Obviously there is magic and the threat of monsters but is that enough to justify the existence of adventurers?
In history, adventuring simply wasn't a thing, at least not without (usually) economic purpose. The entire concept of adventuring parties is really unjustified. Who would leave their home and their families to go adventuring? And who would pay them thousands of dollars to do it, when they could more easily use an army?
Life in a medieval world was nothing like what it is today and I think a lot of people forget that or don't understand or know the differences. Travel for common-folk was the exception, not the rule. Travel was dangerous and often meant neglecting your duties to your liege. You grew up learning your family business and didn't do much else other than teaching your children that profession before you died. And in a world with monsters, this would be even more true. Going off and facing danger for little to no reason wouldn't exactly be a popular choice.
Now, I'm not saying that I want perfect realism or that I'm saying adventurers shouldn't exist, rather I'm looking for reasons why they would exist. What is different, specifically, about a medieval fantasy world that promotes the craft of adventuring? What advantages does it have above raising an army to deal with threats? Why would people abandon their familial professions and lives to go adventuring? How is the reward greater than the risk in this environment to make it anything more than an anomaly? Or is it and should it only ever be an anomaly?
Basically I'm interested in the reasoning and history and social structures behind the scenes that result in a world where adventuring parties are a legitimate thing rather than purely a contrived fantasy construct.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
Adventuring has a lot of (down to earth) parallels in history.
Explorers, whether of new lands or dangerous territories were always a thing, and even still are. Some of them are of legendary status, like Marco Polo and Columbus.
Archaeologists explored Inca temples and Egyptian pyramids.
Spelunkers go to dark, deep caves for fun. Hikers and climbers ascend mountains for the view or the challenge.
Those are adventurers for a historic, realistic, setting that has no monstrous species living in new lands, no fiendish traps every three feet in ancient temples, no ancient curses or undead mummies in pyramids (your mileage may vary).
At the same time, there is no promise of direct fortune or glory in descending a cave or ascending a ruined tower in our world (generally). Add a chest of gold and magic down in a cave and see how many pick up spelunking as a hobby in a hurry.
So, yes. Adventuring wasn't always a thing without economic purposes in history, but it was pretty prominent. And the promise of reward is also a frequent motivation in fantasy. Gold, magic and power, usually.
At the same time, those that explore the poles or cross the oceans in a matchstick box may do it for glory, or even for the challenge - or duty. Other motivations that are often reflected to fantasy adventuring parties.
The point is that an army is no match for a beholder. The beholder would turn the army against itself.
An army can't really enter a city and go to the temple to stop Orcus from rising from the dead. And should Orcus rise from the dead, an army is no match.
Adventuring parties aren't exactly going for adventuring but performing heroic deeds that no one else can do. Often times this is fueled by their own personal quests and to rid the world of evil.
The village is helpless against the orcs and lack trained fighters. The city council is too set in their ways to realize the internal threat and so you have adventures who show up.
In part there are no realistic counterparts because Magic ultimately changes things. Not just any fighter can go toe to toe with a Warlock who has made a pact with a devil, it takes one who has surpassed the normal levels of achievement.
The motivation is that in a world of monsters and magic, people's homes and land is being encroached upon. Who do these people have to fight back and protect their lives when family members are being slain without recourse? The fantasy setting promotes strong alignments to good and evil, which is very clear when clerics and paladins are present. We may not roleplay the social "everyday life" that occurs between these encounters, how a civilization and kingdom may treat these adventurers. Perhaps there is widespread renown and "celebrity" status for those who risk their lives for the greater good.
Through our history, there rightly were examples of "adventurers" in Nordic/European cultures. Vikings are a no brainer, as they sought out riches and discovery in other lands. Many in English history also sought out danger as a means of protecting/serving their kingdom. We don't have the lavish stories that our DMs cook up, however, as our lands are void of monsters and evil wizards.
