What can be deduced?

[qwertyu63]

I am trying to figure out what characters within a D&D 3.5 world could figure out about the rules. I am making a world where they deduce a lot of the rules and I need help figuring out how much they could find.

I know there was a thread about this here at some point, but my google-fu has failed me on finding it. So, I need your help re-doing all of it... unless someone else knows where the thread is... In either case, thank you in advance.

[Lateral]

Well, spell levels for one. "Wait, I can only use this many spells every day? And of the numerous spells in my spellbook, I can only use any of this set this many times, and any of this set so many other times? And these sets correspond with the number of pages they occupy, which also happen to correspond to spell power?"

[Arundel]

A high level Int caster could likely deduce everything. Compare it to the real world, where no one even approaches a 40+ int score. We have discovered most of the fundamental principles of the universe, and what we don't know yet we guess at. Just like RAW interpretation.

Actually, the DnD world is far more complex at the basic levels than the real world is.

[qwertyu63]

Well, spell levels for one. "Wait, I can only use this many spells every day? And of the numerous spells in my spellbook, I can only use any of this set this many times, and any of this set so many other times? And these sets correspond with the number of pages they occupy, which also happen to correspond to spell power?"

Thank you. This looks like a good start, from there levels could be figured out, alongside Int modifiers.


A high level Int caster could likely deduce everything. Compare it to the real world, where no one even approaches a 40+ int score. We have discovered most of the fundamental principles of the universe, and what we don't know yet we guess at. Just like RAW interpretation.

Actually, the DnD world is far more complex at the basic levels than the real world is.

I know I could just handwave it with "a wizard did it", but I am curious what can be logically figured out.

[Xervous]

everything is measured in 5 ft increments and sets of 6 seconds. Both are easily found from spells which exhibit durations in multiples of 6 seconds and areas/ranges in multiples of 5 ft.

Using 1 damage attacks, you can determine someone's HP by hitting them until they go unconscious.

Use chill touch on someone who is willingly failing their saving throws and is being healed. They will collapse at 0 STR, each casting removes 1 str. You have now found their strength.

using bear's endurance and the application of 1 damage a round, you can determine how many HD a creature has.

[qwertyu63]

everything is measured in 5 ft increments and sets of 6 seconds. Both are easily found from spells which exhibit durations in multiples of 6 seconds and areas/ranges in multiples of 5 ft.

Using 1 damage attacks, you can determine someone's HP by hitting them until they go unconscious.

Use chill touch on someone who is willingly failing their saving throws and is being healed. They will collapse at 0 STR, each casting removes 1 str. You have now found their strength.

using bear's endurance and the application of 1 damage a round, you can determine how many HD a creature has.

All of those are perfectly valid. Thank you.

Also, I found the old thread. It is PF, but is here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=263374).

[Jack_Simth]

Well, spell levels for one. "Wait, I can only use this many spells every day? And of the numerous spells in my spellbook, I can only use any of this set this many times, and any of this set so many other times? And these sets correspond with the number of pages they occupy, which also happen to correspond to spell power?"

Caster levels as well (how long can they hold Detect Magic?).

Can also do hit dice (character levels, for most people) without actually hurting them.

The how:
1) Get a large number of people together.
2) Cast Magic Jar (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicJar.htm)
3) Don't bother to posess anyone. Use the clause: "In a group of life forces, you can sense a difference of 4 or more Hit Dice between one creature and another" to sort them out.

See, if you have a large sample size, you can line them up, exactly, by how many hit dice they have. No, seriously.

Suppose you've got 1000 1st level characters, 100 2nds, 50 3rds, 25 4ths, 13 5ths, 6 6ths, 3 7ths, 2 8ths, 1 9th, and 1 10th.

For the 1st level characters, you can distinguish none weaker, but 26 (13+6+3+2+1+1 - 5ths and up) stronger.
For the 2nd level characters, you can distinguish none weaker, but 13 (6+3+2+1+1 - 6ths and up) stronger.
For the 3rd level characters, you can distinguish none weaker, but 7 (3+2+1+1- 7ths and up) stronger.
For the 4th level characters, you can distinguish none weaker, but 4 (2+1+1 - 8ths and up) stronger.
For the 5th level characters, you can distinguish 1000 weaker (1st levels only) and 2 stronger (9ths and 10ths).
For the 6th level characters, you can distinguish 1100 weaker (1st and 2nds), and only one stronger (the tenths).

And so on. You can get an exact ordered list by way of counting how many you can distinguish as weaker, and how many you can distinguish as stronger, provided you've got at a decent spread on hit dice.

Edit: With a bit of work, the spell Theft of Life can be used to figure out exactly what any of the six stats are....

[Gavinfoxx]

You can deduce hit points... class levels (or at least hit dice)...

[Emperor Tippy]

Detect Thoughts flat out tells you a creatures Int score on the second round that you look at them.

[Telonius]

You could probably come pretty close to deducing the abilities of each Paladin or Monk level, given a casting of Raise Dead and a thorough test afterwards.

EDIT: I use these two, since I suppose they'd be the most likely ones to be single-classed, due to the multiclass restriction. I don't think we can assume single-classing in most other cases.

[Silva Stormrage]

HD can be found rather easily with Power Sight: http://dndtools.eu/spells/masters-of-the-wild-a-guidebook-to-barbarians-druids-and-rangers--44/power-sight--1891/

The HD cap for animate dead could be quantified rather easily as well. Same with Rebuke Undead.

Caster Level would also be easily quantified.

XP might be able to be found out by crafting magic items. Using things like Ambrosia you would probably have xp be listed in terms of ambrosia (Which is worth 2 xp for crafting I believe). It would take X ambrosia to fulfill the item's XP requirements. They could probably figure out the formula for items from that with enough playing around.

I believe there are some psionic abilities that reduce ability scores by 1 so you can deduce all their ability stats.

Thats all I have for now.

[Jeff the Green]

Really, with enough work and intelligence, everything. Pretty much by definition, any effect you can notice you can measure.

[Chronos]

Of course, the terminology they would use would probably not be the same as ours, and would be based on what's easiest to determine.

For instance, any mage will immediately notice that spells come in discrete power levels. Wizards would refer to them as such, maybe calling Magic Missile a "spell of the first circle" and Fireball a "spell of the third circle", or some such.

Now, the next obvious observation is that any wizard has a limit to the highest circle of spell she can cast. And given that they already have terminology for the spell levels, they'd probably carry that over. So, for instance, a wizard who can cast Fireball would be considered a wizard of the third circle, and so on.

With a little more observation, they'd notice that not all wizards of the third circle are alike. Some of them can cast more third-circle spells, and their spells have a bit longer durations and ranges. Furthermore, the wizards with these advantages are generally closer to reaching the fourth circle. So now they need terminology for this, too, but they already have the terminology for the different circles. So you might end up with something like what we call a 5th-level wizard being called "a wizard of the outer third circle", and a 6th-level wizard being called "a wizard of the inner third circle".

Wizard stats would almost certainly be the first deduced, both since they're more discrete (you can either cast a certain spell, or you can't), and because most of the scholars studying such things will themselves be wizards. Clerics would probably follow soon after, especially since they have the same spell progression, and a number of spells are shared by wizards and clerics at the same level. But eventually, some adventuring wizard is going to notice that the mundanes she teams up with also seem to be getting better at what they do, and seem to meet certain milestones at the same time that she does. So the system will be extended to cover them, too, and eventually some wizard is going to come to the conclusion that a fighter learns new fighting techniques (i.e., feats) whenever he enters a new inner circle (i.e., gains an even-numbered level).

[RFLS]

Actually, the DnD world is far more complex at the basic levels than the real world is.

What do you mean by "basic levels" ...?

[Regitnui]

What do you mean by "basic levels" ...?

Quantum Physics, perhaps, but that's nowhere near simple.

[RFLS]

Quantum Physics, perhaps, but that's nowhere near simple.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Even the most basic of chemistry or physics can get pretty complicated when you actually know what's going on, and biology is right out.

[Slipperychicken]

For instance, any mage will immediately notice that spells come in discrete power levels. Wizards would refer to them as such, maybe calling Magic Missile a "spell of the first circle" and Fireball a "spell of the third circle", or some such.


Hell no. They would come up with terminology way easier than that, or would use some in practice. Probably just shorten it to 1st/2nd/3rd later. Maybe they'd call it "levels", and just define a mage's "power level" by the most powerful spells he can cast.

If it was circles:

Cantrips -> 1st circle
1st level -> 2nd circle
2nd level -> 3rd circle
[...]
9th level -> 10th circle

[SimonMoon6]

It would be simplicity itself to determine who is a player character and who is not. Simply hire a diplomancer to try to change someone's attitude. If the target changes its attitude, it is not a player character. If he does not change his attitude, he is a player character (only PCs are immune to diplomacy). You may have to also throw in a "detect thoughts" to make sure that the guy's not faking it.

So, if a new character shows up after an old character dies and says, "You should let me join your party because I'm a player character too," they could quickly determine that this is the case.

[Chronos]

In casual use, yeah, they probably would just say "1st", or whatever. But there'd be a technical term they'd use in formal writing, too.

And I'm not sure if they'd call cantrips 0 or 1, or maybe not assign them a number at all and just call them "cantrips"; either way is plausible.

I am pretty sure that the terminology for character levels would be based on that for spell levels, though, so a spellcaster would be defined by the highest level of spell they can cast.

[SimonMoon6]

As far as names of spell levels, I wouldn't be surprised if they numbered them backwards to the way we do.

Cantrips: lowly tenth circle spells.

Only the most powerful of casters can cast spells of the *first* circle, (aka 9th level spells).

[Slipperychicken]

Only the most powerful of casters can cast spells of the *first* circle, (aka 9th level spells).

That causes problems with Epic magic, and spells above 9th level. Of course, it depends on the setting. If scholars are aware of such awesome magic, they would account for it somehow.

[qwertyu63]

That causes problems with Epic magic, and spells above 9th level. Of course, it depends on the setting. If scholars are aware of such awesome magic, they would account for it somehow.

It also assumes that 9th level spells are common. In the world I am doing this in, 6th level spells are the stuff of legend, with most people maxing out at level 10.

[Arundel]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Even the most basic of chemistry or physics can get pretty complicated when you actually know what's going on, and biology is right out.

This is true, but remember this:

Under most interpretations of 3.5 existence, things function as per the real world unless they explicitly don't. The reason we don't (for the most part) say "a wizard did it" in real life is due to lack of demonstrable evidence for that being a possible phenomena.

Let's take the underdark; and for the purposes of the exercise assume a baseline knowledge check of 0. You encounter three enemies in succession to study. An Iron Golem, a giant spider, and a mindflayer. In the real world we would use naturalistic answers to try and describe the conditions of creation for these three enemies, using the conditions and comparative evidence to known phenomena. This, however, is 3.5 and we can't apply parsimony to ANYTHING. We are confronted with a situation where Evolution, A wizard did It, and Aliens (or whatever mindflayers are these days) are equally valid explanations.

I think people are significantly discounted the basic failures of our logic and reasoning structures when parsimony stops being a guiding principle.

As someone who spent a bit of his younger days in evolutionary biology, nearly any understanding of biology, evolution in particular, goes right out the window without parsimony.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

everything is measured in 5 ft increments and sets of 6 seconds. Both are easily found from spells which exhibit durations in multiples of 6 seconds and areas/ranges in multiples of 5 ft.

Also, related to everything being measured in 5ft increments, pi is not a constant, but a variable.

[Arundel]

Also, related to everything being measured in 5ft increments, pi is not a constant, but a variable.

Well, when you dive far enough down the rabbit hole..... (http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2055)