess with the players.
 
  You can do this with NPCs, too. Everyone, but everyone, knows that Kregar the Shining is the best swordsman in the West. He has been challenged on a number of occasions by renowned swordsmen but has always prevailed. People come from distant lands to train under him but he selects just one man every two or three years. These men go on to state with great pride they were trained by Kregar and laud his mastery far and wide.
  He is beloved in the city, too. He tips well, is generous to friends, gives freely to the poor, and has been known to help out young, down on their luck adventurers from time to time with cash and introductions. He is charming, friendly, and soft-spoken.
  In reality he is a 5th level fighter with a 16 Dexterity who is specialized in the broad sword and has a magical sword that means he always strikes first (although he has no idea it is magical). So he is pretty good, but not that good. However, he is truly convinced in his heart that he is the best swordsman in the world.
  In addition to the personality traits listed above he is also prone to 'humble-bragging' such as;
  'I hope you do not mind having dinner with me. If I am busy when the general comes perhaps he will stop pestering me to train the king's guard'
  'I grow so weary of famous swordsmen coming just to challenge me to a duel. It disrupts my training so much.'
  'Perhaps you will accept this as a gift? it was sent by a master swordsmith from a far land, but the humble blade I found years ago has been more than enough for me to win every duel.'
  etc.

  This can go the other way, too. Just think of Aragorn in LotR  - heir to the kingship of all Men of the West and dedicated to protecting the frontier from evil the locals called him 'Strider' and though he was a disreputable sort, going so far as to warn travelers not to associate with him.

  And remember, none of this has to be purposeful or malicious. These could all be no more than honest mistakes!

  But why do we do this? A few reasons.
  First, it cuts down on meta-gaming. Players that have memorized the books will have less of an 'advantage' in these situations.
  Second, it reflects Real Life at least a little. We all are subject to this sort of mistaken confidence and false knowledge, so why not your characters, too?
  Third, it makes your world unique. This is a simple way to differentiate your campaign world from anything else.
  Fourth, it makes in-character research and divinations more valuable. Access to good libraries, the casting of expensive divinations, and travel to distant sages suddenly are all worth it.
  And last, it adds to the sense of wonder that makes the game more fun.

 

OK, So Your Sword is Smart - but What Kind of Smart?

  I've been talking about intelligent swords for a the last week or so and I want to move on to a question that I don't think was ever addressed in the main books - where does a sword's intelligence and alignment come from and what is the nature of its intelligence?

  Since I like to be contrary, let's start with - what is the nature of the intelligence within a magical sword?

  Personally, I can think of four broad possibilities:

  First, it is a fully sentient intelligence from 'elsewhere'.

  Second, it is a semi-sentient or barely-sentient intelligence from 'elsewhere'.

  Third, it is a non-sentient intelligence from 'elsewhere'.

  Fourth, it isn't a true intelligence at all, but a 'trick of magic'.

  What I mean by 'a fully sentient intelligence from elsewhere' is - the creator of the weapon places the intelligence of a creature into the blade. This could be, oh, the soul of a person, angel, or devil as appropriate to the alignment of the blade.

  Archbishop Clemenza prayed over the elderly figure in the bed. Once a bold, dashing young man of fearsome strength and fulsome heart Sir Jerrod the paladin was greatly diminished by age. The aging paladin had come to the archbishop a year prior, begging the prelate for the chance to continue to serve the Church and fight evil. After prayer and a Commune spell the archbishop had begun preparing a sword. Now he stood ready - by his own desires Sir Jerrod's soul would go on to its reward but a small part of his mind and personality would stay on this plane within a new holy sword, spending decades more fighting evil....

  Zazzur the Red always felt most at peace surrounded by his own legions of the undead, but even the dread necromancer needed assistance other than that of zombies. He had spent weeks sacrificing prisoners to the fiends he served until the price had been paid. Now, as they last strokes of the hammer fell upon the fel sword being forged at his own command Zazzur summoned an imp. The tiny devil appeared, grinning, within the circle. Soon it would fulfill the dark pact by entering into the sword and giving the weapon a malevolent intelligence. Zazzur's captain of guards would be even more formidable than before, and more compliant to Zazzur's will....
  These weapons would be intelligent in a very real way; they could hold a conversation, provide (alignment and intelligence appropriate) advice, perhaps even recall periods of history or locations they had lived through.

  When I talk of semi-, barely-, and not-intelligent from elsewhere I am talking about, oh, minor elemental spirits, lesser demons, devils, and angels akin to larvae, and the types of spirits that animate golems. 

  Grandmastersmith Beornthein continued to chant the prayer of joy in Old Dwarvish as the sword blade turned straw yellow along the back, cherry red on the edge. He felt the movement of the minor spirit from the living rock up through the anvil and into the blade. He switched tot he prayer of thanksgiving as he allowed the blade to cool and continued the prayer an hour later as he picked it up to hone the edge for the first time. As he grasped the tang he felt the whisper in his mind; the earth spirit, now a part of the sword, knew its duties and was ready to serve.
  Unlike the earlier mentions, these swords would be truly intelligent, more more akin to a very bright animal; they will understand their duties, even enjoy them; they will feel some emotions, etc. But their conversation will be limited to their tasks (and may be just 'feelings' communicated to their wielder) and they will have no real advice, history, etc. to share.
  The line between barely-sentient and non-sentient is going to be broad and hard to define but will probably be between speech/telepathy and just empathy.

  Finally, weapons that aren't truly intelligent at all but imitate it are going to exist.
  Alissa the Mage was done. The great debt she owed to the warrior was now paid in full with the blade she handed to him. It was as skillfully made as possible and enchanted as he wished. The warrior smiled with appreciation as he test the blade's balance. Holding is up he asked the sword itself,
  "Can you speak?"
  A faint voice, obviously from the blade but seemingly distant, answered in a flat tone devoid of emotion,
  "I can"
  "Who am I?" asked the warrior.
  "My master" responded the sword.
  Beaming, the warrior slipped the sword into its sheath and bowed to Alissa.
  The 'intelligence' of these weapons is much more akin to a computer program; a series of 'if, then' statements that have more to do with how a Magic Mouth delivers it message than with actual thought. These weapons are essentially incapable of a discussion, let alone advice or a personality.

