What does each level mean? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

GilesTheCleric

2013-12-10, 06:06 PM

Levels are an abstract game mechanic, just like hp. Individual ones don't really have any meaning other than to make bookkeeping for players easier. In-game, it's assumed that characters are constantly improving, and learning about things (feats) before they are able to put them into practice.

As to famous figures, I think it's a consensus that most heroes of lore cap out at about level 6, particularly martial heroes like Beowulf or King Arthur. See E6 for a game that plays in this more 'realistic' manner.

For the ones you've mentioned, they're all pretty low level, primarily because they almost die as easily as most humans do, and all of their abilities are mimicked by spells of levels 0-2. Force lightning takes a while to kill people, so it's doing something like 1d4 damage/rd. Force powers are similar to charm person, prestidigitation, and mage hand/ the bigby line. Most of these people's power comes from having power that normal people cannot hope to match (1d4 lightning kills most people in 4 rnds max, whether they save or not), and equipment to back it up. Think Batman.

Characters like Beowulf who can walk under a lake without worrying about breathing are probably higher-level than many of the ones you've listed. Anyone can be deadly with a (2d6? I haven't looked at SW rpg recently) lightsaber or las-gun. Not everyone can wrestle down ancient ones. Magic has large, visible effects that make it seem incredibly powerful, even for 1st level spells. Anakin is barely able to survive a dip in lava, making him much stronger than a common peasant, but one or two more rounds of burn damage and he would have been toasted. He's also the strongest jedi/force-user to be found in a very long time.

Seerow

2013-12-10, 06:12 PM

Anakin is barely able to survive a dip in lava, making him much stronger than a common peasant, but one or two more rounds of burn damage and he would have been toasted. He's also the strongest jedi/force-user to be found in a very long time.

Remember, in D20 terms damage from lava is cumulative with whatever other damage. The lava nearly killing him was following an extended battle, which would have worn down his HP even before any real damage was seen, especially in Star Wars' wounds/vitality system, and at the end of that battle he had his legs literally chopped off. Even while at a fraction of his total health, a dip into lava and being lit on fire was life threatening, but not enough to take him out permanently. In d20 that's pretty much perfectly representative of a pretty high level character.

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-10, 06:14 PM

Remember, in D20 terms damage from lava is cumulative with whatever other damage. The lava nearly killing him was following an extended battle, which would have worn down his HP even before any real damage was seen, especially in Star Wars' wounds/vitality system, and at the end of that battle he had his legs literally chopped off. Even while at a fraction of his total health, a dip into lava and being lit on fire was life threatening, but not enough to take him out permanently. In d20 that's pretty much perfectly representative of a pretty high level character.

He never took a dip in lava, though. He just caught fire due to convection remembering that it existed, and burned until the fires went out (successful reflex save? Force/Destiny point? GM throwing him a bone?). Even then, his lungs were permanently injured.

GilesTheCleric

2013-12-10, 06:17 PM

Remember, in D20 terms damage from lava is cumulative with whatever other damage. The lava nearly killing him was following an extended battle, which would have worn down his HP even before any real damage was seen, especially in Star Wars' wounds/vitality system, and at the end of that battle he had his legs literally chopped off. Even while at a fraction of his total health, a dip into lava and being lit on fire was life threatening, but not enough to take him out permanently. In d20 that's pretty much perfectly representative of a pretty high level character.

I'm pretty sure you're making things up, because that never happened, since there are no episodes 1-3.

Yes, Anakin is pretty tough.

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-10, 06:21 PM

I'm pretty sure you're making things up, because that never happened, since there are no episodes 1-3.

I know that's the sarcasm color, but I nevertheless want to jump in here and say...I liked Episode I! Yes, I even liked Jar Jar!

I did not like midichlorians, but I'm not going to throw an entire movie out the window for a single line of dialogue that I can just easily imagine as having been delivered a little differently.

(Midichlorians are naturally attracted to beings with high Force potential; therefore, a midichlorian count is a good estimate of a person's Force ability - however, midichlorians do not themselves cause the Force, they are just attracted by it. There. Simple.)

Ring_of_Gyges

2013-12-10, 06:24 PM

What levels mean varies by campaign world to campaign.

One of the things a DM needs to decide in setting up a game is what level people will be. In some settings the best swordsman in the world is going to be 20th level, in others 5th, in others 30th. It's a variable to control for your own purposes just like a lot of other things, power level, magic level, number of playable races, etc...

In my D&D game they break down like this (with a Tolkien-ish example):

1-3: Most normal people, 95% of the population. Merry or Pippin.

4-6: The movers and shakers is small towns, the best X in the village. A good level for independant agents of greater powers. Frodo, Beregond.

7-9: The movers and shakers is big cities. The mayor of an important city, a Baron, the most powerful wizard in a province. Faramir or Eomer. Arwen maybe.

10-12: The powers that be in a good size nation. The king. The general of the national army. The head of a nation spanning thieves guild or magical college. Boromir, Theoden.

13-15: International powers. The most powerful kings and lords who impact the course of all the nations in the region. Aragorn, Denethor.

16-18: Global powers. These are the very few people struggling against each other to decide the fate of the whole campaign world. Gandalf, Elrond, Saruman.

19-21: The very best in the world. Not all classes will even have a character of this level, but those that do will be the superpowers of the world. Sauron. Maybe Galadriel, probably not.

Each of my power brackets are three levels wide, if you make them two levels wide you've got 12th level characters doing the jobs that 18th level characters would do in my world. If you make them five levels wide, a 20th level wizard might be a king of a petty nation and you'd want to stat up Elrond as an epic level character (~level 30).

Optimator

2013-12-10, 06:33 PM

I definitely do NOT consider a level 1 anything a black belt-equivalent. 4th, maybe 3rd level.

I like thinking that for every 4 levels one has over another, one is twice as skilled.

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-10, 06:33 PM

Hey I'm having trouble trying to understand Levels.
I assume that a level 1 character is the "equivalent" to a black belt (first Dan). So what's the equivalent of level 2, 3, 4, etc...?

Also, how much "in game" time does a character require to attain a new level? I always imagine high level human characters (say, 17) to be 60+ years old.

My response from another thread about this same topic:

90% of the world has no PC levels.

Likewise 90% of the world is not going to reach ECL 5.

Those two groups aren't one and the same but there is overlap.

A level 1 fighter with 14 Con has 12 HP. An average commoner (level 1, 10 Con) has 4 HP. The level 1 fighter is already better than the vast majority of the population in combat. This isn't "new recruit" level it's "son of the local lord who has been intensively trained in the arts of war pretty much since he could walk and talk".

Per the DMG a small town of one to two thousand people is going to have a single level 8 fighter at best with the average small town having a single level 4 or 5 fighter. The best small town is going to have one level 8 fighter, two level 4 fighters, four level 2 fighters, and eight level 1 fighters. This is the town where a renowned hero has retired and set up a fighting academy or the like.

---
Level 1 PC class: Highly skilled or intensively schooled but likely lacking in real world experience.

Level 3 PC class: As before except with anything from a year to a decade of experience.

Level 5 PC class: As before except either very exceptional, exceptional circumstances are in play, or two decades or more of experience. Not a legend or anything but generally a local hero, often the local lord who has been rewarded for a lifetime of good service to a greater lord.

Level 8 PC class: Part of the King's personal guard or the like. Generally those with exceptional natural talent in their chosen field, a fair amount of luck, and helpful circumstances.

Level 10 PC class: Legend. This is where you have made it into the bards stories that will be sung not just months or years later but long after you are dead and your bones are dust. Sorcerer's bind entire armies of elemental's and outsiders to serve them, Necromancer's can field whole bands of undead, Fighter's single handedly slaughter whole Orc bands, Cleric's can bring the dead to life, kill with a single touch, and speak directly to their god.

Level 13 PC class: Beyond merely a legend. Often times the most powerful single individual in an entire kingdom. Wizards can be anywhere in the great wheel in 12 seconds (Plane Shift + Greater Teleport) or command the very weather over an entire city. Clerics can kill a legion of unbelievers with but a single word. A fighter can pick up a weapon that he has never heard of in his life before and wield in better than most masters. A Bard can regularly perform pieces of music so enthralling that even deities sit up and take notice or make even an unfriendly crowd walk away as the bards friends, or with a few minutes of work turn even a hostile enemy into a friend.

Level 15 PC class: Generally beyond the concerns of individual kingdoms. Their enemies threaten the survival or freedom of the entire world. Sorcerer's bind and enslave the general's of hell's armies. Wizard's can turn themselves into living iron and slaughter the armies of entire nations with impunity, burn entire armies to ash, bring winter across an entire nation in the middle of summer, conquer aging, bend time, and turn you into a dragon with a finger snap. A Fighter can take the field against twenty five thousand foes and walk off two days later without a scratch on him and none of his foes alive or fight the champions of the Abyss in single combat and emerge victorious. A Bard can calm a raging enemy with but a few words and turn him into a fanatical follower with but a short conversation, or he can turn an entire legion in to a fanatical mob that will willingly die for the Bard.

Level 18 PC Class: Demigods. World spanning empires can be single handedly conquered in days. Entire planes with whatever laws of reality the individual desires can be created. Death is of no concern. Continent spanning cities made of Mithril and sculpted so perfectly that even the gods weep at the beauty can be brought into existence with a finger snap.

Level 21+ PC class: Limitations are for lesser beings. There is no feat that can not be performed, no task that can not be completed, no enemy that can not be defeated. Stories exist of Fighter's who have held a single passage against unending demonic hordes for ten thousand years without even a minutes rest, and they are true.

And if there was a way to assign levels to these fictional characters, what would they be? (according to their experience and power in relation to the world they live in, you don't need to be 100% precise):

-Magneto
-Gandalf
-General Grievous
-Darth Vader (A New Hope )
-Anakin (Attack of the Clones)
-Luke Skywalker (Return of the Jedi)

Magneto: Level 21+. He's a positively nasty planet buster + who can do intergalactic teleportation, tank nukes to the face, physically lift several tons, can self resurrect, and can play the entire EM force (one of the four fundamental forces) like a fiddle.

Gandalf: Anywhere from level 5 or so on up to level 20+ demigod depending upon what value you place on various sources. Just by shown movie/original trilogy+Hobbit he's around level 5-7.

GG: Level 10ish.

Anakin: Somewhere between levels 10 and 15 depending upon where exactly you take him from and whether you are talking TV cartoon or movie.

Luke: Maybe level 10, at his best in the original movies. When you go EU he eventually hits level 21+.

GilesTheCleric

2013-12-10, 06:36 PM

I know that's the sarcasm color, but I nevertheless want to jump in here and say...I liked Episode I! Yes, I even liked Jar Jar!

I did not like midichlorians, but I'm not going to throw an entire movie out the window for a single line of dialogue that I can just easily imagine as having been delivered a little differently.

(Midichlorians are naturally attracted to beings with high Force potential; therefore, a midichlorian count is a good estimate of a person's Force ability - however, midichlorians do not themselves cause the Force, they are just attracted by it. There. Simple.)

I was mostly going after some low-hanging fruit by making the joke. It's perfectly fine for people to have enjoyed 1-3 - everyone wants different things from their films. I sometimes enjoy watching the new Ocean's X films, when things like Le Cercle Rouge or The Killing are better in my opinion (And Sinatra! Who can say no to him?). However, I will never be convinced that the new Italian Job is better than the original, regardless of what you seek from a film.

Since I don't remember those episodes quite so well, can you compare the impacts of aging in SW vs. D&D? I recall that Vader resists the emperor's lightning for quite some time, but cannot recall if Anakin is ever subjected to lightning attacks.

Hanuman

2013-12-10, 06:38 PM

Martial arts rankings are not a valid measurement for how it relates to DnD.

Martial arts rankings are monostat, if you were applying this to your ranks in some sort of Perform (Martial Arts) skill like some systems have then maybe, but DnD is by default larger than life.

First level would define someone who's trained their body for actual combat since a young age, not someone who's taken up to a martial arts hobby over the course of 2-6 years and got his/her first meaningful modular recognition of it.

That being said, you could certainly write a story about someone who made it their life, somehow gaining super savant powers in it similar to Green Archer or Daredevil where they become supernaturally better than anyone in the world at what they do even under pressure despite having no reasonable backstory for their training.