There's plenty of reasons for characters to take up the adventure lifestyle. Honestly, a big push for why young characters would want would come from Bards. These fellows travel far and wide singing songs and telling tales of brave heroes, dastardly villians, horrible monsters and glorious rewards. Sparking a desire to become famous and have their name spoken and sung by those Bards. While real life will grind down that dream, dangerous it may be, with responsibilities and obligations, but characters are supposed to be greater. They never gave up the dream and worked for it so they could head out.
Other less fun ways of looking at it.
The character's source of responsibility has been destroyed and over the course of an obvious vengeance kick they find can't go back to that old life and keep adventuring. This time has changed them, kind of like some soldiers who return from warzones. Ones that don't quite display signs of PTSD, but are still changed from their experiences.
In general, it has to fit the game and/or story on a game by game basis. There is no right or wrong way to frame adventuring. And I think we have to keep in mind that adventuring is kind of a catch all term covering anyone that does things like explore and risk their life for no obvious material gain.
dropbear8mybaby, you kind of explained the purpose of our groups in your monologue.
Our adventures are~ the exception. If you look at most adventurers backstories, they were doing just what you said, growing up in the family business, following along in the army, farmers, fishermen, etc. Something drastic happened in their life and cause them to go on a journey, whether it be the death of their family or set on a journey for their tribe. Sometimes the wheel of time weaves normal people to be great. ;]
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about." - My Granddad
Explorers, whether of new lands or dangerous territories were always a thing, and even still are. Some of them are of legendary status, like Marco Polo and Columbus.
As I said, such "explorers" didn't do so without an economic agenda. Columbus didn't go to the Americas because there were monsters there, he went to find a route for trade.
Archaeologists are a very recent, and not medieval, profession, and spelunking and climbing are modern hobbies. So no, adventuring was not always a thing.
The point is that an army is no match for a beholder. The beholder would turn the army against itself.
I'm fully onboard with adventurers being a logical thing, given the game world, but I was intrigued by this - just how many soldiers do you need in your army to take down a beholder?
Ok, Beholder relevant stats. 93 hp, AC 26
Soldiers. After some looking on Google at other people's stats for an archer, I settled on HP 9, Attack +4, damage 6 (1d8 +2).
The archers attack:
Inflicting damage 6 against the pool of 93 hp, the archers need to make (93 / 6) = 16 successful attacks to reduce the Beholder to zero. Due to the exceptional AC of the beholder, the archers are only going to be successful on an attack with their longbows when they roll a natural 20. This means that we need, on average, 16 x 20 = 320 archers attacking the beholder (at optimal range) for them to be able to kill it in a single round.
The beholder is likely to win initiative however - luckily for the army, beholders use cones and rays and don't possess any spells like fireball. Their eye stalks will each eliminate one soldier each round, so maybe call is 330 archers on average. ;)
If we allow the npc archers to score a critical hit on their roll of 20, the beholder is even more doomed!
The point is that an army is no match for a beholder. The beholder would turn the army against itself.
I'm fully onboard with adventurers being a logical thing, given the game world, but I was intrigued by this - just how many soldiers do you need in your army to take down a beholder?
Ok, Beholder relevant stats. 93 hp, AC 26
Soldiers. After some looking on Google at other people's stats for an archer, I settled on HP 9, Attack +4, damage 6 (1d8 +2).
The archers attack:
Inflicting damage 6 against the pool of 93 hp, the archers need to make (93 / 6) = 16 successful attacks to reduce the Beholder to zero. Due to the exceptional AC of the beholder, the archers are only going to be successful on an attack with their longbows when they roll a natural 20. This means that we need, on average, 16 x 20 = 320 archers attacking the beholder (at optimal range) for them to be able to kill it in a single round.
The beholder is likely to win initiative however - luckily for the army, beholders use cones and rays and don't possess any spells like fireball. Their eye stalks will each eliminate one soldier each round, so maybe call is 330 archers on average. ;)
If we allow the npc archers to score a critical hit on their roll of 20, the beholder is even more doomed!