  In my campaign all of these different types of intelligence are possible and exist. Typically the 'dumbest' intelligent swords are the third or fourth type of intelligence with the middle tier being second or third type and only the top blades (a 16 or 17 intelligence) being type one - but that can vary. A sword may have been more powerful and has declined with misuse, or it may grow from a simple type 4 into, over long years, a type 2 or even type 1 intelligence.

  Also, perhaps a sword with a 17 Intelligence and a Lawful Neutral alignment would 'play dumb' when wielded by a lawful Good or Lawful Evil owner. Sure, it is allowed, but the sword might not like it!

  And this leads us to personalities; a type one or two blade might very well have a developed personality and become, in a very real way, more like a hireling (or even henchman) than a tool or weapon. Think of the possibilities!

Next time - only swords?

How I Made NPCs Work For My Campaign

  In the previous week or so I have spoken about the the background guys with levels; not the guys you specifically place as a game master; not the followers of high-level characters; none of the important NPCs but the 'other NPCs'. I talked about my theories as to their frequency, level, impact on the military, impact on economics, and impact on magic in your campaign.

  I worked out a great deal of these numbers many years ago when I was trying to take my primary campaign to new levels of depth. All of the numbers seemed supported by what the PHB and DMG both said and implied. While obviously critical and impactful they still left all the heavy lifting up to me. It made perfectly good sense to me that the unsung, unspecified NPCs would be important without being critical.

  And I didn't like it. Let me explain why by describing what I like in my campaigns.

  I personally think AD&D starts to break down above, oh, 8th-10th level. You can absolutely play above those levels but the margin of error gets smaller - the difference between the party strolling through unchallenged and a TPK gets more and more narrow each level past 8th, in my opinion. Sure, you can switch over to politics and intrigue, but this can be done 'away from the table' and the table can be reserved for lower-level play. This is why I like jazz band adventuring; you can keep it mixed up.

  For these reasons I prefer game play to mainly be below 9th level.

  I also strive to make magic special; some spells are hard or impossible to find, permanent magic items are far from common, and high-level casters are a Big Deal. But low level players with no magic items and very limited spells feel, well, cheated or slighted. A +1 sword is a big treasure to a 2nd level party and making limits too low can make the players feel unappreciated. This seems like a great fit for the 'other NPC' numbers where potions and scrolls are going to be relatively common but a sharp drop-off in quantity as power goes up. By placing the NPCs capable of making big items myself I can fine tune these levels the way I like.

  Unfortunately, it negatively impacts my desire to have an active Good church as a unifying force that knits demi-humans together, especially humans, and help shield fragile humanity from the horrors from beyond the walls of reality that threaten them at every turn. After all, there are a ton of clerics and magic-users among gnomes, elves, etc. and humanoids likewise have a high number of shamans, witch-doctors, etc. I wanted a similar role in human kingdoms which meant that I needed a lot more clerics. 

  And while I want magic to be special I was struck by the idea that the vast majority of humanity would never encounter any kind of spell caster, especially arcane casters. Yes, I like and want 5th+ level magic-users to be impressive, but I also looked at European folktales that often depicted a minor wise woman or hedge wizard common enough that in an emergency a peasant could track one down.  So I needed a lot more magic-users, too.

  In other words, I wanted many more leveled NPCs without it increasing the amount of magic items in the campaign and without it making PCs less special.

  One of the first things I tried was to greatly increase the number of 1st level NPCs and then have them 'drop off' faster. While I had originally used the 'adjust for location' entry in the DMG to mean that leveled NPCs naturally congregated in the places PCs look for them and, thus, were actually only 1 in 1,000 what if I just take the initial entry at face value and have 1 in 100? Suddenly the number of leveled NPCs shot up tenfold to 7,800! If we use the assumption that 50% are 1st level, 25% 2nd, etc., this would mean over 650 1st level magic-users and about the same number of 1st level clerics.

  That would certainly give me the larger numbers of low level clerics and magic-users!

  Unfortunately, it also means that there will be about 50 clerics and magic-users capable of making scrolls and potions! There will also be more clerics that can Raise Dead, more wizards that can cast Fireball, etc. While I get the low-level numbers I want this solution really wipes out the PCs as special - they won't stand out as special until, oh, 13th-15th level. 

  It would also give me a population of about 2,500 1st level fighters. That is a huge difference and, if they are employed, begs the question of 'why isn't the entire standing army made up of only 3rd level fighters?'. You also end up with enough higher level spell casters to have an 8th or 9th level magic-user AND cleric in every large town and a caster capable of making permanent items in every city. The massive 8.2 million person empire would be guaranteed to have an archmage, a high priest, and a handful of guys of even higher level, meaning that the world would have plenty of people capable of casting Wish every day.

  When I first did that math I thought,

  'From the little I know, that looks like Forgotten Realms.'

  

  So what if we assume 50% are 1st level, 30% are 2nd, 15% are 3rd, and then the rest are spread out between 4th and 7th?

  The big problems (thousands of fighters, too many spell casters) remain even though the PCs certainly do stand out much faster! While avoiding the 'there are plenty of guys making magic items' problem it makes the 'why isn't the army just all 3rd level?' a bit worse, actually. And we haven't even spoken of things like, oh, 343 paladins

  What is to be done, if anything?

  What I eventually did was to create a 'third way' of getting what I wanted.

  

  What I did was - make some NPC-only classes. I certainly wasn't the first to do this but I don't personally know of anyone else who made NPC-only classes to solve these particular problems. 

  I approached the NPC classes from my needs and desires for the campaign. These included a desire to both increase the number of low-powered spell casters and avoid increasing the number of high-level spell casters, the number of magic-items/those who can make magic items, and all without reducing the impact of the PCs. 

  I also wanted to add in something between 'untrained peasant levy' and '1st level fighter'. I was always struck by the huge differences between 'some guy' and 'professional warrior' and the only thing in-between (mercenaries) look like 'some guy in armor'.

  Lastly, I wanted to represent bandits, brigands, thugs, rakes, etc. as (like with fighters) more than 'some guy in leather armor'.

  The NPC classes I made are;

  Men-at-Arms ( in-between 0-level peasants and 1st level fighters) - maximum of 12th level or so

  Religious Brothers or Sisters (the monks, nuns, parish priests, etc. that are religious without being clerics) - maximum level of 14th or so

  Hedge Wizards (the local spell casters who can cast a few small spells but might not even be literate)

  Scoundrels (tougher than a peasant, not as tough as a man-at-arms, often just dumb muscle)

  

  These classes have limited spell power, combat power, etc. so that while tougher than a peasant they do not compare with player character classes. 