Tengu_temp

2013-12-10, 06:38 PM

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-10, 07:03 PM

This article has been dissected several times on these forums. It's full of holes and flawed logic.

Hmm. I've missed those discussions, except insofar as strongman competitions can regularly outpace what a STR-18 human should be capable of under D&D.

Still, I agree with the article's fundamental point...levels 1-5 should be expected to represent, to a greater or lesser extent, "the real world."

Kurald Galain

2013-12-10, 07:08 PM

There is a strong argument (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2) towards the idea that no person who has ever historically lived on Earth has been higher than 5th level, and 5th level represents the absolute pinnacle, once-every-few-generations human achievement
That argument is poorly researched, ill reasoned, and prima facie absurd. According to WOTC itself, olympic athletes clock in at level 8 depending on the sport; and just statting a regular person with university level education easily requires 4-6 levels to get the skill points down.

So yeah, there are plenty of real humans throughout history that are level 10 or so. Sure, they're legendary and powerful, but that's the whole point of being high level.

AstralFire

2013-12-10, 07:09 PM

Going purely off of the movies, I wouldn't consider Vader more than high single digits.

If we're including the EU in this, though, Vader would be solidly in his mid to late teens, level-wise. Traditional Jedi Knights and their derivative traditions (primarily the Sith) mostly build up people to focus their powersets over saying 'no' to people with impressive feats.

No, you will not shoot me.
No, you will not infect my mind.
No, you will not do X, Y, and Z.

Sort of like having a melee class that can counterspell, dispel, and do moderate self-buffs.

Seerow

2013-12-10, 07:11 PM

Hmm. I've missed them, except insofar as strongman competitions can regularly outpace what a STR-18 human should be capable of under D&D.

Even those, few strongman competitions are going to beat out what a level 4 Human Paragon/Barbarian is capable of. Start at 18 strength, 3 levels of Human Paragon, 1 Barbarian, once a day boost up to 25 strength lets you bench press 800lbs, pick up 1600lbs, and push/drag 2 tons.

World record bench press is 700lbs. Records for just picking stuff up or pushing/dragging are harder to find, but I doubt they're that far outside what the above is capable of, and likely lower.

I'm pretty sure there's a few feats out there that can boost that further, but I'm not certain off hand what they are, so I could be wrong.

edit:

So yeah, there are plenty of real humans throughout history that are level 10 or so. Sure, they're legendary and powerful, but that's the whole point of being high level.

Possibly level 10 in NPC classes.

I find it hard to imagine anyone in the real world being capable of things that 10th level classes are expected to do. You might find some people that can compare to a poorly optimized 10th level Fighter, but going outside of that... even to a Rogue, Barbarian, or Monk, you're going to have trouble finding anyone who can match what they're capable of.

Edit: What I'm trying to get at here is I will allow you that there are people who meet and even exceed mid level D&D character expectations of accuracy and number of attacks. And D&D leadership/landlord feats are silly and completely unrealistic. But you're going to be very hard pressed to find someone who can stand on top of a grenade exploding and take no damage at all, who can jump down a 50ft cliff without taking damage, run 35 miles an hour sustained for extended periods of time, and so on.

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-10, 07:12 PM

According to WOTC itself,

This starts off with the assumption that WotC knew what it was doing, when in fact it's generally accepted on these boards that WotC had no clue what it was doing. As my counter-argument to your argument, I present the fighter.

Hanuman

2013-12-10, 07:12 PM

AstralFire

2013-12-10, 07:19 PM

Force classes have a minor AMF that opposes the other force side, that's why they use lightsabers and don't bludgeon them to death with shield droids.

That too, but I preferred to use the "counterspell" analogy since AMFs are known for their many holes.

Re: Real Life comparison, it's really hard to make a measure for highest level when most of the non-casters are toddling along at T4-5 and then there's a handful of (Ex) at T3. Throw in that skills map very poorly to real-life accomplishments, as well as that HP is an abstraction of unspecified distance, and I think anyone attempting to make a definitive argument for "real life caps out at level X rather than level Y" (where X and Y are not near-epic) is standing on really weak ground.

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-10, 07:21 PM

Force classes have a minor AMF that opposes the other force side, that's why they use lightsabers and don't bludgeon them to death with shield droids.

Speaking of, where do you suppose the classes of Star Wars Revised fit into the Tier system? Soldier is obviously just a fighter (that's shy 1 feat, and for extra insult, it's the 1st-level feat), so Tier-5; and the Scoundrel is basically a Rogue without Sneak Attack, so probably Tier 5 as well. But what about the Fringer, Noble, Scout, Tech Specialist, Force Adept, Jedi Knight, and Jedi Counselor?

Well, specifically really the three Force classes; the other are all pretty obviously Tier 4-5.

AstralFire

2013-12-10, 07:23 PM

Speaking of, where do you suppose the classes of Star Wars Revised fit into the Tier system? Soldier is obviously just a fighter (that's shy 1 feat), so Tier-5; and the Scoundrel is basically a Rogue without Sneak Attack, so probably Tier 5 as well. But what about the Fringer, Noble, Scout, Tech Specialist, Force Adept, Jedi Knight, and Jedi Counselor?

Well, specifically really the three Force classes; the other are all pretty obviously Tier 4-5.

People still play Star Wars RCR? :smallconfused:

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-10, 07:23 PM

People still play Star Wars RCR? :smallconfused:

No, but I have the book handy for easy reference when need be.

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-10, 07:25 PM

That too, but I preferred to use the "counterspell" analogy since AMFs are known for their many holes.

Re: Real Life comparison, it's really hard to make a measure for highest level when most of the non-casters are toddling along at T4-5 and then there's a handful of (Ex) at T3. Throw in that skills map very poorly to real-life accomplishments, as well as that HP is an abstraction of unspecified distance, and I think anyone attempting to make a definitive argument for "real life caps out at level X rather than level Y" (where X and Y are not near-epic) is standing on really weak ground.

Not really. No one has ever really provided any feat that we haven't been able to produce an ECL 6 human able to accomplish (or any human with a sufficiently broad feat base that we can't produce a single individual capable of doing it).

AstralFire

2013-12-10, 07:26 PM

No, but I have the book handy for easy reference when need be.

Then I'll spare you my Saga Edition demagoguery. :smalltongue:

I can't see the Force classes from RCR breaking above T4 from what I recall, their resources are too limited to accomplish much of anything variety-wise. But I haven't picked up a copy of that rulebook in years and years and I wasn't particularly proficient in design when I quit that game.

Chronos

2013-12-10, 07:26 PM

I like thinking in terms of academics, since that's what I am.

That infamous Alexandrian article pretty conclusively proves that any person with a PhD is at least level 5. I know that's not what he thinks he proved, but there's a word for "someone who has learned something no human has ever known before", and that word isn't "Einstein", it's "doctor".

Not too long after you get a doctorate, you get a tenure-track position (though not all doctors get to this point). This is when you can start taking on graduate students. This fits in nicely with D&D, where level 6 is when you can take the Leadership feat.

There are other notable milestones past this: When you become a fully-tenured professor, when you become head of the research group in your specialty, when you become head of the whole department. Let's say those are roughly levels 7, 8, and 9.

The Legend Lore spell in D&D states that, roughly speaking, someone (or some thing) is "legendary" if they're about 11th level or higher (or associated with characters of that level). In academic terms, I'd say this corresponds to having some phenomenon, equation, etc. named after you, which is widely known to people in the field. Which does seem to be about two steps above the guy who's the head of a university department (one step above would be the guy who's got something named after him, but that most folks don't know about it).

After this, it starts getting fuzzier, both since the D&D rules don't provide us with as many benchmarks, and because examples to point to get rarer and rarer. But at the top end, level 20 is the point where you've only had a handful of folks that high in all of history. Einstein, Newton, and Archimedes would be level 20, and no other physicists. If I really set my mind to it, I could probably come up with a hierarchy of physicists for each level, such that A and B were pretty clearly greater than C and D, but that it's tough to say which of A or B was greater, and so on.

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-10, 07:28 PM

Then I'll spare you my Saga Edition demagoguery. :smalltongue:

Assuming you're trying to say that SAGA was better...yes, SAGA was better. In fact, damned if I don't think that if 4E had been more like SAGA, it would have been received better.

Urpriest

2013-12-10, 07:28 PM

First: Blackbelt doesn't correspond to any particular skill level in general. It's sufficient mastery of a particular set of skills, but so is being an Eagle Scout.

Second: Level isn't about how powerful you are, it's about where you fit in the setting. First level characters fight humanoid undead, first level humanoids, and animals. Higher level characters start fighting outsiders, dragons, etc. Basically, look at that CR range and you'll find what, thematically, that level is supposed to mean.

AstralFire

2013-12-10, 07:34 PM

Assuming you're trying to say that SAGA was better...yes, SAGA was better. In fact, damned if I don't think that if 4E had been more like SAGA, it would have been received better.

SWSE was the best thing Wizards has ever made. I became a Star Wars fan solely because I liked the game that much. I don't play cards, though, so I might be biased. :smalltongue:

@Tippy: I find the level 6 arguments much more persuasive than any other benchmark, but I don't find them definitively persuasive where I feel someone who disagrees is outright wrong. The system's just too vague, too abstracted, and it's too difficult to tell what's an intended consequence of the design and what's bad design when it comes to mapping real-life feats.

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-10, 07:38 PM

That infamous Alexandrian article pretty conclusively proves that any person with a PhD is at least level 5. I know that's not what he thinks he proved, but there's a word for "someone who has learned something no human has ever known before", and that word isn't "Einstein", it's "doctor".

With respect, I live rather near one of the best medical schools on the planet, and while it IS one of the best medical schools on the planet, I rather believe that not every one of the hundreds of doctors therein has learned something no human (which remember, would include other doctors) has ever known before during their time in school.

Yes, I know, not every doctor is a medical doctor, but the point still stands.

Not too long after you get a doctorate, you get a tenure-track position (though not all doctors get to this point). This is when you can start taking on graduate students. This fits in nicely with D&D, where level 6 is when you can take the Leadership feat.

Followers attained with Leadership are explicitly willing to fight and die for you (they're "rarely effective in combat," but that's not the same thing as being unwilling). I imagine that this is a somewhat rare quality in most graduate students.

There are other notable milestones past this: When you become a fully-tenured professor, when you become head of the research group in your specialty, when you become head of the whole department. Let's say those are roughly levels 7, 8, and 9.

Why? This depends on being able to get Leadership as the same thing as being able to take on graduate students, which doesn't seem to be the case due to, again, a lack of likelihood for your typical graduate student to come with the tenured professor to fight the undead hoards of Niflheim. Or something.

AstralFire

2013-12-10, 07:40 PM

Additional point @Chronos: Leadership is a purely gameplay balance abstraction. It's part of social interactions, something that everything on the d20 chassis either handwaves or handles poorly. I wouldn't use anything derived from the leadership feat for comparing to the real world.

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-10, 07:42 PM

@Tippy: I find the level 6 arguments much more persuasive than any other benchmark, but I don't find them definitively persuasive where I feel someone who disagrees is outright wrong. The system's just too vague, too abstracted, and it's too difficult to tell what's an intended consequence of the design and what's bad design when it comes to mapping real-life feats.

In my case its not so much saying that the other side of the argument is outright wrong as it is me saying "I have yet to see any evidence in support of that side of the argument".

I really can't think of any feat or individual that has been done/existed in the real world that can't be done by an ECL 6 D&D human that isn't using magic.

Remember that for the 1 off extreme feats you need to assume a natural 20 on the d20 roll. And that for the less extreme feats that a one level dip in Martial Monk will get you Weapon Supremacy which means that you get to take 10 on one attack roll per round (so if you can manage an AB of +10 or so, +5 BAB +1 MW weapon +1 Weapon Focus, +3 from Str/Dex, then you can always hit AC of 20).

Factotum 6 with 18-20 Int can fairly convincingly do even the great polymaths such as Da Vinci. Especially if some kind of retaining rules are in play and some feat selection was done.

The one problem is that the D&D characters tend to be a lot more generally capable than real life individuals.