Your stats are incorrect. You have a 1/20 chance of rolling a crit, but two archers do not have a 2/20 chance, they each have a 1/20 chance to roll a crit. So it would take more than listed. 20 archers statisticly do not result in a crit because each one only as a 1/20 chance. But that's looking at it in game terms. Realistically if a beholder was a real creature, the army would be turned against itself long before they even got to the beholder and would likely never achieve the skill needed to get past the beholders armor/skill.
Explorers, whether of new lands or dangerous territories were always a thing, and even still are. Some of them are of legendary status, like Marco Polo and Columbus.
As I said, such "explorers" didn't do so without an economic agenda. Columbus didn't go to the Americas because there were monsters there, he went to find a route for trade.
Archaeologists are a very recent, and not medieval, profession, and spelunking and climbing are modern hobbies. So no, adventuring was not always a thing.
The point is that an army is no match for a beholder.
Might want to check your math on that. The beholder would be toast in the first round. Even a tarrasque would go down to an army fairly easily.
I maintain my statement that an army would not be a match for a beholder. Especially the reasonable number of soldiers a typically village/city could get and including the dangerous trip to the beholder.
Obviously if you force the situation into game terms you can just say 1,000 soldiers would kill a beholder. But that's keeping it as a game, not the actual skill a beholder would possess. Likely the 1,000+ soldiers would never hit the beholder or Pierce his armor.
What justifies Jeanne d'Arc wants to leadership the French army against England? Her faith. Just like a Paladin or Cleric does
So... what you're saying is... she got an army, instead of adventurers, to do the work...
A farmer girl without any fighting training manages to persuade the leaders of France to do what God commands her. Her adventure is not the army, is everything she has to do. It's not an adventure of monster hunting (because well, you know, they doesn't exist in Earth.), Ruin explore (but templars did it, for example) or treasures (pirates). But it's an adventure, some of them involves armies at some point (in fantasy the shining example is LotR, starts as a group adventure but then Aragorn leadership armies)
Watch or read GoT/SoFaI, there's much armies and wars, but also individual or small groups adventures (Arya, Jaime at some points, Tyrion, Brienne, the Brotherhood without banners, the Night's Watch -it's so small to consider it an army-...)
I believe the adventure starts where the "control zone" of the various societies finishes. Where there is the unknown, it is there where the adventurers go.
Your stats are incorrect. You have a 1/20 chance of rolling a crit, but two archers do not have a 2/20 chance, they each have a 1/20 chance to roll a crit. So it would take more than listed. 20 archers statistically do not result in a crit because each one only as a 1/20 chance. But that's looking at it in game terms. Realistically if a beholder was a real creature, the army would be turned against itself long before they even got to the beholder and would likely never achieve the skill needed to get past the beholders armor/skill.
It's a simplified statistical model, but it holds up, for determining a likely outcome.
If we're rolling a d20, then we'll expect that overall 1 time in 20, we'll roll a 20.
If you'd like to work out the more complex statistical model fully, be my guest, but I don't have the time to resolve that currently! :)
Your stats are incorrect. You have a 1/20 chance of rolling a crit, but two archers do not have a 2/20 chance, they each have a 1/20 chance to roll a crit. So it would take more than listed. 20 archers statistically do not result in a crit because each one only as a 1/20 chance. But that's looking at it in game terms. Realistically if a beholder was a real creature, the army would be turned against itself long before they even got to the beholder and would likely never achieve the skill needed to get past the beholders armor/skill.
It's a simplified statistical model, but it holds up, for determining a likely outcome.
If we're rolling a d20, then we'll expect that overall 1 time in 20, we'll roll a 20.
If you'd like to work out the more complex statistical model fully, be my guest, but I don't have the time to resolve that currently! :)
No, no matter how many d20s you roll, the probability to see a 20 is still 1/20.
20 archers. What's the probability of 1, or more, of them rolling a 20? We actually calculate that by determining the chance of all of them missing. Each has a 95% chance of missing. So 0.95 ^ 20 = 0.348 (which is 35% chance). This means the chance of 1 or more rolling 20 is 1 - 0.348 = 0.652, which means 65% chance.
So, sure, if we roll a d20 a total of 20 times, there is only a 65% chance that we'll actually get a 20 show up at all.
So, how many archers needed? Well, if we want to use a proper statistical model, then we need to decide on a degree of confidence. Are we going to settle on 95% probability being assumption of success? No? Maybe 98%? We can't get 100%, as no matter how many times you roll those dice, there' always a slim possibility that you'll NEVER roll a 20.
That's where simple statistical models come into place for rough calculations.
We can assume that, over an infinite number of rolls, we will roll a 20 exactly 5% of the time.
So, whilst there's no guarantee at all that 320 archers will be able to roll a 20 a total of 16 times or more, it's a quick way of working out the scale of the probabilities at hand.
Your stats are incorrect. You have a 1/20 chance of rolling a crit, but two archers do not have a 2/20 chance, they each have a 1/20 chance to roll a crit. So it would take more than listed. 20 archers statistically do not result in a crit because each one only as a 1/20 chance. But that's looking at it in game terms. Realistically if a beholder was a real creature, the army would be turned against itself long before they even got to the beholder and would likely never achieve the skill needed to get past the beholders armor/skill.
It's a simplified statistical model, but it holds up, for determining a likely outcome.
If we're rolling a d20, then we'll expect that overall 1 time in 20, we'll roll a 20.
If you'd like to work out the more complex statistical model fully, be my guest, but I don't have the time to resolve that currently! :)
Correct, so statistically it takes more than 20 soldiers to crit because 1 soldier not critting doesn't increase the chances of the next soldier critting. Also, with beholders there is no guarantee that the Archer who finally scores a critical will in fact be targeting the beholder rather than one of his teammates. If by some unfortunate luck, it could be all soldiers who crit, crit against their own team and not the beholder. These two facts increase the number of soldiers you need.
Which you need to feed and have to survive a trip to say the underdark. Should they run into Drow or Duegar, etc. you need even more soldiers to even make it to the beholder.
Which brings up another point, do you really want to send an Army into the underdark? The Army you have to feed, and provide for, and is very costly should they fail and you lose a good portion of your standing troops. Adventurers you just have to pay if they happen to come back alive, and they take care of their own food needs.
20 archers. What's the probability of 1, or more, of them rolling a 20? We actually calculate that by determining the chance of all of them missing. Each has a 95% chance of missing. So 0.95 ^ 20 = 0.348 (which is 35% chance). This means the chance of 1 or more rolling 20 is 1 - 0.348 = 0.652, which means 65% chance.
So, sure, if we roll a d20 a total of 20 times, there is only a 65% chance that we'll actually get a 20 show up at all.
So, how many archers needed? Well, if we want to use a proper statistical model, then we need to decide on a degree of confidence. Are we going to settle on 95% probability being assumption of success? No? Maybe 98%? We can't get 100%, as no matter how many times you roll those dice, there' always a slim possibility that you'll NEVER roll a 20.
That's where simple statistical models come into place for rough calculations.
We can assume that, over an infinite number of rolls, we will roll a 20 exactly 5% of the time.
So, whilst there's no guarantee at all that 320 archers will be able to roll a 20 a total of 16 times or more, it's a quick way of working out the scale of the probabilities at hand.
The problem is that you can't have an infinite number of archers/rolls. You are bound by the number of troops available in your town/city/region/etc. You also have to increase the number to account for some dying long before they even reach the beholder. And the beholder is clearly going to have guards and such. So you are looking at a very good sized army moving through the underdark vs 4-5 Adventurers. If people of the skill level of PCs existed in the World it would make more sense to use them.