  But what frequency should they have from the general population? And how would that affect the number of NPCs with levels in 'PC classes' like paladin?

  I figured this out by starting with one assumption and a particular goal.

  The assumption is that of all NPCs with NPC classes 40% would be men-at-arms, 30% religious brothers, 20% hedge wizards, and 10% scoundrels.

  The goal was to have enough religious brothers that about 80% of all villages would have a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd level religious brother as a parish priest. I wanted this to reflect a vaguely Southern France in the 1200's feel to the Church of the campaign.

  Since there are about 1,250 villages in Seaward that means I need about 1,000 religious brothers from 1st through 3rd level. Those would represent 87.5% of all religious brothers who, themselves, were 30% of all NPCs with NPC classes in the kingdom. Therefore, 1 in 200 NPCs will have NPC classes.

  Trust me.

  This means that there are;

  1,560 men-at-arms

  1,170 religious brothers

  780 hedge wizards

  390 scoundrels

  This gives us about 1,020-1,025 religious brothers of 1st, 2nd, or 3rd level, exactly my goal. 

  Now, men-at-arms are no competition with full-fledged fighters, but if you look at the numbers with the 'standard assumptions' that means there is a single 11th level man-at-arms in the kingdom.  What impact does this have? well, going through the entire 'let's roll x number of followers' is still perfectly valid, but what if, oh, 50% of these men-at-arms are the standing army? 700 or so 1st level men-at-arms with a few sergeants, lieutenants, etc., most of whom are also men-at-arms and then the rest can fill in all of those positions as bodyguards, caravan guards, etc. This can suddenly fill in a fair number of the gaps we had earlier. Now these roles aren't 'peasants with armor' without being 'a 1st level fighter watching a toll road'.

  Religious brothers are parish priests, deacons, religious monks, nuns, etc. and are not fighters nor even healers until higher level. They will be doing their jobs, tending to the spiritual and personal needs of the common man throughout the kingdom. Ever wonder why clerics aren't giving sermons, converting pagans, or holding Mass? Well, it isn't their role, that is what religious brothers do. Clerics are, instead, much more like the fighting monks they are meant to be.

  Hedge wizards are not the powerhouses of illusionists or magic-users, but they can make little trinkets and cast small spells. Even if the higher-level hedge wizards (and some low level ones!) all head to the towns and cities there are enough 'left over' to put one in about every other village, each making a living from small magic and good will, none ever able to cast Fireball or Conjure Elemental. 

  The scoundrels will be guarding illegal casinos, manning smuggler's boats, etc. relying upon their few meager hit points to earn a living.

  In short, despite their higher numbers their reduced power does not overshadow the PCS or make magic items more common. Heck, they even answer a fair few questions from earlier work. The NPC classes made the background of my campaign much more coherent.

  But what about NPCs with levels in PC classes? Do they 'go away'? Well, no - of course not. They just became much rarer. I used another assumption - NPCs with levels in PC classes should be at least 1/10th as common so I just made them 1 in every 2,500 NPCs. This gives us;

  NPCs with levels in PC classes (1st level)

  Fighters - 55

  Clerics - 27

  Magic-users - 26

  Thieves - 20

  Rangers - 7

  Paladins - 6

  Druids - 5

  Illusionists - 5

  Assassins - 4

  Monks - 3

  NPCs with levels in PC classes (5th)

  Fighters - 7

  Clerics - 4

  Magic-users - 3

  Thieves - 2

  Ranger - 1

  Paladin - 1

  An illusionist or an assassin or a monk

   The highest level NPC with PC classes you are going to see is going to be, oh, 9th level (and probably a fighter).

  If you compare these lists to the ones I did with the initial assumptions the differences are - interesting. Overall the impact is that low level parties are just a touch less unusual but PCs become distinctive and powerful at 4th and 5th level, not 7th+.  By introducing these four NPC-only classes I was able to create a campaign world where the average peasant knows someone who can cast (minor) spells - a local parish priest, or a hedge wizard - while powerful spells are more rare.

  If you look at the discussion of standing armies there are more fun surprises - the standing forces become marginally tougher at the level of the individual soldier (and make human armies more on-par with humanoid forces in general) while making name-level fighters more rare. 

  Lastly, as DM I still have total control over the level and location of any NPC capable of making magic items. With these simple guidelines I can easily expand my campaign with just a handful of tools and be confident that it will not impact the power level or feel of my world.

Economics of Having Levels

  This week I have been discussing NPCs with levels and army sizes. While fairly specific to a 1e campaign these ideas can fit anything from Chivalry & Sorcery to Traveller or novels if you squint hard enough. That said, my first love is fantasy RPGs so this is my focus here, too.
  So by running with a few assumptions made by looking at the DMG we see some interesting results in the details of NPCs with levels (linked above). For example, in a fantasy kingdom of three-quarters of a million people the highest level NPC wizard who isn't specifically placed by the DM should be no higher than about, oh, 7th level, 8th on the outside. That may seem low to many and it certainly is low, especially compared with, oh, Forgotten Realms!
  On the other hand the total number of magic-users and illusionists in that same kingdom is about 150! Sure, half of them are 1st level, but that is still a lot of spell casters. If you look at the numbers I crunched on armies (also linked above) it means that you might very well have more arcane spellcasters than you do heavy cavalry.
  We should assume that these arcane spellcasters are overwhelmingly in larger urban centers; the need for an education, access to esoteric ingredients, proximity to everything from libraries to bookbinders, and the fact that their training doesn't lend itself to tilling the soil may start the impetus, but the fact that most wealthy clients are also in cities and large towns probably cements the deal. I would personally assume that about 80% of all arcane spellcasters are in urban centers. The rest will be retainers to nobles or researchers, eccentrics, and villains off on their own.
  But what do they do? Less than 10 of these arcane spellcasters will be capable of casting a spell of 3rd level or above, so we can probably rule out 'wizards as weapons of war' as an income stream - it simply isn't an option for most of them. We read in the DMG that it is certainly possible to pay spellcasters to cast spells (but not in combat!) so that is probably what they do. So while a player character might be desperate to get a starting spell such as Magic Missile or Burning Hands an NPC is probably just as eager for Comprehend Languages or Magic Aura because the latter spells are money makers. Among those NPC arcane casters capable of 2nd level spells Illusionary Trap and Wizard's Lock are probably much better for building a non-adventuring career than Ray of Enfeeblement. After all, there are probably plenty of wealthy merchants willing to pay for the former and substantially fewer interested in paying for the latter.
  Magic-users are educated and literate; they may also earn a living as relatively prestigious scribes, tutors, and copyists. Roles as translators, researchers and even just (because of a relatively high intelligence) advisor may also be seen. These low level mages will almost certainly never be rich (which is probably what separates PCs from NPCs: ambition vs. risk avoidance ratios) but they have a good shot at a comfortable life as (essentially) a skilled artisan.