Kurald Galain

2013-12-10, 07:47 PM

This starts off with the assumption that WotC knew what it was doing, when in fact it's generally accepted on these boards that WotC had no clue what it was doing. As my counter-argument to your argument, I present the fighter.
No, it shows that WOTC wasn't aiming to have level 1-5 represent "humanity". Since this was never a design goal, and it's absurd to assume that WOTC's lack of competence just happened to hit that exact level range purely by accident, we know that it's false that all of humanity maps to levels 1-5. (and of course we already knew that because we have evidence that directly contradicts it anyway, such as Chronos's point).

With respect, I live rather near one of the best medical schools on the planet, and while it IS one of the best medical schools on the planet, I rather believe that not every one of the hundreds of doctors therein has learned something no human (which remember, would include other doctors) has ever known before during their time in school.
Chronos is correct though; anyone with a PhD has discovered something that nobody knew before, because that's what you get a PhD for. The whole point of having a university is to get people to discover things that humanity didn't know yet. It should be no surprise, then, that an institute like Harvard employs decent amount of level-6 to level-8 experts at any given time.

Chronos

2013-12-10, 07:49 PM

I was referring to real doctors, not physicians. And yes, every single real doctor, including the majority of college professors, has in fact learned something that nobody else in the world had ever known. Ask any of them about it sometime; they'll be glad to tell you.

AstralFire

2013-12-10, 07:51 PM

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would personally find the arguments move up a notch in persuasiveness if they focused on core materials. Presumably* the original system designers had some notion of real life capability which they were comparing to for the Fighter, Rogue, Expert, Aristocrat, Warrior and Commoner - and non-core introduces serious power creep in the non-caster classes. Entirely necessary power creep, from a game design standpoint, but power creep nonetheless.

* of course, presumably they also playtested the bulk of their system before releasing it as a product, so... how about those presumptions, eh?

I was referring to real doctors, not physicians. And yes, every single real doctor, including the majority of college professors, has in fact learned something that nobody else in the world had ever known. Ask any of them about it sometime; they'll be glad to tell you.

To build on this a bit, MDs, JDs and a few of the other minor 'D's should really be Bachelor's or Masters' Degrees under the traditional system, as they're primarily intense vocational training. Some people do use those degrees for an academic basis, but they're the minority.

Kurald Galain

2013-12-10, 07:58 PM

Flickerdart

2013-12-10, 07:59 PM

We can conclusively say that Einstein was not level 20 - he never demonstrated any of the toughness or combat skill that even a 20th level commoner would have.

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-10, 08:00 PM

I was referring to real doctors, not physicians.

Not sure how my doctor would feel if he read that.

Regardless, the Alexandrian article probably would have been better off saying something to the effect of "learning something of world-changing significance that no one has ever learned before," and then presented Einstein's mass-energy equivalence formula. That certainly seems to have been the intent.

and it's absurd to assume that WOTC's lack of competence just happened to hit that exact level range purely by accident

Actually, I wouldn't think it absurd at all...to use our very own hobby as an analogy, roll d20s enough and eventually you'll roll a critical success.

such as Chronos's point

Which hinges entirely on the idea that graduate students are the equivalent of followers granted by the Leadership feat, and therefore any PhD with graduate students must be level 6 in order to take Leadership. But if graduate students are granted by Leadership, then they are willing to fight and die for the professor they're working under. I'm not denying that some are, but I rather doubt that all are.

Graduate students aren't followers granted by Leadership. They're just graduate students. Similar to how the Big Bad Evil Guy of any given campaign doesn't need to take Leadership to have minions, he just has them 'cause he's the BBEG, a PhD doesn't need Leadership to have graduate students, he just has them. So we can't use graduate students as an example of the level of someone with a PhD.

Funnily enough, the article itself warns against this line of thinking:

A character is described as having one very specific ability that only a 5th level druid can have and is simultaneously described as having another ability that only a 12th level ranger can have, so clearly they must be a 17th level character, right?

Well, no. Authors don’t design their characters around the class progressions of the core D&D classes. Take, for example, a character who can assume an ethereal state without casting a spell. The only way to do that in D&D, using only the core classes, is to be a 19th level monk. But if that’s the only special ability the character in question has, it would be completely nonsensical to model them as a 19th level monk – they don’t have any of the plethora of other abilities such a monk possesses. What you’re looking at is a character with a unique class progression or possibly a prestige class. Or maybe a racial ability.

Finally, you’ll get into an arms race of expectations which just reinforces the whole thing: Aragorn must be 20th level. So the orcs who posed such a challenge to him must be 15th level or higher. And since those were elite 15th level orcs, Aragorn must have been 20th level in order to face them.

Seerow

2013-12-10, 08:02 PM

Chronos: I suppose by your logic any national level leader must be Epic, to have hundreds of thousands of people following them? I'm not buying it. Like someone else said, leadership isn't a good point to base anyone's level around.

As for the ranks of physicists, could that not be different levels of investment or different areas of expertise? Feats, synergy bonuses, ranks in different fields of study to help a breakthrough on a specific problem, etc.

Astralfire: You're literally asking for two of the weakest core only classes to display supernatural capability. Going by that logic, D&D represents real life even at level 100, because you never actually get the ability in core to do stuff on either of those classes that is really 100% implausible, except raw survivability (okay by level 100 you may get a high enough skill rank to pull off some epic skill usages that are pretty crazy. Level 30-40 you're still safe with no magic items allowed though). It's an unrealistic goal, and limiting on that basis (especially if you're going to ignore the survivability factor of a high level character having no real world parallel) will let you point at whatever level you like and call it 100% realistic, no matter how ridiculous it is.

edit:

Which hinges entirely on the idea that graduate students are the equivalent of followers granted by the Leadership feat, and therefore any PhD with graduate students must be level 6 in order to take Leadership. But if graduate students are granted by Leadership, then they are willing to fight and die for the professor they're working under. I'm not denying that some are, but I rather doubt that all are.

Graduate students aren't followers granted by Leadership. They're just graduate students. Similar to how the Big Bad Evil Guy of any given campaign doesn't need to take Leadership to have minions, he just has them 'cause he's the BBEG, a PhD doesn't need Leadership to have graduate students, he just has them.

Also worth noting: By this analysis, every grad student must be at least 3rd or 4th level. You tell me, what level does that make the professor need to be (or how ridiculous of a charisma does he need to have) to be able to have a dozen grad students as leadership followers?

We've now ballooned out PhD up from level 6 to probably around level 20. So Einstein must obviously be somewhere around 50, pulling off his findings with Epic Physics research, right?

Oko and Qailee

2013-12-10, 08:03 PM

-a lot-

Reading your definitions... I don't really agree with your levels based of your descriptions. Level 21 you mention there is no impossible feat... but Luke is lvl 21+ in EU? He was crazy strong, but certainly not "no feat cannot be accomplished."

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-10, 08:05 PM

DC 30-40 is pretty much the highest real world knowledge DC.

Take 20, +4 ranks, +2 Int, +6 from a master level library; you just hit a DC 30 DC. Skill Focus adds another +3, aid another is another +2. That gets a level 1 character making a DC 37 Knowledge check.

Third level Factotum with three research assistants, max ranks, 14 Int, access to a universities library, and Skill Focus has +26 on his skill check before the roll. That means that he can hit DC 46 potentially and should consistently hit DC 36, which is enough to advance knowledge.

Throw in an item familiar (which can be fluffed as specialized equipment) for another +2 and a fourth research assistant and you are consistently hitting DC 40.

Now actually think about real research, when pretty much every other specialist in your field world wide is publishing their own research, which can easily be construed as Aid Another checks to a greater or lesser extent.

So no, college professors and doctors aren't pushing level 10. They are pushing level 4.

AstralFire

2013-12-10, 08:05 PM

Not sure how my doctor would feel if he read that.

It's not an insult (or at least, not necessarily one.) Relatively few MDs in the modern era are focused on research, education, and expanding the base of knowledge, which is what a doctorate used to be all about. It's a very demanding field, but it's vocational - proper application of the precise skills which you have been taught - rather than educational.

danzibr

2013-12-10, 08:07 PM

Why the heck is Padme level 10?

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-10, 08:08 PM

Why the heck is Padme level 10?

She did okay for herself in the middle of a brawl with Jedi and battle droids in Episode II, as well as the attack on Theed in Episode I.

Levels 1-20 in Star Wars don't mean quite the same things that they do in D&D.

AstralFire

2013-12-10, 08:09 PM

Astralfire: You're literally asking for two of the weakest core only classes to display supernatural capability. Going by that logic, D&D represents real life even at level 100, because you never actually get the ability in core to do stuff on either of those classes that is really 100% implausible, except raw survivability (okay by level 100 you may get a high enough skill rank to pull off some epic skill usages that are pretty crazy. Level 30-40 you're still safe with no magic items allowed though). It's an unrealistic goal, and limiting on that basis (especially if you're going to ignore the survivability factor of a high level character having no real world parallel) will let you point at whatever level you like and call it 100% realistic, no matter how ridiculous it is.

I know. That's why, even though I find level 6 the most persuasive, I don't think it's possible to make a definitive argument. The limitations in how those classes were designed inherently makes the question impossible to decisively answer (at least in my eyes, though if someone can make a strong argument one way or the other, I'm open to it.)

Also worth noting: By this analysis, every grad student must be at least 3rd or 4th level. You tell me, what level does that make the professor need to be (or how ridiculous of a charisma does he need to have) to be able to have a dozen grad students as leadership followers?

We've now ballooned out PhD up from level 6 to probably around level 20. So Einstein must obviously be somewhere around 50, pulling off his findings with Epic Physics research, right?

Like I said, I think any notion of using social skills or feats like Leadership as a benchmark is too out-there, even by the standards of this discussion. I can only imagine what level a head of state has to be in order to qualify for leadership over their army.

Seerow

2013-12-10, 08:13 PM

Like I said, I think any notion of using social skills or feats like Leadership as a benchmark is too out-there, even by the standards of this discussion. I can only imagine what level a head of state has to be in order to qualify for leadership over their army.

Well that one's easy.

Everyone knows that The government is run by Lizard People. Lizard People just automatically get a huge boost to Charisma, because you know, they have the serpent's tongue or whatever

Hand_of_Vecna

2013-12-10, 08:20 PM

1st level is no where near a black belt. First character level is a person who has just recently decided to start adventuring, their adventures can start anywhere from the town where the grew up, to a few towns over. maybe they boarded a ship to another country to start fresh, etc.

Huh? A Level 1 Monk (the class we make fun of) has better than even odds against an armed common soldier in a straight fight.

Yes, I'm well aware that there are plenty of anecdotes of first year students besting armed thugs, but such stories are generally about two commoners and te one with better states fails his intimidate check allowing their intended victim to bluff them and get a surprise attack in.

Also, level one represents anywhere from two to twelve years of training and that's assuming that there wasn't apprenticeship training before the age of 15.

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-10, 08:20 PM

Well that one's easy.

Everyone knows that The government is run by Lizard People (http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/04/12-million-americans-believe-lizard-people-run-our-country/63799/). Lizard People just automatically get a huge boost to Charisma, because you know, they have the serpent's tongue or whatever

Maybe they're Falleen, from Star Wars, and so have those sex pheromones.

There, see? The circle is complete. When this thread started I was but a leaner, now I am the master.

Hand_of_Vecna

2013-12-10, 08:35 PM

Hmm. I've missed those discussions, except insofar as strongman competitions can regularly outpace what a STR-18 human should be capable of under D&D.

Still, I agree with the article's fundamental point...levels 1-5 should be expected to represent, to a greater or lesser extent, "the real world."

They could have feats, traits and even levels in Body Builder class that raise their effective Strength. Also modern nutritional supplements could give an alchemical bonus to Strength after months of years of taking them.

PairO'Dice Lost

2013-12-10, 08:45 PM

Apologies in advance for the wall of text, and Kurald, I'm not singling you out, just using your comment as a springboard.

According to WOTC itself, olympic athletes clock in at level 8 depending on the sport; and just statting a regular person with university level education easily requires 4-6 levels to get the skill points down.
[...]
we know that it's false that all of humanity maps to levels 1-5. (and of course we already knew that because we have evidence that directly contradicts it anyway, such as Chronos's point).

I would point out that when it comes to mapping real life to D&D, we're talking two different definitions of "humanity." There's the humanity of D&D, which lives in a world of monsters and catastrophes and lacks many benefits of modernity (widespread education, better life expectancy, etc.), and then there's the humanity of the real world, which (at least in the developed countries) benefits from relative peace and safety and has much higher standards of health, education, etc.

The "maximum humanly-possible Strength," then, depends on which "humanity" you're talking about; Olympic athletes have much better nutrition, training regimens, and so forth than D&D barbarians, so the carrying limits for an 18 Str might be the maximum capability of D&D humanity even though RL modern humanity can exceed those limits. Similarly, a D&D character might need to be level 6 to match a regular person with a university education because in D&D a "regular person" doesn't have a university education: even accounting for the varying education opportunities for pseudo-Medieval peasants, a lot of the material that modern kids learn in secondary school math and science classes today was either elite knowledge or entirely unknown in the kind of societies D&D has.

And of course there's the fact that D&D stats are more combat-focused than makes sense for modern characters. The usual objection to statting out certain real-life characters in D&D is "...but then to make sure Einstein gets enough skill ranks, he has to have a +6 attack bonus, which doesn't make sense at all!" or the like, which is a consequence of trying to use the D&D system (which assumes characters live in a world where waking up in the middle of the night to a dragon attack or goblin invasion or whatever isn't uncommon and so everyone needs to have at least some combat skill to survive) to model real-life people (who might go years or even their entire lives without witnessing a murder, seeing a real weapon, or getting into a fist fight).

So the question "If you want to make a Medieval Europe analog in D&D, what level should everyone be?" has a different answer from the question "If you were to stat a modern person with a physics PhD and a martial arts hobby, what level and class would you need to be?" The answer to the former might be "most people are level 1-3 commoners with the leaders being level 5-6 PC-classed characters" while the answer to the latter might be "a level 8 factotum," and that's okay because what a level means for a hero in a pseudo-Medieval world whose life is nasty, brutish, and short can be different from what it means for a modern nerd with a cushy 9-to-5 job.

This isn't to say that the Alexandrian article is completely correct, or even mostly correct--it makes the same sort of mistakes of conflation, like equating D&D's "good wooden door" (likely a thick, solid door with big hinges and a padlock and/or wooden beam) with a modern wooden door (usually a lighter wooden composite, possibly hollow-core, with smaller hinges and a deadbolt), and using Einsten and a ton of science journals as an example science-y type instead of, say, Newton and some alchemy manuals--but the general conclusion that the following sort of level-inflating reasoning is completely bogus:

When you become a fully-tenured professor, when you become head of the research group in your specialty, when you become head of the whole department. Let's say those are roughly levels 7, 8, and 9.

The Legend Lore spell in D&D states that, roughly speaking, someone (or some thing) is "legendary" if they're about 11th level or higher (or associated with characters of that level). In academic terms, I'd say this corresponds to having some phenomenon, equation, etc. named after you, which is widely known to people in the field.
[...]
Einstein, Newton, and Archimedes would be level 20, and no other physicists.
...is one that I fully agree with.

Personally, I set up most of my worlds with a more modern aesthetic (plentiful universities, common magic, and so forth), so levels 1-2 are for teenagers, levels 5-6 are for the average adult, levels 7-12 are for exceptional people, and everyone has levels in "real" classes so NPC classes don't exist, so don't think I'm saying that having tons of low-level commoners around is the best or only way to do things. I'm just saying that pointing out the flaws in the Alexandrian's and WotC's reasoning doesn't mean that they were entirely wrong and doesn't justify the level inflation the article was arguing against.

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-10, 09:20 PM

...is one that I fully agree with.
What Legendary means in D&D is that people will be speaking of your deeds not next week, next month, next year, or even next decade but next century and next millenia. The 12th level Fighter who was the King's personal champion isn't some dime a dozen person, he will go into the history books as the greatest martial master in the Kingdoms history, the man who slew powerful demons and devils singlehandedly, the man who shot the Red dragon that sent 95% of the royal army fleeing in terror with a single roar and roasted a whole village in less than a miniute and killed it with a single arrow through the eye.

If the bards aren't reciting epics to your greatness on a regular basis decades after you are dead and in the dirt then you don't rate as Legendary.

Personally, I set up most of my worlds with a more modern aesthetic (plentiful universities, common magic, and so forth), so levels 1-2 are for teenagers, levels 5-6 are for the average adult, levels 7-12 are for exceptional people, and everyone has levels in "real" classes so NPC classes don't exist, so don't think I'm saying that having tons of low-level commoners around is the best or only way to do things. I'm just saying that pointing out the flaws in the Alexandrian's and WotC's reasoning doesn't mean that they were entirely wrong and doesn't justify the level inflation the article was arguing against.

Except said numbers really don't make sense.

A level 6 fighter should be able to single handedly fight 6 Goblins at the same time. This is what you are claiming that every single adult in the world can do.

That is the fighter comparison but it applies pretty much across the board.

Go look at, say, Elder Evils and what a DC 35 or DC 37 knowledge check means. The gods went out of their way to erase every written record of Pandorym's existence and its still only a DC 28 Knowledge check to know that it exists.

A level 6 character focused on studying the arcane (such as a wizard) can easily be making that check half the time.

A world where every adult has 5 to 6 levels in PC classes is *far* different from any published D&D setting or any published rules guidance.

Chronos

2013-12-10, 09:27 PM

Quoth Flickerdart:

We can conclusively say that Einstein was not level 20 - he never demonstrated any of the toughness or combat skill that even a 20th level commoner would have.
What do you mean? He never once died from a dagger, sword blow, extreme fall, or anything else that causes HP damage. If you've never stabbed the guy, then you just don't know how tough he was. Maybe he really was that tough, but pain still hurts, and he had no reason to demonstrate his toughness.

And my argument isn't based entirely on the notion that professors have grad students. That's one piece of support for my argument, but not the only one: I also have the fact that, by the same reasoning as the Alexandrian, a fifth-level scholar is needed to make a hitherto-unknown discovery. And I also have the fact that the game rules explicitly say that legendary characters are about level 11 or more. And the fact that humans really do come in a wide range of abilities in any given category of tasks, far wider than 5 levels would account for. What does Alexander have? One of the same arguments that I used, and some bits about Jump, the most poorly-calibrated skill in the game.

Flickerdart

2013-12-10, 09:35 PM

AstralFire

2013-12-10, 09:37 PM

What do you mean? He never once died from a dagger, sword blow, extreme fall, or anything else that causes HP damage. If you've never stabbed the guy, then you just don't know how tough he was. Maybe he really was that tough, but pain still hurts, and he had no reason to demonstrate his toughness. Unless there's particular reason to believe that Einstein was incredibly exceptionally durable for a human...

And my argument isn't based entirely on the notion that professors have grad students. That's one piece of support for my argument, but not the only one: I also have the fact that, by the same reasoning as the Alexandrian, a fifth-level scholar is needed to make a hitherto-unknown discovery. And I also have the fact that the game rules explicitly say that legendary characters are about level 11 or more. And the fact that humans really do come in a wide range of abilities in any given category of tasks, far wider than 5 levels would account for. What does Alexander have? One of the same arguments that I used, and some bits about Jump, the most poorly-calibrated skill in the game.

Speaking of poor calibrations - it's not hard to see the line of logic that says that the D&D skill system is ill-equipped to handle the extremely deep base of knowledge necessary to be a relevant expert in a field today, and that the Alexandrian was thinking of landmark discoveries rather than a process that literally happens on a daily basis internationally.

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-10, 09:45 PM

Speaking of poor calibrations - it's not hard to see the line of logic that says that the D&D skill system is ill-equipped to handle the extremely deep base of knowledge necessary to be a relevant expert in a field today, and that the Alexandrian was thinking of landmark discoveries rather than a process that literally happens on a daily basis internationally.

Which, given that it mentions, among others, Alexander the Great, is probably a reasonable presumption. Peridiccas, Craterus, and Antipater were all amazing generals in their own right, but none of them were Alexander.

Though, having said that, the Knowledge skill in D&D actually is fairly broad, isn't it? Knowledge (the planes) gives you knowledge of all the planes, for example, even though many of them are literally infinite in size and variation and any one could require a lifetime of study to merely scratch the surface; furthermore, Knowledge (the planes) covers a broad array of what would otherwise be disparate fields - flora, fauna, social structures amongst the djinn, planar traits, etc.

Einstein doesn't need a broad skill base to represent his abilities. He just needs Knowledge (physics), and it can be presumed from there that any related maths or sciences are covered by that one skill, leaving his remaining ranks quite free - and given that he can be reasonably assumed to have an 18 INT and be an Expert rather than a Commoner, he has skill points to spare.

Seerow

2013-12-10, 09:51 PM

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-10, 09:55 PM

What do you mean? He never once died from a dagger, sword blow, extreme fall, or anything else that causes HP damage. If you've never stabbed the guy, then you just don't know how tough he was. Maybe he really was that tough, but pain still hurts, and he had no reason to demonstrate his toughness.
*really hopes you are being facetious*

And my argument isn't based entirely on the notion that professors have grad students. That's one piece of support for my argument, but not the only one: I also have the fact that, by the same reasoning as the Alexandrian, a fifth-level scholar is needed to make a hitherto-unknown discovery.
Except no 5th level scholar is needed. Regularly hitting DC 30-40 knowledge checks is doable fairly easily at level 3, and that is the DC for new discoveries and the like.

And I also have the fact that the game rules explicitly say that legendary characters are about level 11 or more.
No, it explicitly says that any character of level 11 or more is automatically legendary in general, not that any character that is legendary needs to be level 11 or more.

And the fact that humans really do come in a wide range of abilities in any given category of tasks, far wider than 5 levels would account for. What does Alexander have? One of the same arguments that I used, and some bits about Jump, the most poorly-calibrated skill in the game.
Except humans don't really come in a wide range of abilities that can't be modeled in five or six levels. Especially not when you throw out wealth by level as a thing, acknowledge factions/organizations as things, and allow retraining.

Again, name a human and I'll give you an ECL 6 human character that can match or exceed their feats; assuming that one off feats are rolling a natural 20.

Elderand

2013-12-10, 09:58 PM

This whole discussion highlight one thing in particular

The limit of a level system with no sideway growth.

Think of it this way, a level 6 character has an exact number of skill points to spend, those skill points are intrinsicly tied to it's fighting ability by virtue of both depending completely on a vertical level growth.
This character can never learn anything new or get better at what he does until he gain another level, which means he gets tougher and a better fighter and a host of other things.

That's just not how things works in reality. Trying to make the system conform to reality is pointless, so maybe einstein was a level 6 in term of skill, but clearly he was no tougher than a level 1.

No, these sorts of discussion make much more sense in a system that doesn't couple skills and levels so tightly.

Mutants and masterminds for exemple is infinitly better at modeling the abilities of normal peoples (be they scientists or others) than dnd will ever be.

Want to know what the levels in dnd represent ? Stop trying to make them fit with real life and simply accept that the universal laws in dnd are utterly different.
It's a world where getting better at basketweaving automaticly make you tougher and a better warrior. It's a world were people see and hear better with age.
The only way to say what the levels in dnd represents are to discuss them whithin the scope of the game own internal logic.

At level 1 your character is essentialy out of a period of apprenticeship.
By the time he reach level 6 he could be a leader of men.

By level 12-15 they are adventuring among the infinite planes of existence, barely concerned about the struggles of common people

By level 20 they are akin to gods

Saruman

2013-12-10, 10:01 PM

Elderand

2013-12-10, 10:03 PM

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-10, 10:12 PM

Again, name a human and I'll give you an ECL 6 human character that can match or exceed their feats; assuming that one off feats are rolling a natural 20.

Not because I doubt you, but because I really want to see it: Napoleon Bonaparte.

but clearly he was no tougher than a level 1.

Actually, as the article itself points out, a 5th-level Einstein could be modeled with as few as five hit points.

Specifically, by 5th level (by which point he's pushing 70 and so is venerable), he'd look something like this...

Einstein, Theoretical Physicist: Human Expert 5; Medium humanoid (human); HD 5d6-10; hp 5; Init -3; Spd 30 ft; AC 7 (touch 7, flat-footed 7); Base Attack +3; Grp +1; Atk +1 melee (1d3-2, unarmed) or +0 ranged (by weapon); SA --; SQ Human traits, Expert features; AL NG; SV Fort -1, Ref -2, Will +7; AB Str 6, Dex 4, Con 7, Int 19, Wis 17, Cha 11.
Skills and Feats: Knowledge (Physics) +15, any 9 others at 8 ranks and 1 other at 4 ranks (cross-class); Skill Focus (Knowledge [physics]) and any 2 others.

This Einstein started with Str 12, Dex 10, Con 13, Int 15, Wis 14, and Cha 8 - or in other words, the default array. An Einstein that rolled or used point buy could have had an even higher INT (specifically - started with 18, gone up to 21 via aging, and then to 22 from 4th level ability increase).

AstralFire

2013-12-10, 10:13 PM

New:

And how would you compare DnD levels with Pokemon levels? Again, not precisely, but just to give an idea.

What DnD level would a Charmeleon (lv. 20) have? And a Mewtwo (lv. 70), or other legendaries?
Otherwise, what Pokémon level would a lv. 5 DND PC have?

I was thinking that, in Pokemon, the max. level you can attain is lv.100 (without cheats, although the last edition of Pokemon I played was Gold, and I know that there are like 500 new pokémons and the rules may have changed), and in Dnd the "standard max." lv. is 20
Therefore, you can multiply each Dnd Level x5 and that would give you the Pokemon equivalent, like, the min. level in Dnd is 1, so 1x5 = 5, a level 1 PC in Dnd would be a lv. 5 Pokémon (a starter), and a level 20 Dnd Character would be a lv. 100 pokémon (20x5=100).
An epic level character therefore would be a lv.105+ pokémon, for instance.

We have absolutely no basis for understanding what Pokemon levels correspond to for anything besides game mechanical pokemon battles; both the anime and Pokemon Special don't focus very much on levels, and what little they do tends to be more along the lines of improved technique as opposed to power. Power comes with genetics or age usually.

I wouldn't rate most pokemon past about level 10 at most, but I'd give some Divine Ranks.

There's also the bit where D&D levels typically increase power by some significant multiplier, even for melee. A level 20 Fighter does a lot more damage than 20 level 1 Fighters. This is not true for Pokemon; a level 100 does roughly double the damage of a level 50, making each level have a distinctly diminishing return for additional power.

limejuicepowder

2013-12-10, 10:16 PM

That's one piece of support for my argument, but not the only one: I also have the fact that, by the same reasoning as the Alexandrian, a fifth-level scholar is needed to make a hitherto-unknown discovery.

I don't think too much weight should be put on this; besides Tippy showing that very high knowledge DC's can be hit by level 3 or 4, expanding knowledge in a particular field isn't hard...at all. Another undergrad student and me did a semester-long research project on the peculiarity of a certain number sequence; when we were done, our adviser sent it for publication. As far as I know, we are the only 2 people to have ever researched that particular subject, and we expanded the knowledge of mathematics. Does that mean we are both 9th level or something?

Essentially, the breadth of potential knowledge should not be underestimated. Even though it sounds impressive to say "new discovery," there is so much to learn that just because it hasn't been researched yet doesn't mean it's difficult, elusive knowledge; it could just be something that no one's bothered with yet. This translates to low-level people being able to make new discoveries just by doing the work no else has done.

Saruman

2013-12-10, 10:28 PM

I don't think too much weight should be put on this; besides Tippy showing that very high knowledge DC's can be hit by level 3 or 4, expanding knowledge in a particular field isn't hard...at all. Myself (an undergrad) and another undergrad student did a semester-long research project on the peculiarity of a certain number sequence; when we were done, our adviser sent it for publication. As far as I know, we are the only 2 people to have ever researched that particular subject, and we expanded the knowledge of mathematics. Does that mean we are both 9th level or something?

Essentially, the breadth of potential knowledge should not be underestimated. Even though it sounds impressive to say "new discovery," there is so much to learn that just because it hasn't been researched yet doesn't mean it's difficult, elusive knowledge; it could just be something that no one's bothered with yet. This translates to low-level people being able to make new discoveries just by doing the work no else has done yet.

"Another undergrad and me"

limejuicepowder

2013-12-10, 10:32 PM

"Another undergrad and me"

Indeed. Do you have a response, or just grammatical corrections?

Elderand

2013-12-10, 10:35 PM

Actually, as the article itself points out, a 5th-level Einstein could be modeled with as few as five hit points.

Yes, let's focus on HP since it's the one piece that can be twisted and beaten into a shape that can when one doesn't look too closely be said to look like real life.

How about we look at something that cannot be explained away.

Einstein, 5th level expert has a bab of +3.

Let that sink in for a minute.

Einstein a man who renounced his german citizenship in order to avoid having to join the army has a better knowledge of fighting (both hand to hand and ranged) than a fresh out of boot camp soldier.

And do say knowledge of fighting, not necessrly how good one is at implementing such knowledge. The soldier will have better chance to hit due to things like str and age. But actual proper knowledge of how to fight ? Nope the rotund theoretical physicist who avoid joining the army knows how to handle things better than a soldier.

And the very fact that he has level in expert is another idiosincracy of the system.

You know who has level in expert ? People like Leonardo davinci, artist, ingeneer and a host of other things. Einstein was good at one thing, he certainly didn't have the skill to be a professional level person in 8 others disciplines. That's just ludicrous.

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-10, 10:44 PM

You know who has level in expert ? People like Leonardo davinci, artist, ingeneer and a host of other things. Einstein was good at one thing, he certainly didn't have the skill to be a professional level person in 8 others disciplines. That's just ludicrous.

No one's saying that he had to max out his ranks in any given skill. Sure, it's good for optimizing a build, but Einstein only needs Knowledge (physics) optimized. He (and, for that matter, most people in the real world, who tend to be eclectic) could additionally have a point in Diplomacy, two in Gather Information, one in Profession (hairstylist)...

Yes, his base attack bonus is +3. But there are other ways to fluff that besides dedicated combat training. Simply having been around for 70 years or so could mean he has a few ideas on how to handle himself in a fight, if from nothing else than having watched a boxing match. His actual combat skill is very poor - the one I had only had a +1 to melee attacks, and that only because I chose to give him a base 12 Strength. Basically, what I'm asking is, is base attack bonus alone what showcases a character's knowledge in fighting, or should it be made up of a composite of all fighting-related things they can do? In that case, then between a -2 penalty to Strength, no combat related feats, skills, or abilities, and an unarmed damage roll of 1d3-2, his knowledge of how to handle himself in a fight is atrocious. He's screwed if he fights a professional soldier - a Warrior 2, say - or even just some random thug (Warrior 1).

But, if you really, really insist that Expert is crazy for him...maybe he's a Commoner, and the local DM of Real Life d20 just ruled that modern-day Commoners, not needing to be substance farmers the way they are in D&D, can instead choose any, I dunno, 5 skills to be class skills. Einstein then is a 5th-level Commoner with max ranks in Knowledge (physics) and Skill Focus (Knowledge [physics]), the same ability score spread, a BAB of +2, and 5 hp still.

It's not a perfect system by any means - but it is pretty good.

Elderand

2013-12-10, 11:19 PM

No one's saying that he had to max out his ranks in any given skill. Sure, it's good for optimizing a build, but Einstein only needs Knowledge (physics) optimized. He (and, for that matter, most people in the real world, who tend to be eclectic) could additionally have a point in Diplomacy, two in Gather Information, one in Profession (hairstylist)...

Yes, his base attack bonus is +3. But there are other ways to fluff that besides dedicated combat training. Simply having been around for 70 years or so could mean he has a few ideas on how to handle himself in a fight, if from nothing else than having watched a boxing match. His actual combat skill is very poor - the one I had only had a +1 to melee attacks, and that only because I chose to give him a base 12 Strength. Basically, what I'm asking is, is base attack bonus alone what showcases a character's knowledge in fighting, or should it be made up of a composite of all fighting-related things they can do? In that case, then between a -2 penalty to Strength, no combat related feats, skills, or abilities, and an unarmed damage roll of 1d3-2, his knowledge of how to handle himself in a fight is atrocious. He's screwed if he fights a professional soldier - a Warrior 2, say - or even just some random thug (Warrior 1).

But, if you really, really insist that Expert is crazy for him...maybe he's a Commoner, and the local DM of Real Life d20 just ruled that modern-day Commoners, not needing to be substance farmers the way they are in D&D, can instead choose any, I dunno, 5 skills to be class skills. Einstein then is a 5th-level Commoner with max ranks in Knowledge (physics) and Skill Focus (Knowledge [physics]), the same ability score spread, a BAB of +2, and 5 hp still.

It's not a perfect system by any means - but it is pretty good.

Or you could, you know, just admit that dnd is a piss poor system to represent what real life people can do because a class and level system is beyond ridiculous as way to quantify the ability of a real life person.

You will run into problem with this idea of trying to fit things they were never meant to fit. DnD doesn't model real life in any way shape or form and if you try and make it work you'll have to twist your way around in non euclidian space to justify things.

Better to simply admit that the system doesn't work for that sort of things and just accept that the physical laws of dnd are just not the same as here.

The whole killing catgirl thing apply to every facet of dnd. It's biological laws don't fit, it's economy doesn't fit, it's physical law doesn't fit. Better to embrace the fact it's a completely different world were people can more or less measure XP and HP and CL with a few test like you could measure how much someone can benchpress than trying to justify things.

Dnd isn't like real life until it says otherwise, the truth of the matter is that DnD is entirely different from real life until it says otherwise.

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-10, 11:24 PM

In the modern world most people wouldn't be commoners, they would be Experts or even PC classes (possibly homebrew classes). Why? Because the modern first world has largely universal education systems that generally spend anywhere from a decade to two decades pounding a broad general knowledge base into peoples heads and then following it up with another four to ten years of specialized education. Even the fry cook at McDonald's probably has a level or two of Expert.

Human Expert 1 with or without Able Learner is likely the most common base with up to five levels of other things dumped on top of it.

With 10 Int you are rocking 28 skill points at level 1 with any ten skills as class skills. A point in six of the knowledge skills (which need to be redone somewhat for the real world) sufficiently represents a high school degree, a point or two in Speak Language is pretty common, now spread out your remaining twenty or so points as you see fit.

College is probably another one to three levels of expert (depending upon bachelors, masters, or doctorate). Add in the membership in the "X University" faction for a relevant feat and skill point bonus, and the membership in your "X High School" faction for another (lesser) skill/feat bump.

Then you have your job, which is another faction with its relevant boosts. Now you have your masterwork tools, your coworkers with their aid another checks, and the miscellaneous assorted boosters.

Let's take a Lawyer who is slightly smarter than average (12 Int). He has 4 levels in expert thanks to high-school, his bachelors, his masters, and his Doctorate of Law and now he is ready to work so he joins a law firm. Right now he has max ranks in Knowledge: Law and Profession (Law) for +7 and Skill Focus in the Profession for +3. This might be higher but it is a good minimum. He also has a number of points in Sense Motive, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, and gather information Gather Information (he does, after all, get 7 per level); these are unlikely to be maxed but still a few ranks.

Now on his Profession (Law) check he can expect a +12 (thanks to the synergy bonus from Knowledge). With take 10 that is 11 GP per week in salary or 572 GP per year. Food tops out at costing you (in D&D) half a GP per day with lodging if you stay in a common inn costing you another half a GP per day. That eats up about 70% of income on food and lodging (and note that these are higher than the expected costs, realistically this number should be halved at least) and leaves 207 GP per year in extra money.

If you save that it is enough to afford a simple house outright in 5 years or a grand house in 25 years. Considering that banks tend to require 20% down and give out 30 years loans to buy houses then that is five years of working to afford the down payment on your grand home. Certainly seems to track with real life fairly accurately.

But lets continue, our young lawyer has gotten a job with a good law firm. It's various resources work out to being a +4 masterwork tool for Profession (Law) and a +2 for the various related legal skills. He also has access to another 5 lawyers and a paralegal along, of which he can reliably get aid from 2 on any given issue. Now he has +20 on his Profession (Law) check, which means that he averages a result of 30 for weekly production of 15 GP. Figure that the firm takes two GP per week out of that and he is making 13 GP per week or an extra 104 GP per year, effectively doubling his disposable income.

The numbers work out for most every profession fairly reliably.

The difference between a level 10 PC and this guy is that the level 10 PC can walk into court against a top flight lawyer with an established firm backing him and pretty much off the top of his head take the opposite side in the case with a better than even chance of winning (13 ranks, +5 from Wisdom is +18, which means that the above lawyer needs to pick up another 4 aid another boosts), and a dedicated ECL 10 lawyer is the guy who can walk into hell to contest a contract written for your soul by a Pit Fiend and win the case with ease (+13 ranks, +7 Wisdom, +9 from Factotum, +3 Skill Focus, +2 Masterwork tool, +4 Exemplar, take 10 from Exemplar for a result of 48.

This whole discussion highlight one thing in particular

The limit of a level system with no sideway growth.

Think of it this way, a level 6 character has an exact number of skill points to spend, those skill points are intrinsicly tied to it's fighting ability by virtue of both depending completely on a vertical level growth.
This character can never learn anything new or get better at what he does until he gain another level, which means he gets tougher and a better fighter and a host of other things.

That's just not how things works in reality. Trying to make the system conform to reality is pointless, so maybe einstein was a level 6 in term of skill, but clearly he was no tougher than a level 1.
Except HP and AB don't just represent physical toughness or ability to land a hit. It's all of the little things. Yeah the good lawyer is rocking a +3 BAB but then he takes a -4 penalty for all attack rolls with every weapon that he is not proficient with, and probably has another -1 from Strength or a Flaw. He also has his 16 (on average and with max at first level) HP. What all this represents is everything from his luck to his having watched a boxing match to his basic understanding of weapons to everything else

The solider you are comparing him to? That's an Expert 1/ Martial Monk 1/ Warrior 2 which means the same BAB but another point for Strength or Dex, Weapon Supremacy so that he can take 10 on his attack rolls, and Weapon Focus for his weapon of choice. Otherwise meaning that he can hit AC 15 pretty much all day. Otherwise known as "can hit any human with less than 20 dex every time and all day". With a masterwork weapon that is AC 16 all day. That would be an average human in breastplate and with a light shield.

Not because I doubt you, but because I really want to see it: Napoleon Bonaparte.

I'll do a more full build later but first up he gets the elite array and PC levels

15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8

Probably arranged as STR 10, DEX 12, CON 8, INT 14, WIS 13, CHA 15 and with the level up point in Cha.

Probably go Factotum 4/ Martial Monk 1/ Marshal 1, maybe replace Martial Monk with another Martial level depending upon Napoleons actual personal combat ability.

Factotum is more than handling the whole skill list as he is getting 9 points per level and has all of them as class skills, possibly with Able Learner at first level. Marshal with Motivate Charisma is getting him Cha to his Cha skills twice and is a good feel for his personal magnetism and ability to get people to follow him. Martial Monk is for Weapon Supremacy so that he can take 10 on attack rolls.

Factotum is also boosting his damage, attack rolls, and general skills a healthy bit to give him that edge over the norm.

Maxed Diplomacy, Intimidate, and probably another 3 or so skills including Knowledge (Warfare) and with Skill Focus in that as well (marshal gives it to Diplomacy for free).

That would give him a Knowledge (Warfare) check of +18 before items or aid another [+9 (ranks) +2 (Int) + 3 (Skill Focus)+ 4 (Cunning Brilliance)] and potentially +30 or more when you throw in aid another from his staff and masterwork tools.

Diplomacy would be +24 before items or aid another [+9 (ranks) + 3 (Cha) + 3 (Skill Focus) + 3 (Marshal) +2 (synergy) +4 (Cunning Brilliance)].

lsfreak

2013-12-10, 11:53 PM

"Another undergrad and me"

This is proper English for me. Using "another undergrad and I" is overly formal and reserved for certain speech acts, such as formal writing, not everyday speech. There is nothing wrong with this; the grammatical distinction between nominative and objective arguments is gone everywhere in English except pronouns and it should be no surprise that pronouns have begun to follow suit (it already happened with ye/you where the "I" form is completely gone, nearly complete with who/whom where the "me" form is almost gone, and is widespread for I/me in everyday speech except when the pronoun is the sole subject.

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-11, 12:24 AM

Or you could, you know, just admit that dnd is a piss poor system to represent what real life people can do because a class and level system is beyond ridiculous as way to quantify the ability of a real life person.

I disagree. I don't see why I should have to admit that when I can build, to my satisfaction, what I feel to be a fairy accurate representation of just about anyone on Earth, including Einstein.

It is perfect? No. But it's not "piss poor," and it is in my estimation better than, say, the Storyteller system of White Wolf, or the L5R Roleplaying Game's attempts.

You will run into problem with this idea of trying to fit things they were never meant to fit. DnD doesn't model real life in any way shape or form and if you try and make it work you'll have to twist your way around in non euclidian space to justify things.

No, I'm actually pretty satisfied with most of my attempts to model real life with D&D, or rather the d20 system as a whole, with a few light DM fiat touches where necessary such as, for example, the variant modern-day Commoner I suggested.

Better to simply admit that the system doesn't work

Why? Whenever I try to make it work, it works basically fine. Sure, we end up with the occasional oddity, but I'm more than willing to let the occasional oddity pass, or find simple ways to explain them away, rather than take a look at Einstein's +3 BAB and throw up my hands in defeat and proclaim the whole thing a failure.

Dnd isn't like real life until it says otherwise, the truth of the matter is that DnD is entirely different from real life until it says otherwise.

And I disagree. I'd rather work with the system whenever possible, and I find myself generally satisfied with the results when I do.

...by the way, have you been, like, saving up that rant of righteous indignation, or was it a spur of the moment thing?

Napoleon

Bit depressed that in this example (and in the earlier one with lawyers) you left Core...

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-11, 12:43 AM

Bit depressed that in this example (and in the earlier one with lawyers) you left Core...

Of course I left core (although in the case of the level 4 lawyer I didn't). Core is fairly highly limited even when discussing its most versatile and open part (its spell list, which are irrelevant for this discussion). Core kinda sucks at modeling a whole lot of things, but 3.5 as a whole can model almost anything.

You can, perfectly within RAW, model everything from a barely surviving, stone age, village all the way up to a multi-universal sci-fi empire that makes the Culture look like children. On the individual level you can model everything from a mentally deficient paraplegic monkey up to big 'G' God.

How its done might be weird, it might involved tricks that are far out of proportion to what you are trying to do, and it might not be perfectly accurate but it can get very close.

Frankly, I've found D&D 3.5 a better system for modeling pretty much any setting or individual you want than most every other RPG out there.

PairO'Dice Lost

2013-12-11, 02:11 AM

What Legendary means in D&D is that people will be speaking of your deeds not next week, next month, next year, or even next decade but next century and next millenia.

*snip discussion of legendariness*

That's exactly what I was saying. I think you might have misread my post to mean I was agreeing with the quoted level inflation, but what I said was
[the article's] general conclusion that the following sort of level-inflating reasoning is completely bogus [...] is one that I fully agree with.

Except said numbers really don't make sense.

Why not? Mythical goblins are mischevous evil spirits, not warriors that can go toe-to-toe with a human. Making a DC 28 knowledge check is possible at level 1, so having an extra 5 ranks just makes discovering it happen quicker.

Shifting the level range of the civilized races up by a few levels doesn't drastically change the way the game plays or wreck any settings at all--heck, Eberron has plentiful magic and stats out practically every NPC worth mentioning in the 4-12 range, so it's not without precedent--it just changes a lot of small details.

I personally think it does so for the better overall (since adding a few levels to everyone means that e.g. cats and dogs aren't killing commoners and wizards anymore, hobgoblins powerful enough to challenge humankind have warblade levels to fit their militaristic tradition, low-mid level magic is common enough to provide for a post-Medieval living standard for many people, and so forth) and the few drawbacks don't introduce any problems that having high-level people in the setting at all doesn't already cause (more people can cast resurrection spells if most clerics are close to 4th or 5th level spells, but anyone important can already buy resurrections; the average person is much more wealthy, but that just lets people actually afford fancy houses; etc.).

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-11, 02:50 AM

Why not? Mythical goblins are mischevous evil spirits, not warriors that can go toe-to-toe with a human.
Because that isn't what goblins actually are in D&D fluff or rules?

Making a DC 28 knowledge check is possible at level 1, so having an extra 5 ranks just makes discovering it happen quicker.
For a very focused specialist who gets quite lucky and/or has a research team backing him.

Shifting the level range of the civilized races up by a few levels doesn't drastically change the way the game plays or wreck any settings at all--
It does if you are actually playing it straight and not just upping the numbers and ignoring what it all means. Just as one example, increasing the normal adult level to 6 from one about doubles the income of every NPC that uses craft or profession for their job. Unless you are also doubling the cost of all common person relevant goods and services then you have significantly altered things.

heck, Eberron has plentiful magic and stats out practically every NPC worth mentioning in the 4-12 range, so it's not without precedent--it just changes a lot of small details.
"Practically every NPC worth mentioning" is a very small fraction of a fraction of the total population. Yeah, the important people aren't level 1 most of the time. The important people generally start with 5 to 6 levels. The percentage of the total population with five plus levels in PC classes is (at the most extreme interpretation) about 3% of the total population and far more likely less than 1% of the population.

Now in a city like Sharn with a million inhabitants that is still ten thousand individuals with 5+ class levels but the other 990,000 individuals in the city are rocking their 1-4 levels of NPC classes at best, with upwards of half of that number being level 1.

I personally think it does so for the better overall (since adding a few levels to everyone means that e.g. cats and dogs aren't killing commoners and wizards anymore, hobgoblins powerful enough to challenge humankind have warblade levels to fit their militaristic tradition, low-mid level magic is common enough to provide for a post-Medieval living standard for many people, and so forth) and the few drawbacks don't introduce any problems that having high-level people in the setting at all doesn't already cause (more people can cast resurrection spells if most clerics are close to 4th or 5th level spells, but anyone important can already buy resurrections; the average person is much more wealthy, but that just lets people actually afford fancy houses; etc.).
...cats and dogs are deadly in real life. People seriously can and do die to house cats deciding to shred their face off. Dogs can be very deadly, more than sufficient to kill your average human.

Even combat trained individuals can and do die to dogs. There is a reason that standard SWAT policy on entering a building is to shoot and kill any dog.

Providing a "post medieval" standard of living also requires absolutely no change in level distribution. All it takes is a church, government, or powerful individual that wants to conduct a hearts and minds campaign and spend the few thousand GP on an auto reset trap of Create Food and Water (to handle any food needs), Remove Disease, Lesser Restoration, and Cure Light Wounds. Have the "trap" trigger every time someone says a prayer/oath of loyalty/thanks/whatever and you are golden. No need to raise the worlds average level for LA+0 races by six hundred percent.

The Insanity

2013-12-11, 03:34 AM

In my games levels generally mean the following:
1-2: Preteen, teen or young adult.
3-4: average adult.
5-6: middle aged or old adult (the higher level the older and/or more experienced they are in their profession)
Particularly talented/ambitious characters can get higher level at a young age. Likewise, particularly incompetent or stupid characters can stay low level their whole lives.
Being higher level doesn't make you automatically a legend or a myth or whatever. Those things you have to actually earn with your actions. Being higher level simply means you are better at your skills/combat/whatever. Obviously, a 20th level character will most probably have a big reputation (unless he was avoiding getting it), but depending on where he is, he might be just one of many.

PairO'Dice Lost

2013-12-11, 04:24 AM

Because that isn't what goblins actually are in D&D fluff or rules?

They're also not rampaging engines of destruction. Like kobolds, as soon as you get past the "kill 10 rats in a basement" portion of the game, they're mostly nuisances except in large numbers, so the idea that a human soldier can easily take on a goblin or two isn't particularly new or game-changing.

For a very focused specialist who gets quite lucky and/or has a research team backing him.

I believe you mean one in every twenty people who start with 18 Int and 4 ranks in Knowledge (Religion), right? Hardly focused specialists.

It does if you are actually playing it straight and not just upping the numbers and ignoring what it all means. Just as one example, increasing the normal adult level to 6 from one about doubles the income of every NPC that uses craft or profession for their job. Unless you are also doubling the cost of all common person relevant goods and services then you have significantly altered things.

As I mentioned, that is a desirable side effect of the level boost, as the whole point is to make the setting more closely resemble the modern world in terms of living standards and such. It gives the average person more buying power, certainly, but it doesn't wreck the game any more than Eberron making low-level magic more common does.

...cats and dogs are deadly in real life. People seriously can and do die to house cats deciding to shred their face off. Dogs can be very deadly, more than sufficient to kill your average human.

Even combat trained individuals can and do die to dogs. There is a reason that standard SWAT policy on entering a building is to shoot and kill any dog.

I'm well aware of that, but there's a big difference between "Pets are dangerous and sometimes lethal" and "Six seconds of a cat being angry with an average person results in their death." It's fairly well known that 3e breaks down when dealing with creatures with less than one hit die, particularly the cats vs. wizards thing, and I'm just pointing out that it's not a problem when the average person isn't a commoner 1.

Providing a "post medieval" standard of living also requires absolutely no change in level distribution. All it takes is a church, government, or powerful individual that wants to conduct a hearts and minds campaign and spend the few thousand GP on an auto reset trap of Create Food and Water (to handle any food needs), Remove Disease, Lesser Restoration, and Cure Light Wounds. Have the "trap" trigger every time someone says a prayer/oath of loyalty/thanks/whatever and you are golden. No need to raise the worlds average level for LA+0 races by six hundred percent.

First off, there's more than one way to renaissance-ify a setting. The Eberron route (magical corporations!), the FR route (20th level characters everywhere!), the Tippy route (magical traps of infinite goods!), and the Dice route (everyone has magic and education!) are all equally valid ways of running things.

Secondly, making the average adult level 5 or 6 isn't exactly more world-breaking than the by-the-book method. Going by the DMG numbers for the highest-level locals in a settlement, a metropolis has at least 232 characters of at least 13th level (4 of each core and non-core base class, only 64 if you're playing core-only) and has the potential for epic-level commoners and experts. If those 4 28th-level commoners and 4 24th-level experts were feeling altruistic, they and their combined WBL of 3,160,000 gp could turn the world into a Tippyverse on their own...and even if no one used magical traps or other wealth/item tricks, the world would look incredibly different, with at least 52 characters (in this city alone!) being able to resurrect the dead, at least 64 characters being able to planar bind outsiders to aid the city, at least 36 characters being able to raise an undead army in the city's defense, and so forth.

In contrast, having the vast majority of the civilized races be level 5 or 6, the top 2-5% of the world making it past that, and no one exceeding level 12 or 13 makes the world a heck of a lot more recognizable, don't you think?

Kurald Galain

2013-12-11, 07:50 AM

What Legendary means in D&D is that people will be speaking of your deeds not next week, next month, next year, or even next decade but next century and next millenia. The 12th level Fighter who was the King's personal champion isn't some dime a dozen person, he will go into the history books as the greatest martial master in the Kingdoms history,
Well, we have people in real life whose deeds are still spoken of 100 or 1000 years later. So that's direct evidence against the notion that everyone in real life is level 1-5.

Or you could, you know, just admit that dnd is a piss poor system to represent what real life people can do because a class and level system is beyond ridiculous as way to quantify the ability of a real life person.
Absolutely. But if you put it like that, we have also conclusively disproven that everyone in real life is level 1-5.

Which was the point, after all.

Amphetryon

2013-12-11, 08:02 AM

This is proper English for me. Using "another undergrad and I" is overly formal and reserved for certain speech acts, such as formal writing, not everyday speech. There is nothing wrong with this; the grammatical distinction between nominative and objective arguments is gone everywhere in English except pronouns and it should be no surprise that pronouns have begun to follow suit (it already happened with ye/you where the "I" form is completely gone, nearly complete with who/whom where the "me" form is almost gone, and is widespread for I/me in everyday speech except when the pronoun is the sole subject.

Me am in disagreement with this assessment.

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-11, 08:49 AM

...cats and dogs are deadly in real life. People seriously can and do die to house cats deciding to shred their face off. Dogs can be very deadly, more than sufficient to kill your average human.

Dogs, sure, at least if you're talking about golden retrievers or other large ones (which the MM entry is). Cats, on the other hand...while they can kill a person under the right conditions, mostly involving surprise and/or rabies, if you pit a typical human against a typical cat, then way more often than 9 times in 10 the human will win. We're sort of built like tanks as far as the animal world is concerned, and even healthy cats just lack both the strength and the stamina to take down a healthy human.

Under normal D&D rules, however, a human commoner verses a cat, a cat has a tendency to win. This is ridiculous, and even I'll admit that.

SiuiS

2013-12-11, 08:56 AM

These kinds of things have been debated countless times, and the general consensus is difficult to pin down. Gandalf, for example, is only ever shown using a few spells (Daylight, Dispel Magic, and whatever those force blasts were when he battled Saruman) but took on a Balrog with a sword (the equivalent of which, the Balor, would be impossible for a 5th level character to take down).

Magneto is even harder to peg, as his power has fluctuated constantly between reboots and even in the same comic.

The easiest ones to nail are Grevious and Vader (as Anakin is the same person). They are more-or-less Psychic Warriors with the right powers known.

In the ruleset where Gandalf was a fifth level Magic User, taking on a Balor with a magic sword was much less suicidal (colloquially, because for Gandalf it was literal suicide).

There's a point where you have to look at older D&D and reconfise that there was no such thing as a balanced encounter.

Kurald Galain

2013-12-11, 09:15 AM

Dogs, sure, at least if you're talking about golden retrievers or other large ones (which the MM entry is). Cats, on the other hand...while they can kill a person under the right conditions, mostly involving surprise and/or rabies, if you pit a typical human against a typical cat, then way more often than 9 times in 10 the human will win. We're sort of built like tanks as far as the animal world is concerned, and even healthy cats just lack both the strength and the stamina to take down a healthy human.

Under normal D&D rules, however, a human commoner verses a cat, a cat has a tendency to win. This is ridiculous, and even I'll admit that.

The obvious conclusion, then, is that the "typical human" is not level 1.

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-11, 09:20 AM

The obvious conclusion, then, is that the "typical human" is not level 1.

True enough, but a typical human commoner would have to be at least level 8 or 9 in order to simulate the sheer advantage a human has over a cat, which leads to the whole arms race problem talked about in the Alexandrian article. I'd rather fix the cat than the human. Said cat can still deal not insignificant damage to a 1st-level fighter, which we know is just plain wrong to matter what you're espousing about level and real life.

As PairO'Dice Lost pointed out, D&D just starts breaking down when dealing with very small numbers. But by its own math, the vast majority of people in the world are 1st level commoners, and it seems to me like it'd be easier to adjust the cat than the commoners and the entire system already in place for generating them.

Or alternatively, I could just not have my players fight and kill cats.

Shining Wrath

2013-12-11, 09:31 AM

These kinds of things have been debated countless times, and the general consensus is difficult to pin down. Gandalf, for example, is only ever shown using a few spells (Daylight, Dispel Magic, and whatever those force blasts were when he battled Saruman) but took on a Balrog with a sword (the equivalent of which, the Balor, would be impossible for a 5th level character to take down).

Magneto is even harder to peg, as his power has fluctuated constantly between reboots and even in the same comic.

The easiest ones to nail are Grevious and Vader (as Anakin is the same person). They are more-or-less Psychic Warriors with the right powers known.

In the Mines of Moria (book version), Gandalf was putting Hold Portal on a door, which in Middle Earth was evidently a non-trivial spell, and the Balrog (Balor) counter-spelled it - and Gandalf used a Word of Command, whatever that is - I don't think there's a D&D equivalent to telling a door to close when a Balor is pulling it open.

So I don't think Tolkien magic translates well to D&D magic, and I don't think all the things Gandalf did were accessible to a 5th level character, setting aside the whole "Open Can of Whoop on Balor" business. For example, driving off ring-wraiths swooping down upon the men of Moria with some sort of ray of light from his hand? There's no ray version of Turn Undead.

Kurald Galain

2013-12-11, 09:35 AM

As PairO'Dice Lost pointed out, D&D just starts breaking down when dealing with very small numbers. But by its own math, the vast majority of people in the world are 1st level commoners,
That's not true though. By its own math, any moderately-sized city contains a broad spectrum of classes and levels. So since we know that by the rules, a D&D city doesn't consist of level-1 commoners, it is rather silly to assume that a real life city would somehow consist of level-1 commoners. It makes no sense and there's no evidence to support it, nor evidence that the game designers ever intended it that way.

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-11, 09:42 AM

That's not true though. By its own math, any moderately-sized city contains a broad spectrum of classes and levels.

Yes. But once you're done generating anyone over level 2, and you've started generating level 1 characters, 91% of all NPC-classed characters are level-1 commoners. Larger cities increase the number of high-level NPCs, but for every high-level NPC with a PC class, there's two of the same class at half their level, two more for each of THEM with half THEIR level, etc. But for NPC classes, it's generated differently once you would start generating 1st-level NPC characters. Instead of just multiplying by two again, you instead take the total remainder of the settlement's population (which for a metropolis will still number in the thousands) and make, if I recall the math correctly, 5% warriors, 3% experts, .5% aristocrats, .5% adepts, and 91% commoners. So in a metropolis with 25,001 people, maybe 1,000 are things other than Commoner 1.

In fact, hang on, I'm going to generate a metropolis now. It's going to have 25,000 people rather than 25,001 to make my math easier, but this should't affect the results.

Amphetryon

2013-12-11, 09:46 AM

That's not true though. By its own math, any moderately-sized city contains a broad spectrum of classes and levels. So since we know that by the rules, a D&D city doesn't consist of level-1 commoners, it is rather silly to assume that a real life city would somehow consist of level-1 commoners. It makes no sense and there's no evidence to support it, nor evidence that the game designers ever intended it that way.

Setting aside the statistical analysis which, I think, bears out PairO'Dice's assertion that a majority of D&D city-dwellers are 1st level Commoners relative to any other D&D Class, is there evidence to suggest what the designers would consider real life city-dwellers (as opposed to D&D city-dwellers) to be, in terms of D&D level?

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-11, 10:01 AM

Okay, here's our metropolis.

For the sake of argument, whenever I was supposed to roll a die, I assumed I rolled an average result each time (10 on a d20, 6 on a d12, 3 on a d6, and so on. For a 1d3, I assumed a 2 because I am generous)

METROPOLIS
Population: 25,000

Barbarian: 4 14th-level, 8 7th-level, 16 3rd-level, 32 1st-level
Bard: 4 15th-level, 8 7th-level, 16 3rd-level, 32 1st-level
Cleric: 4 15th-level, 8 7th-level, 16 3rd-level, 32 1st-level
Druid: 4 15th-level, 8 7th-level, 16 3rd-level, 32 1st-level
Fighter: 4 16-level, 8 8th-level, 16 4th-level, 32 2nd-level, 64 1st-level
Monk: 4 14th-level, 8 7th-level, 16 3rd-level, 32 1st-level
Paladin: 4 14th-level, 8 7th-level, 16 3rd-level, 32 1st-level
Ranger: 4 14th-level, 8 7th-level, 16 3rd-level, 32 1st-level
Rogue: 4 16-level, 8 8th-level, 16 4th-level, 32 2nd-level, 64 1st-level
Sorcerer: 4 14th-level, 8 7th-level, 16 3rd-level, 32 1st-level
Wizard: 4 14th-level, 8 7th-level, 16 3rd-level, 32 1st-level

So that is 788 members of PC classes in total, of which 418 (~53%) are 1st level.

Now let's do NPC classes of 2nd level and above.

Adept: 4 15th-level, 8 7th-level, 16 3rd-level
Aristocrat: 4 14th-level, 8 7th-level, 16 3rd-level
Commoner: 4 20th-level, 8 10th-level, 16 5th-level, 32 2nd-level
Expert: 4 18th-level, 8 9th-level, 16 4th-level, 32 2nd-level
Warrior: 4 16th-level, 8 8th-level, 16 4th-level, 32 2nd-level

That's 236 NPC-classed people at 2nd level or higher. 236 plus 370 (number of PC-class folk of 2nd level or higher) is 606. This means that in our 25,000-person metropolis, only about 2.4% of the population is of 2nd level or higher.

The remaining 23,976 are 5% warriors, 3% experts, .5% aristocrats, .5% adepts, and 91% commoners. This gives us 1198 warriors, 719 experts, 119 aristocrats, 119 adepts, and 21,818 commoners, all of 1st level (I rounded down all decimals, of course, as we always do in D&D, so the total number there might not add up perfectly to 25,000, but it's still close enough for our purposes)

The 1st-level commoners equate to about 87.2% of the city's total population. Ipso facto, in D&D, 1st-level commoners make up a very comfortable majority of the population.

EDIT
Now, it's true that the above represents an average, and that a metropolis of 25,000 people wherein I instead assumed highest result for everything would lower the number of 1st-level commoners (for example, the highest-level commoner generated would be level 4d4+12, or 28th level - epic level commoner ftw!). I still feel comfortable saying that 1st-level commoners would make up ~70% of the total population, however.

Also, it is at this point that I feel it necessary to point out that metropolises are literally only 1% of D&D settlements, and that fully half are villages or smaller. In a village (community modifier -1), hamlet (-2), or thorp (-3), it's theoretically possible to have NO members of ANY PC class, and no adepts or aristocrats either, but even the smallest thorp (20 people) with the worst roll results (no PC classes, aristocrats, or adepts) still has 18 commoners, 1 warrior, and 1 expert, all 1st level.

Chronos

2013-12-11, 10:06 AM

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-11, 10:10 AM

On commoners versus housecats, it is true that D&D gives a housecat a pretty good chance of killing a level one commoner. This is an accurate reflection of reality. Most people think that the cat would have no chance, because most people have never seen a cat so pissed off at a human that it would want to kill that human. But in the event that a cat does get that pissed off, it can and will put a typical human into the negatives. It happened to my sister (thankfully, other humans were around to stabilize her and get her to a hospital).

How old was she? Was she in average physical health at the time? Did the cat surprise her, or was she aware that the attack was coming? Was she actively fighting the cat with intent to kill it herself, or just trying to escape? And are we certain that this cat a) didn't just simply roll and confirm a critical hit and b) was in fact a normal cat, and not one built using, for example, the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8)?

Red Fel

2013-12-11, 10:20 AM

On the hit point thing, it's absurd to argue based on someone's hit points without any evidence. If, historically, someone died from getting stabbed once by a dagger, then it's fair to say that that person had low hit points. If, historically, someone took a critical hit from a sniper rifle and survived, it's fair to say that person had high hit points. If, however, someone died of old age after never getting into lethal combat, then we can't say anything about their hit points, and we therefore can't say that the system is inconsistent for giving them any particular number of hit points.

This, however, also highlights an inherent flaw of the hit point system, as written: As long as you have at least one hit point left, you are operating at full capacity without penalty (barring any special debuffs or called shots or crippling rules).

In real life, if I stab you in the gut, even if it's a non-lethal wound that does not drop you to "zero hit points," you are not operating at full capacity. You are doubled over in pain, even if you don't have to make your "save or die vs. massive damage" check. You are clutching at the wound trying to keep your insides on the inside. And I am going to jail.

The hit point system, as many things in D&D, simply does not have a real-life analogy. A lucky shot with any weapon, akin to a critical hit, can drop anyone, from the weakest child to the most well-trained military special operations expert. By contrast, if you got a critical hit with any non-magical weapon against a 5th-level or higher Fighter or Barbarian or similar high-hp character, it's unlikely that the single burst of damage would drop them.

Similarly, a weak, grazing shot, even from the deadliest weapons imaginable (excluding high explosives and poisons), can leave even the weakest target alive. Contrast that with D&D, where a few light scratches from a small animal can drop a 1st-level Commoner into negative hit points.

I therefore propose that we can't debate anyone's real-life hit points, regardless of manner of death, because the system simply does not function in real life. It breaks down.

Rasputin was shot, stabbed, burned, and drowned. Blackbeard was lethally injured dozens of times. For all we know, their hit points were no lower or higher than Einstein's or Aristotle's. The system does not function well enough for us to establish a solid basis.

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-11, 10:24 AM

I therefore propose that we can't debate anyone's real-life hit points, regardless of manner of death, because the system simply does not function in real life. It breaks down.

I'd argue that hit points don't necessarily represent physical toughness and ability to take every single wound...but then, while sometimes this is the case, other times it clearly isn't, such as, for example, fall damage.

Still. It's an acceptable break from reality for me.

Sewercop

2013-12-11, 11:22 AM

How old was she? Was she in average physical health at the time? Did the cat surprise her, or was she aware that the attack was coming? Was she actively fighting the cat with intent to kill it herself, or just trying to escape? And are we certain that this cat a) didn't just simply roll and confirm a critical hit and b) was in fact a normal cat, and not one built using, for example, the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8)?

Cats are predators, people tend to forget that. Same with dogs.
If a 20 pound cat decide to attack you, you are in for a world of hurt if it gets the drop. Heck, you are most likely in for a world of hurt if you know it is coming.

http://gizmodo.com/5917280/this-mega-monster-cat-may-become-the-biggest-cat-in-the-world

Take a look at that one, my friend got three of the same race. Biggest at 22 pounds. If it lunges at you, you are in trouble. So yeah, in a fantastic world i have no problem with cats killing a human sometimes.

TrollCapAmerica

2013-12-11, 11:28 AM

Cats are predators, people tend to forget that. Same with dogs.
If a 20 pound cat decide to attack you, you are in for a world of hurt if it gets the drop. Heck, you are most likely in for a world of hurt if you know it is coming.

I had a 20lbs cat.He would occasionally get out and chase every other furry creature on the block away from "his" territory including raccons and opossums.He ran across my face with his claws out before

It hurt slightly but was all superficial damage

A cat would be hard pressed to kill a toddler

AMFV

2013-12-11, 11:37 AM

Cats are predators, people tend to forget that. Same with dogs.
If a 20 pound cat decide to attack you, you are in for a world of hurt if it gets the drop. Heck, you are most likely in for a world of hurt if you know it is coming.

http://gizmodo.com/5917280/this-mega-monster-cat-may-become-the-biggest-cat-in-the-world

Take a look at that one, my friend got three of the same race. Biggest at 22 pounds. If it lunges at you, you are in trouble. So yeah, in a fantastic world i have no problem with cats killing a human sometimes.

Humans are larger apex predators, many of us coming in at over 200 lbs. That's big on the animal scale, in the Savannah we hunted Lions, I think we could handle a housecat. Most people seriously underestimate how vicious a human being can be in a fight if they're cornered or pressed.

Amphetryon

2013-12-11, 11:47 AM

Humans are larger apex predators, many of us coming in at over 200 lbs. That's big on the animal scale, in the Savannah we hunted Lions, I think we could handle a housecat. Most people seriously underestimate how vicious a human being can be in a fight if they're cornered or pressed.

Is it your contention that an unarmed human can hunt and kill a lion? The above can certainly be easily parsed that way. Removing our hunting tools (knives, spears, arrows, etc.) from the equation seems as if it would tip the scales away from our favor a good bit in a sudden confrontation, ambush or not.

AMFV

2013-12-11, 11:52 AM

Is it your contention that an unarmed human can hunt and kill a lion? The above can certainly be easily parsed that way. Removing our hunting tools (knives, spears, arrows, etc.) from the equation seems as if it would tip the scales away from our favor a good bit in a sudden confrontation, ambush or not.

True, but our hunting tools are part of our existence, additionally an unarmed human could certainly kill a housecat, or a dog, or possible a big cat if they were stressed enough. Humans are apex predators and they are very dangerous. I would much rather fight a house cat than another adult male, if I had the choice.

In any case the point is that it would extremely difficult to be killed by a housecat, unlike in D&D.

The problem with defining real world people by levels are that they are really a bad abstraction for modelling something so complex. It's certainly fun to mess around with, but difficult to do with any real accuracy. As for the levels of the characters in any book, it varies by the narrative, Gandalf is exactly as skilled and as powerful as he needs to be for the narrative to work. Whether that's defeating a CR 20 Balor equivalent or making a poof of smoke.

The levels are really there to give grit to the unconcrete standard narrative, so that way it is at least fair on some level.

Flickerdart

2013-12-11, 12:00 PM

A Tad Insane

2013-12-11, 12:41 PM

limejuicepowder

2013-12-11, 12:46 PM

The "cats are a threat to commoners" thing is a problem with cats, not commoners: damage is a minimum of 1, and the cat's small size ensures that it can easily hit larger targets. So you get ridiculous things like three cat scratches knocking out an adult human. Commoner 1 HP is pretty well calibrated for the weapon damage the system provides.

This. Finally someone said it explicitly: the problem is the minimum of one damage, since it would be cumbersome to deal with fractions (and totally not worth it). A more accurate representation of a cat's damage would be 1/10 of a hit point....maybe. Yes an angry cat could cause serious lacerations to an adult human, but they'd be superficial. Unless the human was incapacitated and the cat could go crazy for several minutes, they aren't going to die.

Cat's claws are quite dirty, so infection would be a concern, but death as a direct result of a cat attack is almost impossible (for a healthy adult human).

limejuicepowder

2013-12-11, 12:47 PM

AMFV

2013-12-11, 12:51 PM

@the "real humans are noobs" argument
There was this American volunteer in ww1 (forget his name) who captured a large group of Germans ( I think it was around 100) after they killed the British soldiers he was fighting with.
There's also the Finnish white death in world war 2, and his massive body count

Sergeant York. It was 132 people captured. Pretty badass.

He may have been 5th level (likely), and combine that with extraordinary circumstance and luck, it's quite possible and doesn't require higher levels.

He killed 5 people as they charged him with a pistol, I would estimate that's probably more than 5th level, since you would need combat reflexes to do that and a high dex, and then enough feats to make that work with a ranged weapon.

He didn't really get that lucky, he was just that badass.

Chronos

2013-12-11, 01:51 PM

A cat who's running across your face with his claws out isn't trying to kill you. And while there are humans who hunt lions, those humans first of all don't usually do it alone, and second of all, lion-hunters aren't first-level commoners. Put a half a dozen rangers with a few levels each up against a lion in D&D, and my money's on the rangers, too.

Flickerdart

2013-12-11, 02:12 PM

A lion is only CR3. You don't even need half a dozen rangers - four 3rd level rangers could bring back four lions a day.

SowZ

2013-12-11, 02:35 PM

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-11, 02:50 PM

Hey, what if we said the real world was more like E6. That way, people could have literally hundreds of skill points and dozens of feats, there's some sideways growth not just straight up, but they never get to the point where they could jump out of a plane 10,000 feet up and shrug it off?

Multiple humans have not just survived but walked off just fine falling out of a plane from well in excess of 10,000 feet (iirc the record is close to 30,000 ft.).

Highly, highly, unlikely but it has occurred. Minimum damage from such a fall is 20. Max first level HD for 4 points, have 18 Con for another 4 and you are at eight. Three more levels of commoner is enough that you could (theoretically) walk off such a fall if you got really, really, lucky.

Even looking at exceptional soldiers who've done insane things. If most trained soldiers in a given army have average stats and are around second level, maybe third level, with a few first level noobies and maybe one or two really BA fourth level veterans in a company, one guy with good stats who's well optimized at level six with a few extra feats that uses solid tactics and the terrain to his advantage could be a nightmare to an entire platoon.

Again this is true in real life as well. Go look at Simo Häyhä for example (probably Factotum 3/ Martial Monk 1/ Targetteer Fighter 2).

SowZ

2013-12-11, 03:05 PM

Multiple humans have not just survived but walked off just fine falling out of a plane from well in excess of 10,000 feet (iirc the record is close to 30,000 ft.).

Highly, highly, unlikely but it has occurred. Minimum damage from such a fall is 20. Max first level HD for 4 points, have 18 Con for another 4 and you are at eight. Three more levels of commoner is enough that you could (theoretically) walk off such a fall if you got really, really, lucky.

Again this is true in real life as well. Go look at Simo Häyhä for example (probably Factotum 3/ Martial Monk 1/ Targetteer Fighter 2).

Yeah, I know they have. People have survived getting shot over 17 times, too. They've also survived falling into lava. But those are flukes, (low damage rolls,) as opposed to a hundred HP, as we seem to agree. Those same people could not repeat those feats with any consistency. I'm saying no one could just hop out of a plane on purpose and expect to be fine in mundane E6. I mean, I guess if you took toughness enough times... But that's just a silly edge case that shouldn't validate or invalidate the E6 model.

Still works in an E6 model. An E6 model keeps people from ever being superhuman. