So I'm working on a race for my campaign setting (not necessarily a player race) based on the Malatran Mold Men (Living Jungle 3e or 3.5). They give the race no real "age" limit but state that they grow roughly 6 inches in height for each hit dice they accrue by leveling (in general going by 5e and other older systems that means their maximum height peaks around 14 feet tall). Obviously I'm going to tweak that for 5e (idk give them Enlarge/Reduce at 8th level or something).

If they grow by aging/leveling (and I'm assuming they naturally level into druid) how long do you think it would take a person to level if they weren't an adventurer. Pathfinder dictates that to even gain 1 level in the druid class it takes between 2 and 10 d6 years.

EDIT: For clarification, the point of this post is to determine the average time it take a regular person to advance in a class as the Malatran's age by leveling and level by aging (like the myconids). There is no determinate age range for them, so basically I'm trying to figure out how long they can live for by how long it takes an average person to level through druid.

EDIT: This issue is concluded!

If not adventuring, then as quickly as the DM wants.

Levelling isn't a real "in-game" thing. "Levels" exist purely in the metagame to help balance the progression of features. For the characters this progression isn't levels it's experience in battle, training in downtime, testing things out, researching, and so on throughout their time both in and out of adventure and so these are not "sudden" things - this is just the moment they finalise it, ready to use. The spells the wizard gets to add? They were probably working on them since before they even became an adventurer. That fighter gaining Action Surge? Probably spent the last year or so in their downtime moments practicing their breathing and in battles focusing reflexes and taking control of their adrenaline system.

However, playing these training moments and downtime will be a drag and repetitive and breaks narrative flow. So, it's skipped and instead we as players just say they levelled up.

As an NPC the DM alone decides how they progress outside of adventuring. I would imagine it would be a lot slower. The reason adventurer's progress so quickly when becoming adventurers is due to the situations they face that push their limits constantly and putting themselves at risk where the need to survive will help break those limits and help them become stronger.

NPCs will change, evolve and grow at the rate the DM needs them to. So, consider keeping up the difference in level between them and the party - perhaps so that this NPC is always 2 levels behind?

Yes. NPCs level at precisely the rate you need them to. Take all the time you were going to spend on working out the intricacies of that and put it into adventure building.

Cool none of these answers help me, I just stole the ageing system for the myconids instead. I feel that people didn't actually read the post just the title.

Quote from MrPC0X >>

Cool none of these answers help me, I just stole the ageing system for the myconids instead. I feel that people didn't actually read the post just the title.

 
Ungrateful much? Maybe read your own posts?

Quote from MrPC0X >>

If they grow by aging/leveling (and I'm assuming they naturally level into druid) how long do you think it would take a person to level if they weren't an adventurer. Pathfinder dictates that to even gain 1 level in the druid class it takes between 2 and 10 d6 years.

 
And we answered that.

If you don't want people to answer THE QUESTIONS YOU ASK IN YOUR POST then don't bother posting it.

Perhaps writing the title "A race from an older version of this game has no determinant age range and only appears to "age/grow" by leveling in a class, how long on average would an NPC generally take to level this way so I can get a rough estimate of how long the race generally lives for." is a bit of a long title and was ENTIRELY explained within the first post.

Having an NPC level when I want wasn't something I wasn't already aware of as a DM, I was more concerned about how long the race can live for, since each race has it's "Age." category in it's stat block. Deciding an NPC levels when I want them to doesn't give me any information about how long it would take the race as a whole to level. It doesn't help me determine an age range. That was the whole point.

Then you explained it poorly.

You did specifically ask how long it takes for an NPC to level. I even quoted this.

You stated this race had no age limit, which already answers the question of age limits - which you never asked about. You stated they grow 6 inches for every class level. You then asked how long it takes for an NPC to level up when not adventuring (literally the only question in your post). Since the age thing was answered already (no limit) by yourself and you asked this levelling question, which was worded as the entire focus of the post.

So, that got answered.

There is no other answer we can give you - because there's no other question you asked.

You chose a race that has no inherent age limit, you chose that they will age/grow by level for some reason, and then asked how long does it take for NPCs to level. The answer is "up to DM". So that answer was given.

We can only go by the words you put in your post. Don't blame us for not answering "correctly" when you didn't ask the question you wanted answered.