  If you noticed the level maximums assumed, above, none of these NPCs will be high enough level to craft permanent magic items and only a very few for them (1 to 4) will be able to make potions or scrolls. This means that unless you have a large number of existing magic items changing hands there is no place for a shop that buys and sells just magic items in such a kingdom - the volume of trade would simply be far too low to support such a business.
  On the other hand, the idea of merchants that cater to arcane spellcasters might very well make sense, especially in larger urban areas. This could range from a bookbinder who makes sure to have such things as blank codexes usable as spell books and rare inks on hand all the way up to a 'magical supply shop' that stocks blank standard and travelling spell books, arcane inks, rare feather quills, the most common spell components for low level spells, specialized equipment (such as portable writing desks and black candles), and even trinkets for familiars.

  On the other hand, the concentration of clerics in urban areas, while existing, will be much less extreme mainly because the role of the cleric is to be spiritual leaders of all people. Thus while the large basilicas and cathedrals of larger urban centers will have more clerics the majority will be in villages. Druids will probably be 100% rural! In the same fantasy kingdom mentioned throughout there will almost certainly be an 8th level cleric and their may be one as high as 10th level. There will be somewhere between 135 and 140 clerics (or about 1 cleric per 5,800 people). About a dozen of these clerics will be able to cast Cure Disease or Remove Curse and there may be one who can cast Raise Dead.
  Clerics have much less of a need for valuable components, inks, etc. than a magic-user and their other needs (ritual clothing, even a place to live) might be provided by their church, so their impact on the economy will not be as consumers. Instead, clerics will use their skills (literacy, influence) and charity to help the poor and downtrodden. While not as money-direct as arcane casters spending hundreds of gold pennies on ink or charging similar prices to cast Illusionary Trap on a rich merchant's payroll chest a dynamic cleric can reduce crime (via charity, leadership, and such) and invigorate the economy in the poorest quarters of a city by helping others focus on positive growth (those higher wisdom scores in action!) thus increasing tax revenue, decreasing expenses (less need for town watch and jails, etc.) and even reducing the need for those Illusionary Trap spells.

  [note: this might cause unscrupulous mages to oppose clerical charity].

  In this same vein, let's look at fighters, rangers, and paladins largely as a group. In the same fantasy kingdom there will be about 340 total leveled righters, paladins, and rangers (with over 80% being fighters), which is a pretty serious number. Why? Because if we accept the numbers for a standing army (from that article linked to waaaaay above) then the number of NPC fighter classes with levels is equal to about 1/2 the standing armies of the kingdom. So if there is a major war and there is a full levy at least a large fraction of these leveled NPCs will be available as combat troops.
  Look at it this way - assume that the standard formula for orcish forces is, oh,

  'for every 30 orcs there are 4 tougher orcs (meaner, tougher, etc.) and for every 120 orcs there is a leader of 2 HD' etc.'

  If were were to write up the army of this kingdom the same way it would read something like this,

'For every 14 members of the levy there is a veteran soldier (better trained, equipped, etc.) and for every 60 there is a 1st level fighter, ranger, or paladin. Additionally, there is an a fighter, paladin, or ranger of 2nd level or higher for every 120 levy troops. These are in addition to a core leadership of 8 5th to 7th level fighters.'   

  Huh. When you look at it that way the leader ratios, combat abilities, etc. of human armies are actually not too bad, are they?
 
  But all of these professional soldiers/adventurers aren't sitting around farming or doing calligraphy [note: no jokes about knees and arrows, please]. We should assume that they are earning their living fighting, guarding, patrolling, and exploring.
  Suddenly we know where at least some of those high-level patrol leaders come from!
  These soldiers are going to be spending money on armor, weapons, and horses. Heck, that many leveled NPC fighter types could keep 8 or 9 armorers employed full time! Toss in the standing army and noble troops and you realize soldiers alone could support about 30 armorers, 10 blacksmiths, 12 weapon smiths, 8 bowyer-fletchers, and 6 tailors full time. Add adventurers, distance between groups, DM allocated NPCs, and the desire to make a buck and there are probably no less than 100 skilled artisans employed in the creation and maintenance of the armor and weapons of the various soldiers in the kingdom. This will cascade into the need to provide these artisans themselves with everything from processed iron ingots to bird feathers.
  Paladins are a quiet bunch who aren't big consumers of luxury goods. Rangers are typically rural and also focus on their mission. Fighters, though, will be spending their pay. Leveled fighters are going to be paid more than the standing army.
  Since Gary tells us that 90% of these 'excess NPCs' are happy with their existing position. While these jobs probably range from being mercenary officers to bodyguards for the rich to caravan security and private watchmen let's assume that they are making roughly what they would make as a mercenary. That is about 124 sergeants, 92 lieutenants, and 9 captains [interestingly enough, there is no place in a band of mercenaries for a 4th level fighter. Are they all trapped in Decks of Many Things?]. Now, I know that PCs are expected to pay mercenaries in hard coin but these NPCs are almost certainly getting the majority of their pay in kind - room, board, clothing, maintenance, etc. This will probably be up to 90% of their compensation with just 10% of the value in actual pay.
  This means all of these NPC fighters will be spending "only" 2,000 g.p. a month on ale, gambling, ale, trinkets for pretty girls, ale, lucky charms, and ale.
  Hey, I was in the army myself. I know how pay is spent.
  So as we can see the NPC warriors are going to have a huge impact on the kingdom's economy being directly responsible for the livelihoods of hundreds of artisans, publicans, servants, and such. They are also a key security element for private individuals and the kingdom as a whole.