A real world example is sending a small group of marines (our PCs/Adventurers) to take out the villain rather than sending a huge army of 400+ archers.
In regards to my original statement, a Nat 20 is probably beyond the capability of real archers not using game mechanics to dictate their eventual outcome. So realistically an army of Archers is no match for a beholder who isn't limited to rolling dice. It is rather silly to think the King should send an army of archers because he thinks they will hit a beholder 1/20 times. A measure he has no reason to believe even exists.
So in game terms can you send 500+ soldiers who due to probability could beat a beholder, sure. But in a realistic sense of a King acting like a real king would, it would be a far better option to send Adventurers.
So I'll upgrade my statement, if you view everything as real people/monsters acting in a real world, a Beholder would defeat an army that is no match for him.
Obviously there is magic and the threat of monsters but is that enough to justify the existence of adventurers?
In history, adventuring simply wasn't a thing, at least not without (usually) economic purpose. The entire concept of adventuring parties is really unjustified. Who would leave their home and their families to go adventuring? And who would pay them thousands of dollars to do it, when they could more easily use an army?
Life in a medieval world was nothing like what it is today and I think a lot of people forget that or don't understand or know the differences. Travel for common-folk was the exception, not the rule. Travel was dangerous and often meant neglecting your duties to your liege. You grew up learning your family business and didn't do much else other than teaching your children that profession before you died. And in a world with monsters, this would be even more true. Going off and facing danger for little to no reason wouldn't exactly be a popular choice.
Now, I'm not saying that I want perfect realism or that I'm saying adventurers shouldn't exist, rather I'm looking for reasons why they would exist. What is different, specifically, about a medieval fantasy world that promotes the craft of adventuring? What advantages does it have above raising an army to deal with threats? Why would people abandon their familial professions and lives to go adventuring? How is the reward greater than the risk in this environment to make it anything more than an anomaly? Or is it and should it only ever be an anomaly?
Basically I'm interested in the reasoning and history and social structures behind the scenes that result in a world where adventuring parties are a legitimate thing rather than purely a contrived fantasy construct.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
Adventuring has a lot of (down to earth) parallels in history.
Explorers, whether of new lands or dangerous territories were always a thing, and even still are. Some of them are of legendary status, like Marco Polo and Columbus.
Archaeologists explored Inca temples and Egyptian pyramids.
Spelunkers go to dark, deep caves for fun. Hikers and climbers ascend mountains for the view or the challenge.
Those are adventurers for a historic, realistic, setting that has no monstrous species living in new lands, no fiendish traps every three feet in ancient temples, no ancient curses or undead mummies in pyramids (your mileage may vary).
At the same time, there is no promise of direct fortune or glory in descending a cave or ascending a ruined tower in our world (generally). Add a chest of gold and magic down in a cave and see how many pick up spelunking as a hobby in a hurry.
So, yes. Adventuring wasn't always a thing without economic purposes in history, but it was pretty prominent. And the promise of reward is also a frequent motivation in fantasy. Gold, magic and power, usually.
At the same time, those that explore the poles or cross the oceans in a matchstick box may do it for glory, or even for the challenge - or duty. Other motivations that are often reflected to fantasy adventuring parties.
The point is that an army is no match for a beholder. The beholder would turn the army against itself.
An army can't really enter a city and go to the temple to stop Orcus from rising from the dead. And should Orcus rise from the dead, an army is no match.
Adventuring parties aren't exactly going for adventuring but performing heroic deeds that no one else can do. Often times this is fueled by their own personal quests and to rid the world of evil.
The village is helpless against the orcs and lack trained fighters. The city council is too set in their ways to realize the internal threat and so you have adventures who show up.
In part there are no realistic counterparts because Magic ultimately changes things. Not just any fighter can go toe to toe with a Warlock who has made a pact with a devil, it takes one who has surpassed the normal levels of achievement.
The motivation is that in a world of monsters and magic, people's homes and land is being encroached upon. Who do these people have to fight back and protect their lives when family members are being slain without recourse? The fantasy setting promotes strong alignments to good and evil, which is very clear when clerics and paladins are present. We may not roleplay the social "everyday life" that occurs between these encounters, how a civilization and kingdom may treat these adventurers. Perhaps there is widespread renown and "celebrity" status for those who risk their lives for the greater good.
Through our history, there rightly were examples of "adventurers" in Nordic/European cultures. Vikings are a no brainer, as they sought out riches and discovery in other lands. Many in English history also sought out danger as a means of protecting/serving their kingdom. We don't have the lavish stories that our DMs cook up, however, as our lands are void of monsters and evil wizards.
[ Site Rules & Guidelines ] --- [ Homebrew Rules & Guidelines ]
Send me a message with any questions or concerns
There's plenty of reasons for characters to take up the adventure lifestyle. Honestly, a big push for why young characters would want would come from Bards. These fellows travel far and wide singing songs and telling tales of brave heroes, dastardly villians, horrible monsters and glorious rewards. Sparking a desire to become famous and have their name spoken and sung by those Bards. While real life will grind down that dream, dangerous it may be, with responsibilities and obligations, but characters are supposed to be greater. They never gave up the dream and worked for it so they could head out.
Other less fun ways of looking at it.
The character's source of responsibility has been destroyed and over the course of an obvious vengeance kick they find can't go back to that old life and keep adventuring. This time has changed them, kind of like some soldiers who return from warzones. Ones that don't quite display signs of PTSD, but are still changed from their experiences.
In general, it has to fit the game and/or story on a game by game basis. There is no right or wrong way to frame adventuring. And I think we have to keep in mind that adventuring is kind of a catch all term covering anyone that does things like explore and risk their life for no obvious material gain.
dropbear8mybaby, you kind of explained the purpose of our groups in your monologue.
Our adventures are~ the exception. If you look at most adventurers backstories, they were doing just what you said, growing up in the family business, following along in the army, farmers, fishermen, etc. Something drastic happened in their life and cause them to go on a journey, whether it be the death of their family or set on a journey for their tribe. Sometimes the wheel of time weaves normal people to be great. ;]
"Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about." - My Granddad
What justifies Jeanne d'Arc wants to leadership the French army against England? Her faith. Just like a Paladin or Cleric does
D&D Beyond Mobile Alpha Tester
Archaeologists are a very recent, and not medieval, profession, and spelunking and climbing are modern hobbies. So no, adventuring was not always a thing.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersPun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
D&D Beyond Mobile Alpha Tester
I believe the adventure starts where the "control zone" of the various societies finishes. Where there is the unknown, it is there where the adventurers go.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersPun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersOk, so I'll bite.
20 archers. What's the probability of 1, or more, of them rolling a 20? We actually calculate that by determining the chance of all of them missing. Each has a 95% chance of missing. So 0.95 ^ 20 = 0.348 (which is 35% chance). This means the chance of 1 or more rolling 20 is 1 - 0.348 = 0.652, which means 65% chance.
So, sure, if we roll a d20 a total of 20 times, there is only a 65% chance that we'll actually get a 20 show up at all.
So, how many archers needed? Well, if we want to use a proper statistical model, then we need to decide on a degree of confidence. Are we going to settle on 95% probability being assumption of success? No? Maybe 98%? We can't get 100%, as no matter how many times you roll those dice, there' always a slim possibility that you'll NEVER roll a 20.
That's where simple statistical models come into place for rough calculations.
We can assume that, over an infinite number of rolls, we will roll a 20 exactly 5% of the time.
So, whilst there's no guarantee at all that 320 archers will be able to roll a 20 a total of 16 times or more, it's a quick way of working out the scale of the probabilities at hand.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
A real world example is sending a small group of marines (our PCs/Adventurers) to take out the villain rather than sending a huge army of 400+ archers.
Quality better than quantity!