If that' on me that's on me, what I meant was there was no "printed" age range. I edited the original post to reflect upon this and for addition information:

Physical Description: Malatran plantmen are medium to large sized, bipedal fungus creatures. They have sharp, thorn-like claws, and leaf-like tendrils form a fringe on their shoulders, abdomens, and limbs. A topknot of these tendrils sits at the apex of the plantman’s head. Malatran plantmen have brown skin and green tendrils. They are 4 feet tall, plus ½-foot per Hit Die. At 8 feet they are considered ‘Large’ creatures. As such, players should make the appropriate adjustments to hero stats. Also, a large plantman gets a reach of 10'.

Taken directly from Living Jungle, there is no mention of how long the race lives for, that is to say they aren't immortal, they just have no established age range. They "age" by gaining hit dice which they do by leveling. Aside from the Myconids no other creature I know of does this. Even if the "no age limit" and "only question" were the things you latched onto an extrapolated thought would have then been how many years would it take this race to reach 20th level in the druid class, DM handwaved day?

If data needed is omitted from the book, then it is up to the DM to decide it. That has always been the case through every edition of D&D.

There is nothing in any official D&D 5th Edtiion source that defines age by a class level, because in 5th, levels have absolutely nothing to do with age and only very minimal relevance to any time passing.

It will depend entirely on what you need and what class. For sorcerers you can explain levelling as a spontaneous manifestation of their powers. So, you can say a Sorc can go from 1st to 20th level in a span of a few years without adventuring and it would be perfectly fitting. Comparatively, the Wizard develops new features and spells as a result of study which takes a long time. It would be unbelievable to say they went from 1st to 20th in a few years outside of adventuring - more likely several years, possibly decades. This is why attributing age to class levels is a very problematic idea for 5th edition. And it's why we can't tell you anything more than "up to DM".

However, this isn't a player race, it's a monster you're making. So, rather than class levels, instead say it has X number of Hit Die and let that determine things. Try asking "if the Players had to fight this NPC, what CR would it be?" and use the CR guide to determine what amount and type of hit dice.

If you really want to have it be more like a PC and class levels - then consider it one, and redefine age to what suits.

I mean you can also separate Age from Growth. Let them be "ageless" but can Grow to a max of 14ft at 20th level. After that they stop aging.

There's a lot of ways you can go, but it's you that must make the decision. We can't help - it's going to be what works best for you. At the end of the day, the writer who came up with the race originally had a massive brainfart and did a shit job with it - we're not going to fix that decades later.

Personally I wouldn't bother with this nonsense. I'd just have them age like a normal race - from time passing as normal. They grow 6 inches every X number of years until they're 8 ft tall (14 is unwieldy in 5e) and are considered Large, list adjustments for becoming Large, and say that's it - until they're like a hundred or so, then they rapidly wither and die.

I'd also recommend describing them differently. Fungi are not plants, so they're either fungus men or plant men. Maybe the nature of those organisms may determine their lifespan - fungi don't live long - most range from days to weeks, plants can vary from a few years to over 4,000 years old. So pick which is best and determine a lifespan accordingly.

Best I got.

I accept most of what you've said, and as previously stated, I'm going with the myconid aging system (1hit dice per 4 years of age). A Malatran (generic term) will begin life roughly 3 feet tall and gain half a foot for each year they grow until they gain their first "hit dice" at their fourth year, and receive one such hit dice each following four years until they reach an age of 80 to 100 years, though druids can acquire functional immortality.

I'm aware fungi and plants are quite different, but the race is also called Mold Men, it's pedantic to point out that they aren't plants especially in game where it's not likely your average fighter or barbarian (or anyone beside a devoted druid or wizard) would know the real difference. Most fungi and molds don't live long but Lichens can live to be nearly or over 100 years old in certain environments. Mind you this also represents non-ambulatory, non-sentient, mostly parasitic fungi.

I didn't mention the plant/fungi thing to be pedantic. In the original book they were described as being Fungus and Plant Men. This made sense at the time but it was thought fungi were plants. They have since been reclassified into their own category, so since you're recreating I thought it helpful to suggest altering how you describe them to your players. Also, because if you'e thinking about age plants typically live longer than fungi, so have your age thing reflect that will make it seem more authentic.

Long story short: NPC's don't level up.

Normal commoners, blacksmiths, guards, all of those.

They don't level up. They choose a profession. The average profession keeps them as commoners. If they want to become archers, or guards, knights, lumberjacks, scholars, apprentice wizards, well, they have to work for that. They don't magically gain hit dice with age. That's not how it works for normal people.

Tell me, when you got older, did you suddenly have the ability to be stabbed in the stomach with a dagger and survive? Did you gain the ability to become a master archer, just by aging? Did your punches become more effective by the Earth rotating around the Sun? 

No. That's not how it works.

This is how I rule that.

When a baby is born, they are a non-combatant. They have 1d4 hit points, and a -2 modifier in every ability score. They are tiny, have no attacks, and are completely dependent on their parents.

As they age, they grow up into commoners, eventually learning from experiences and the world how to hurt someone, but not accurately or effectively.

If they work hard, train, study, or whatever, they can become higher in experience. They don't gain power by aging, they gain power through hard work, endurance, and many many years put into working hard.

You can train a commoner to become a guard, but it isn't easy. It certainly isn't quick or automatic. If your character's sister wants to become a Gladiator, they don't immediately do so just by aging, they have to train, make their way up to a CR 5 Gladiator.

Also, you don't just gain hit points or hit die as you age. That's not how that works. Hit points aren't just an expression of your physical health, but also of your skill, reflexes, and luck. A normal old Joe the farmer won't be able to withstand the bugbear's morningstar most likely, but a guard could block it with their shield, or a spy could dodge it expending hit points to survive a fatal attack. 

You don't gain reflexes by aging. You don't gain luck by aging. You certainly don't gain skills by aging. You can gain physical health, but not much, and it doesn't last long. The average life span of a human in the middle ages was 30 years old. 

Aging doesn't make you level up, practice, skill, hard work, and time plays into it. 

The reason why Myconoids gain hit points and more powerful attacks/abilities as they level up is because that is how their DNA works. Their true form is an Adult Myconid, which they do age to get to, but humans aren't that way. Humans remain weak, unhealthy creatures because that is all that our DNA allows us to become through our aging. We peak early in our lives, and we don't steadily get stronger and healthier as we age, or we'd all be immortal.

Just aging isn't a good way to determine how commoners level up. Monsters are different from commoners and other humanoids because their nature is different, they're naturally bigger, have natural weapons, can do all sorts of things that humans and other humanoids will never be able to do, because that is how their genes make them. 

Humans don't work that way. That's not how we "level up." We get better at things with working hard, sadly that is something most of us will never do. 

I mean perhaps not in 5e, but the commoner class and adept class, those are things, both in pathfinder and older version of D&D... so yeah, average people do in fact level up. The point of fact is how many years of actual training would it take to level an average person. How many years of training does it take joe blow to go from level 1 to level 2 in a druidic class.

This whole website is 5e, and I have only played 5e, so yes, I'm talking about 5e, and real life. 

Average people don't level up. That's not how the world works, or D&D 5e works, so no, average people don't in fact level up.

However long it takes for a normal person to get from level 1 to level 2 as a druid is up to the DM, if they say that's how commoners work (It's not).

Hey, re-read my first post. It's filled with logic on why they don't level up, why they shouldn't, and why it doesn't make sense in any way for them to level up automatically.

You don't become an expert pianist from being alive 30 years. 

No you become an expert pianist by training in that field for 30 years. The same goes for any profession, including class levels. A scholar of level one is likely not going to understand the fabrics of arcane magic half as well as a scholar of higher level, but it takes time and training to reach that level of understanding.

Arguing from your point of logic no class or character should ever receive hit dice by way of leveling, but that is a mechanic of the game and it affects NPCS and Commoners as much as it does PCs. Simply because this website is mostly 5e oriented does not mean that references from other systems cannot be made or inferred for clarification.

If you are referring specifically and only specifically to the monster "Commoner" and how it does not level, you would only be half right. As you said a commoner could choose a profession, they could for some reason decide to be an apprentice wizard and receive another hit dice for that, but it takes time to learn how to be a wizard. Fast forward who knows how many years and now hes an abjurer with 13 hit dice, hes a wizard and a regular man who hasn't gotten any better at surviving a knife wound in real terms but this is as much a game as it is a fantastical reality.

BTW, I read you entire post well enough the first time. Your logic is kind of all over the place, arguing that nothing levels simply by aging and I'm well aware of that. In fact it was never something I had even considered except for the concept of Myconids and the Mold Men (BC that's literally how they work in the edition they are from). As for your farmer joe example, A farmer likely (based on the actual commoner classes from 3.5 and pathfinder) would probably make it to 3rd or so level by their prime but begin losing their physical abilities as they age, just as all humans do as they age (what 5e hasn't covered is covered in other systems and editions, simply because it isn't in 5e doesn't mean it doesn't exist, is wrong, or it can't be used. It means the current system was designed to be streamlined and additional content such as that was cut out to keep the system simple).

Even commoners have the right to level, it's not something specifically granted to PCs to make them feel like gods or heroes. While most never will level it's safe to say a farmhand would be physically more fit and stronger than a baker. A blacksmith would be hardier than a tailor, and a scout, hunter, or guide, would be far more equipped and better suited to mucking about in the wilderness than the local barrister. Training and profession in older systems yielded the same thing in commoners that it does on players, a class level. It was just that the class level they acquired were often in the Commoner class or it's equivalent for their profession.

Quote from MrPC0X >>

No you become an expert pianist by training in that field for 30 years. The same goes for any profession, including class levels. A scholar of level one is likely not going to understand the fabrics of arcane magic half as well as a scholar of higher level, but it takes time and training to reach that level of understanding.

 

 Yes, you do become an expert pianist from putting around 10,000 hours of work and practice into the field, and it is that way for most professions and hobbies. But, not everyone does that. How many people do you know that are a true expert at something? I don't know any expert pianists, and my family is filled with musicians (most of which play the piano hours a day). This we agree on, but the fact is that not everyone puts in this kind of effort to become a true expert at something.

Quote from MrPC0X >>

Arguing from your point of logic no class or character should ever receive hit dice by way of leveling, but that is a mechanic of the game and it affects NPCS and Commoners as much as it does PCs. Simply because this website is mostly 5e oriented does not mean that references from other systems cannot be made or inferred for clarification.

 

 No, that's not how adventurers work. Like I said above, hit points and hit dice don't mean just straight health. It is a combination of skill, health, luck and a few other key factors. Adventurers get more hit dice from adventuring. They level from literally getting more "experience" being an adventurer. Adventurers slay monsters, explore abandoned dungeons, find magic items, unlock hidden secrets, gain the favor of gods. That's why they level up and commoners don't. They just do things and gain more experience in things that a normal person would never ever be able to do without becoming an adventurer themselves. 

Also, this website is for 5e. 5e doesn't have any information on leveling up commoners, which means that as of 5e canon, it doesn't exist. In 5e, commoners don't level up. The fact that they did (if they did, I never played any earlier editions) in early editions doesn't mean that it is canon for 5e. Then again, the DM can do and say whatever they want about their game.

Quote from MrPC0X >>

 

If you are referring specifically and only specifically to the monster "Commoner" and how it does not level, you would only be half right. As you said a commoner could choose a profession, they could for some reason decide to be an apprentice wizard and receive another hit dice for that, but it takes time to learn how to be a wizard. Fast forward who knows how many years and now hes an abjurer with 13 hit dice, hes a wizard and a regular man who hasn't gotten any better at surviving a knife wound in real terms but this is as much a game as it is a fantastical reality.

 

 I'm not referring to only the monster stat of commoner. Commoners can become other NPC monsters from their profession, hours of work, and training, but it is harder than just straight leveling up. In my games, you can train a commoner into a guard, and a guard to a soldier, and a soldier to a knight, and so on, but it isn't easy. It can take years. That isn't canon to 5e, it just makes sense that you're not stuck as what you're born as. 

Again, hit points and hit die don't just mean health. Luck, experience, training, all of that is just as big a part of hit points as physical health. Sure, an abjurer can be hit by a dagger and survive, but being "hit" in D&D doesn't just mean being stabbed by a dagger for adventurers and other creatures. The fact that hit points don't just embody physical health means that you can expend hit points to dodge a dagger. This means that, sure, it still mechanically hits you, but it doesn't physically make contact with you, wounding you in a way that would actually be fatal. No human can survive being stabbed 300 times in the stomach, but in D&D hit points allow you to be hit with a dagger many many times without it actually making contact.

Quote from MrPC0X >>

 

BTW, I read you entire post well enough the first time. Your logic is kind of all over the place, arguing that nothing levels simply by aging and I'm well aware of that. In fact it was never something I had even considered except for the concept of Myconids and the Mold Men (BC that's literally how they work in the edition they are from). As for your farmer joe example, A farmer likely (based on the actual commoner classes from 3.5 and pathfinder) would probably make it to 3rd or so level by their prime but begin losing their physical abilities as they age, just as all humans do as they age (what 5e hasn't covered is covered in other systems and editions, simply because it isn't in 5e doesn't mean it doesn't exist, is wrong, or it can't be used. It means the current system was designed to be streamlined and additional content such as that was cut out to keep the system simple).

 I was saying that you don't gain levels simply by aging because you said that you were going to have humans and commoners gain hit dice by age, like Myconids. If you're "well aware of that" why are you contradicting yourself?

The fact that something doesn't have rules in 5e means that it doesn't exist in 5e. That's the definition of it not existing yet, it not being present. (Pathfinder isn't D&D, and isn't a part of D&D canon). The fact that the rules in 5e don't let commoners level up express that commoners don't level up in the current rule-set. 

Also, what about my post was "all over the place." Give quotations and examples, and I'll explain what you apparently can't understand.

Quote from MrPC0X >>

Even commoners have the right to level, it's not something specifically granted to PCs to make them feel like gods or heroes. While most never will level it's safe to say a farmhand would be physically more fit and stronger than a baker. A blacksmith would be hardier than a tailor, and a scout, hunter, or guide, would be far more equipped and better suited to mucking about in the wilderness than the local barrister. Training and profession in older systems yielded the same thing in commoners that it does on players, a class level. It was just that the class level they acquired were often in the Commoner class or it's equivalent for their profession.

 I agree that commoners should be able to progress through specific professions, but I don't think it makes any sense at all for a farmer to suddenly have 3 times the amount of hit die as it did when it started its career. A farmer does get stronger from plowing fields and lifting heavy objects, but that could just be indicated by a slight strength or constitution boost, maybe just proficiency in athletics. A blacksmith would be hardier than a tailor. A tailor would be more nimble than a blacksmith. In 5e terms, the blacksmith might have a 15 for strength and 13 for constitution, and the tailor has a 13 for Dexterity, or something on those lines.

The fact that a person gets physically stronger from a job doesn't make them "level up", one of their ability scores just increases a bit. Leveling up is specifically designed for adventurers, heroes, and special NPC's (DMPC's). 

There is a system for training in 5e in Xanathar's Guide to Everything, the Player's Handbook, and the Dungeon Master Guide. They give you extra skills, languages, and stuff along those lines. They don't level you up.

So, my point is that you don't need to level up farmers or tailors as they become more skilled in their profession. Skilled means that they probably get skills, certain ability scores may increase above the average person's, and they might get new languages based on what their job is. 

Leveling up really only makes sense for player characters in 5e, the system that makes most sense for normal commoners is to have them get certain ability increases and similar, non-combat related buffs. 

It doesn't make sense that a farmer that's been working for 20 years is better at surviving than they were 20 years ago. That just doesn't make sense. 

NPCs can vary in "level" quite dramatically. Most will live their whole lives with less than 1 "level". Others could be decently strong in short time by virtue of their race.

In my experience characters roughly equal a CR 1/4-3/4 their level.

 

 I was saying that you don't gain levels simply by aging because you said that you were going to have humans and commoners gain hit dice by age, like Myconids. If you're "well aware of that" why are you contradicting yourself?

 

 

I never intended nor did I infer to give HUMAN commoners hit dice BY AGING, I intended to use the Myconid concept to get an idea of how Malatran Mold Men Age. This had literally NOTHING to do with humans. The initial question was how many years of training does it take for an average person (NPC/Commoner) to level via a class. That was the question because the Mold Men in 3e gained their hit dice (and age as a result) by leveling. IF ONE COULD FIND THE AVERAGE AMOUNT OF TIME IT TAKES TO LEVEL YOU CAN FIND THE AVERAGE LENGTH OF THE LIFESPAN OF A MOLD MAN. Does it take 4 years of druid college to gain 1 level in the class? HOW HARD IS THIS QUESTION?

Since everyone had decided leveling by a common individual DOESN'T HAPPEN or is HAND WAVED by the DM, I decided that since Myconids (another fungal race) typically gain 1 Hit Dice every 4 years they age, why also could that not work for the Mold Man? That was the whole point of the question. If a DM wants their commoners to level there are systems they can emulate for that to happen if they want it too more often (even if they are noncanon), but all I wanted was the average time it takes an raceless faceless NPC Druid to level between 1 and 2. How long does it take a 13th level abjurer (CR 9) to become a 13th level spellcaster and why, it's not guaranteed that wizard made it that far based on combat. So how else did they make it that far?