  There are about 100 thieves among the 'excess' NPCs' (I count these in addition to any thief followers or guild members, remember) with one of them 7th level and maybe one as high as 10th. While many of the 1st  and second level thieves are going to be 'freelance' (i.e., not in a guild) pickpockets, petty thieves, and such I personally assume a fair number are in those areas of thievery we don't see often performed by PCs - forgery, smuggling, con games, money laundering, and fencing stolen goods. Money launderers, forgers, and fences in particular can operate with a thieves guild without a) being in the guild or b) angering the guild. Smuggling happens 'in-between' where guilds control and con games are too varied to be more than a nuisance to organized crime/the guilds.
  These thieves are going to have an outsize impact on any economy; smugglers often make people happy (cheaper goods) and governments angry (lower tax revenues); forgers make documents suspect; money laundering really upsets governments; fences really upset merchants. The collective impact of all this non-violent crime (more patrols, more private guards, experts to check the veracity of documents, etc.) is going to add just a bit to the costs of everything - taxes are a hair higher to cover smuggling, etc. At least some of the ale I mentioned earlier will be bought by soldiers hired to deal with crime, etc.
  There are also about 20 assassins 'freelancing' in the kingdom. With their unique combination of skills they can be anywhere we see thieves or fighters and even some places we see magic-users; bodyguards, smugglers, mercenary lieutenants, even scribes and translators. With at least one 5th level assassin and a possibility of one as high as 10th level there is a surprisingly large amount of professional hit men lurking about. Their economic impact is going to mainly be from their 'day job' although the fees associated with assassination and spying will probably make them quietly rich (at least the successful ones).
  The needs of thieves and assassins is going to drive a gray market in things like special equipment (small boats for smugglers, jeweler's tools for forgers, fenced goods, etc.) and a black market (thief tools, poison, stolen goods, blackmail evidence, etc.). There will also be an entire community and communications system hidden within the world of these rogues that may be able to learn things about or get message to people and places no one else can - for a fee.

  As you can see, these NPCs 'floating around' in any campaign world are going to have a profound impact on the size and shape of the economy, as well as a host of other things.

  I look forward to you comments.

Just How Big is your Army?

 As modern people we have trouble thinking like medieval people. Whether it is about family size, how far is 'far', or other things, we think differently.

  Of course.

  Another thing we often get wrong is army size. We think of the vast, often conscripted armies of the Napoleonic era forward and assume 'army' = 'huge numbers'. Hollywood doesn't help! But how big was a medieval army? And why do RPG players care?

  Well, we care because it gives us an idea of what we can make our campaigns look like.

  

 Before we talk about armies we have to decide - what kind of army are we talking about?

  See, every nation tends to have two armies; a standing army and a war time army. The standing army is what is always there, the wartime is the maximum force you can bring to bear in an all-out war. Since you might not have your campaign in constant all-out war, let's start with a standing army.
  

  I can't remember which historian said it, but one said that in the early medieval period the 'standing army' and the 'government' were largely the same people; knights, barons, etc. ruled and fought or, more to the point, ruled because they fought. Indeed, the medieval three types of people were those who worked, those who prayed, and those who fought. These men and their retainers are the main force of any medieval kingdom.
  Historically the cornerstone of the feudal system was the fee (root of the term 'fief') defined as, roughly, 'the amount of land, peasants, etc. required to support themselves and provide at least enough excess to feed, equip, and support a knight and his personal retainers'. The most historically accurate way to figure out how large a standing army would probably be to figure out how much of the kingdom's area is settled land, divide it by the average size of a knight's fee, figure out a rough percentage of the which is already enfeoffed, and do the math.
  The trouble is historians have effectively thrown up their hands and declared no one will ever know the average size of a fee because there wasn't one. The variables are too high and the documentation too scattered and partial.
  Besides, its just a game, right?
  So, instead, let's look at the DMG and PHB.
  The average area of the holding of a high-level fighter is between 3,500 and 4,000 square miles (yes, really) or, well, Lebanon. Or 5 times the size of the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. I am assuming that the vast size of a 9th level fighter's holding is based on one simple fact - it is a wilderness holding and the character is much higher in rank than mere 'knight'. If the fiefdom was well inside a settled area we would need to assume it was much smaller.

  [note: the smallest fighter fiefdom, 314 sq. mi., is as big as Kiribati and the largest, 7,850 sq. mi., is as big as Israel. At this point my sons point out 'Well, sure; King David was at least 9th level'].

  So here are a ton of assumptions - a 9th level fighter has huge tracts of land but few citizens at first. He is beholden to another lord but has the space to give fiefdoms to several knights (and barons!), eventually - that makes him a duke. Thus, the followers of a fighter are about the same as the followers for a duke. Dukes each have their own vassals that have, aggregate, about the same number of troops as the duke. The king is, really, another duke so he gets more of the same. A Lord or Free City would be, oh, half that.
  Therefore, to determine the size of the standing army in a campaign kingdom do this:

  [(N+1)x2]+H = X

  where N = the number of duchies (or equivalents) in the kingdom, H is the number of lesser nobles, and X is the number of times you roll for followers and leaders in the DMG.
  If we do this for my campaign it looks like this:
  There are 2 duchies/equivalents, 2 lordships/equivalents, and the king, so the formula would be:

[(2+1)x2]+2= X, or 8 rolls for followers and leaders.

  Throwing some dice gives me a total of about 680 troops, 400 of which are heavy infantry, 4 5th level leaders, 3 6th level leaders, 1 7th level leader, and a 3rd level lieutenant.

  "OK, Rick, even if I accept all your wild guesses who are these troops and what do they do?"

  These are garrison troops, the guys who man the castles, towers, custom stations, border forts, etc. The king's guards, maybe even the marines on royal warships could come from these troops as well. Some of them are going to be mercenaries who are paid via the taxes collected, the rest will be professional soldiers paid via the same manner. So we can estimate that Seaward's standing army is 650 to 700 troops.
  These aren't city guards, though, because city guards don't typically leave the city while armies do! Besides, troops and guards would have very different armor, weapons, and training. These forces also don't come from the NPCs that are otherwise also part of the population.

  Now, in time of war the standing army is joined by levies. These troops are drawn from free men (peasants, yeomen, townmen, etc.) and are usually of lower quality in training and equipment than standing forces, but not always. In Real Life some area, especially Free Cities, had top-quality militias so their levies were solid, well-trained and excellently equipped troops!
  Rather than do a ton of math myself I want to point to this work by John Savage because he does the math for me.
  Bottom line - your levies will never be more than 7% of total population unless you want starvation for the next 1-3 years and even then that assumes near 100% turnout. Further, only about 1.5% - 2% of the population can be massed into an effective fighting unit at a given time and place. Applied to Seaward, this means in a 'real war' the kingdom could probably field about 10,000 levied troops BUT other levies would also free up the standing army so that they, too, could take to the field of battle. 700 is relatively small compared to 10,000 but the presence of professional soldiers with better gear and higher morale as well as the tough, experienced, and leveled leaders would make the levy troops much more effective in combat.

  We also need to talk about nobles. I forget who the writer was, but someone once said,

   'The "leaders of the army" and the "government" were the same people. Indeed, the government was in charge because they led the armies'.

  Remember the formula, above? Dukes, lords, even the king, are all either themselves skilled (probably leveled) fighters and such or such men exist as knights to fight for them. Traditionally each noble had 4-9 other cavalry with them in battle to fight in groups called 'conrois'; while a particular conroi might be all noblemen it wasn't uncommon to have common-born men who were well-trained cavalry accompany knights as personal assistants and to add to a conroi's strength. These commoners who were heavy cavalry had a fair amount of authority over non-noble troops and were often in charge of them.
   They were called 'sergeants'.
  Conrois also typically included a few squires and servants and their own focused supply train.
  Remember the formula I posted above? X also equals the number of conrois that can be called up to fight. In the case of Seaward, that is a total of 50 top-notch heavy cavalry with its own support and logistics. Again, 50 isn't much compared to 10,000 but the morale boost of leadership is large and the damage even a small number of noble cavalry can do to enemy formations should never be underestimated.

  There it is, a ton of assumptions which you can feel free to tinker with, blow off, etc. But it is also a set of guidelines to help you figure out how big your campaign army can be.

Peasants, Nobles, Mages, Normals, and Heroes - How Many NPCs have Levels?

  A discussion my sons and I were having recently was - in 1e how many NPCs have levels and what are they? We have always assumed that player characters are 'over and above' NPC numbers, but we were curious as to what those numbers are. I'll walk you through what we did to see if you agree.
  Please remember that my 1e campaign is a relatively low-level, low-magic world.
  Let's see if we can figure out the assumptions made by EGG.
  When you look at the DMG you see that the rules for henchmen talk about the numbers for leveled characters in "an active adventuring area" could be as high as 1 in 50 while is settled areas as low as 1 in 5,000! If we assume that those are the extremes we can guess that the total number is, oh, 1 in 1,000. This means that in a nation the size of the Kingdom of Seaward (my 1e campaign setting) my which has a population of about 780,000 there would be about 780 NPCs with levels.
  It also looks like there are twice as many 1st level characters as 2nd level and twice as many 2nd level as 3rd level, etc. Yes, thuis is just an impression. It also looks like (based on notes in the Hirelings section) that most NPCs are 3rd level or below (up to third level = enlisted or NCO, 4th level+ = officer).
  Since I am already waving my hands hard enough to flutter papers, let's assume 50% of all NPCs with levels are 1st level and each higher level is half as common.
  So, this means that my breakdown of those NPCs in Seaward would look roughly like this
1st level - 390 NPCS
2nd - 195
3rd - 92
4th - 46
5th - 23
6th - 12
7th - 6
8th - 3
9th - 2
10th - 1

  OK, while there are about 2,000 assumptions going on there, I can live with this. But what classes are they?
  Once again, the henchmen section gives us a hint. According to it we should expect the NPC population to be:
35.2% Fighters
17% Clerics
17% Magic-users
12.5% Thieves
4.4% Paladins
4.4% Rangers
3% Druids
3% Illusionists
2.5% Assassins
1% Monks

  Or to break down this list even further, the 1st level NPCs should look like this;
138 1st level Fighters
67 1st level Clerics
66 1st level Magic-users
50 1st level Thieves
17 1st level Paladins
17 1st level Rangers
12 1st level Druids
11 1st level Illusionists
10 1st level Assassins
3 1st level Monks
  [note: I rounded up a few]
 
  While this may look like a lot, this means that 1 in every 5,620 Seawardians is a 1st level fighter - that isn't shocking.

  Let's look at 5th level and look just at the 'big four' (fighter, cleric, magic-user. thief) at first to get a rough idea. The rough numbers are;
10 5th level Fighters
5 5th level Clerics
4 5th level Magic-users
3 5th level Thieves
1 'left over' by rounding [note that I rounded Clerics up and Magic-users down].

If we use the 'expanded' percentages, it looks like this;
8 5th level Fighters
3 5th level Clerics
3 5th level Magic-users
3 5th level Thieves
1 5th level Paladin
1 5th level Ranger
1 5th level Druid
1 5th level Illusionist
1 5th level Assassin
1 5th level Monk
  [by rounding up the 'marginal' classes we account for all 23 NPCs]

Well, that is interesting! Only 3 5th level magic-users in the Kingdom? Mentors might be hard to come by!

  For the rarefied heights of upper levels we concluded we'd just use the table for henchmen in the DMG and let the dice roll as they may.

  I really look forward to your comments about my 2,000 assumptions

  Now, when we were discussing this we came to 2 main points;
  1) this OBVIOUSLY can't include PCs!
  2) NPCs placed by the DM probably shouldn't count, either.

  Let's get back to assuming things from the DMG.
  The section on henchmen says that a fair number of even 1st level guys are either  not interested in the high risk life of adventuring or 'already in a situation they are satisfied with', i.e., a job that doesn't suck too hard. The percentage of those timid + happy leveled types out of the total appears to be as low as 50% in the oft-mentioned 'active adventuring area', as high as 98% in settled areas with it being about, oh, 90% as an average. So it looks like at any given time there are 13-14 1st level fighters that would be willing to become henchmen, if you can find them!
  Conversely, this also points to 125 1st level fighters having employment in the kingdom.

  Once long ago I was playing a 7th/7th Cleric/magic-user in Lew Pulsipher's campaign on an adventure and we rode into a town to ask questions. When my character introduced himself the headman swept off his hat, tugged his forelock, and treated my character with great deference, bordering on awe. When we were done I asked, out of character, what that was about. Lew's reply was simple and to the point,

  "Your character can cast out demons and shoot fireballs. Every peasant in 100 miles knows who he is and what he can do. Of course they treat him with respect!"

  Let's look at those NPC numbers again and think about how PCs fit into such a low-level, low-magic world. There are only somewhere between 3 and, oh, 8 NPCs who have enough levels in magic-user to know and cast Fireball. Based upon spell availability, the chances of a mage with average Intelligence to learn a particular spell (typically on 55% for an NPC), even one as sought-after as this, and it is obvious that other than PCs there are perhaps 2 or 3 people in the entire kingdom who can cast Fireball (not counting NPCs placed by the DM).
  That means your 5th level mage is probably mentioned in gossip; at 7th level he is spoken of (usually in hushed tones) in taverns, and at 9th maybe, depending, his name is used to frighten peasant children into behaving. Your 8th level cleric? The people will have certainly heard of the patriarch and he may face strangers approaching him for blessings and healing almost everywhere he travels.
  On the other hand, there are also about 32 paladins, plus or minus, with a 5th level paladin in the mix and another as high as 10th (although that is unlikely); depending on how such things are arranged in the campaign there may be an abbey for just paladins in the kingdom. There is also at least one fighter of 8th or higher level and 8 5th level fighters - while the 5th level mage in the party is known, the fighter may be more obscure. At 9th level, however, he could very well stand out as being so famous and successful as to be elevated to the nobility.

  There is a lot more to discuss on this topic, but I hope to get some feedback before I continue.

Misunderstood and Improperly Played - The Thief

  Not too long ago I ran into a discussion online about how lame and nerfed the thief is.
  'A terrible fighter with no real chance of doing anything at all. If you play him by the book he's dead. I am not sure why anyone would ever play a thief.'
  As you can guess from the title in this most recent entry in my series of rants, I disagree.
  I always like to start with my own admissions of not being a real purist. The thief is no different. I emulated all-around gaming legend and my mentor, Lew Pulsipher, in giving thieves a danger sense -  a percentile chance (that is based on levels) to sense when things are going south that sometimes gets them an opportunity to avoid otherwise certain death. Part of that is to emulate the literature where many a rogue from the Gray Mouser to Nift the Lean picked up the tiny clues that others miss, part of it is because they are often in highly dangerous positions alone. So I obviously tinker with thieves myself.
  Let's look at the thief and start with a 'vanilla' thief - human, single class, 11 Dex. His thief skills are:
  Pick Pockets 30%
  Open Locks: 25%
  Find/Remove Traps: 20%
  Move Silently: 15%
  Hide in Shadows: 10%
  Hear Noise: 10%
  Climb Walls: 85%

  So he isn't too bad and pinching small objects but is fairly weak at the rest.
  Let's look at the rest;

  Average hit points (I always round sup): 4
  Average A.C.: 8
  Roll needed to hit A.C. 6 (i.e, an orc): 15 (or 30%)
  Average damage: 4 (assuming short sword)

  Not so good. Or is it? Let's look at a 1st level fighter;

  Average H.P.: 6
  Average A.C: 4
  Roll needed to hit an orc: 14 (or 35%)
  Average Damage: 5 (assuming longsword rounded up or broadsword)

  And a cleric;
  Average H.P.: 5
  Average A.C.: 4
  Roll needed to hit an orc: 14
  Average Damage: 5 (assuming footman's mace rounded up)
  That is very similar to the fighter.

  And a magic-user;
  Average H.P.: 3
  Average A.C.: 10
  Roll needed to hit an orc: 15
  Average damage: 3 (assuming dagger rounded up)

  So the thief is right in there between cleric and magic-user in combat ability.
  But hold it! A few things are on my mind but one that leaps out is - if we are focusing on combat, why would anyone play a fighter?! No, really - the cleric has the same shot at hitting, the same average damage, the same armor class, and only 1 less hit point on average. But for that one hit point difference the cleric gets spells! I mean, if we look at just 'combat effectiveness at 1st level' everyone should play a cleric, right?
  [This is something I should have mentioned in my article about the cleric!]
  I know, I know - you are all saying the same thing; 'but fighters soon outpace clerics in combat as they advance in levels'.
  Yeah, I know. We'll to that with thieves in a minute.

  First, let's look at the combat numbers again while counting backstab;
  Roll needed to hit an orc: 11 (50%)
  Average damage: 7
  This is a huge improvement, of course! When the thief can get the drop on a foe the odds of the thief prevailing go way up. This doesn't happen too often, but it does and this means we can argue that a first level thief can, once or twice per adventure, be the most effective combatant in the party.

  The first way we are going to tweak this a little is to 'de-vanilla' the thief a touch. We could make him a dwarven fighter/thief, or a gnome illusionist thief, but let's go for that old standby, the halfling straight thief. We will assume that this thief still has only an 11 Dex and a 10 Con, but! this changes a few other things! His thieving abilities are;
 Pick Pockets 35%
  Open Locks: 30%
  Find/Remove Traps: 25%
  Move Silently: 25%
  Hide in Shadows: 25%
  Hear Noise: 15%
  Climb Walls: 70%

  OK, that is a noticeable change, isn't it? But there are a few other things going on, too; this thief has a +2 on his saves versus poison and magic. He is also twice as likely to surprise foes when off on his own, meaning his opportunities to backstab go up, making him more combat effective.

  Now that we've looked at the thief at first level and seen he isn't quite the wimp some might think he is, let's look at both the vanilla and non-vanilla thieves at higher level.
  The first thing we must discuss is a core element of 1e: level advancement speeds. When the thieves (either) are juuuuust 5th level (10,001 x.p. in the 1e books) the fighter, cleric, and mage are all 4th level. Bluntly, the thief gets better at what he does faster than the rest.
  Let's look at the vanilla thief's skills at 5th level;
 Pick Pockets 50%
  Open Locks: 42%
  Find/Remove Traps: 40%
  Move Silently: 40%
  Hide in Shadows: 31%
  Hear Noise: 20%
  Climb Walls: 90%
  Read Languages: 25%

  And the halfling thief''s skills;
  Pick Pockets 55%
  Open Locks: 47%
  Find/Remove Traps: 45%
  Move Silently: 50%
  Hide in Shadows: 46%
  Hear Noise: 25%
  Climb Walls: 75%
  Read Languages: 20%

  'But Rick,' I hear you say, 'those aren't great shakes!'.
  Well, let's talk about these numbers again from a different perspective. Instead of thinking 'the thief will fail to find the trap 55%+ of the time' think 'the party will be aware of and have a chance to avoid the trap 40%+ of the time'.
  No, seriously - this is a subtle difference. Don't think of find/remove as 'half the time the thief gets it' but rather as 'half the time the thief saves the whole party from damage, death, or worse'. And let's look at those combat numbers again, shall we?
  Mages (4th);
  Average H.P.: 10
  Average A.C.: 8 (assuming +2 worth of items)
  Roll needed to hit an orc: 15
  Average Damage: 3

  That is - pretty horrible. If the mage is lucky he is doing somewhere between, oh, 4 h.p. damage (Burning Hands), 7 h.p. damage (average for Magic Missile), and 9 h.p. damage (average for Shocking Grasp - which requires a roll to hit!) once or twice a day. A Web or a Stinking Cloud might prevent others from attacking or make them vulnerable, but the direct combat ability of a mage has dropped well below that of the rest of the party even with spells.

  Clerics (4th)
  Average H.P.: 18
  Average A.C.: 1 (assuming plate & shield with a +1 somewhere in there)
  Roll needed to hit an orc: 12 (45%)
  Average Damage: 6 (assuming a +1 footman's mace, averaged out)

  Better than the mage, the cleric is doing pretty well. No real damaging spells, though, while Hold Person does allow capture, avoidance, etc.

  Fighter (4th);
  Average H.P.: 22
  Average A.C.: 0 (plate and shield with +2 in there somewhere)
  Roll needed to hit an orc: 12 (45%) or 11 (50%) if you do level-by-level for fighters
  Average Damage:  7 (+2 from weapons, etc.)

  While the vanilla fighter is certainly the toughest in terms of hit points and armor class he still just isn't that far from the vanilla cleric in any area, is he?

  Thief (5th);
  Average H.P.: 18
  Average A.C.: 6 (+2 from somewhere)
  Roll needed to hit an orc: 13 (40%)
  Average Damage: 5 (assuming a +1 short sword)

  Notice how the thief has the same hit points as a cleric with the same number of experience points right now? While the fighter and cleric are marginally better at hitting and have a superior armor class the thief is very close in combat and is far better than the mage.

  Let's look at backstab numbers for a 5th level thief;

  Roll needed to hit an orc: 9 (60%)
  Average Damage: 12 (assuming +1 short sword)

   That is pretty good and still substantially better than the vanilla fighter of the same experience points. With increased thieving skills this combines to mean that thieves will be getting more backstabs for more damage, making them more combat effective.

  To be blunt we should all already know that fighters don't really pull away in combat until 7th level+ when the get multiple attacks or if you use specialization rules at about 3rd-4th level. Until that happens the cleric has near-parity and the thief is close behind both of them with backstabs probably making him as effective as either in the big scheme of things.
  Notice that I did add magical bonuses to armor class and average damage but I didn't add them for 'to hit' rolls? That was on purpose because we need to talk about magic items.  During play thieves tend to be the ones getting Rings of Invisibility, Boots of Elvenkind, etc., to make them even more likely to do everything from find the trap to get that backstab.

  'But Rick!,' I hear, 'that is part of the point of thief haters! You don't need thieves because you can get magic items like Chimes of Opening that do the very same things!'

  My reply?
  A cleric with a +4 mace can easily replace a fighter of the same level; a fighter with a pouch of Potions of Extra-Healing and Elixirs of Health can replace a cleric; a party with a Helm of Brilliance and similar magic items doesn't need a magic-user.
  A large part of what magic-items do is enhance or replace the functions of any and all of the classes. Yes, this includes the thief. But just because a cleric can wear a Ring of Invisibility doesn't mean the thief is useless anymore than a magic-user with a +5 dagger and a Terrible Transformation spell means the fighter obsolete.
  That's why the fighter gets the +4 longsword, the magic-user gets the Wand of Fireballs, and the thief gets the Cloak and Boots - to make them even better at their specific role within the party.
  Yeah, I am going to talk about that again.

  Since we now know that thieves are, yes, fairly good in combat overall let's talk about their role.
  I've talked about roles before; fighters are physical offense; magic-users are magical offense; clerics are physical and magical defense; the role of the thief is scouting and intelligence.
  Scouting is about finding strategic locations, dangers, traps, tricks, choke points, and such features of terrain as well as locating the enemy. Intelligence is about gathering information about the types, number, strengths, and weaknesses of any potential foes or allies. Just like military reconnaissance and intelligence, the job of the thief is to make the party proactive rather than reactive; when done well the thief role makes it more likely that the party decides when, where, and who it fights. This is the primary goal of the thief.
  The secondary goal is to identify and, if possible, eliminate obstacles to the party such as traps, locked doors, and even lone guards (thus, backstab).
  Look again at the descriptions of scouting and intelligence; they don't include 'attacking' or 'destroying' the enemy. Yes, thieves can fight but it isn't their primary or secondary goal. Thieves typically only enter combat in support of their primary or secondary roles: eliminating a lone sentry; killing a straggler to search him and to spread confusion; eliminating opposing scouts.

  Let's look at that last item again; eliminating opposing scouts. The other side of the scouting and intelligence coin is denying those same things to your foes. The converse of eliminating obstacles for your party is creating obstacles of the party's enemies. The primary target for thieves is almost always other thieves!
  Think about it; the party thief is far enough in advance of the party to get the heightened surprise chance; the enemy thief is doing the same. Pretty soon you have two professionals, both highly skilled in stealth and ambush, stalking each other in a no man's land between parties. That can make for some thrilling adventuring!
  I also mentioned 'spreading confusion'; thieves also can demoralize foes by appearing where no one could be, eliminating isolated targets, etc. This confusion and fear could very well impact monster morale checks and make life much easier for the entire party.

  To sum up, the thief isn't a commando, he is a scout. His job is to get the party over that pit, through that gate, and past that ambush without taking much, if any, damage. So don't have the thief right behind the Cleric, have him out beyond the torchlight, roaming about. He should be finding potential dangers long before the fighter sees it over the rim of his shield.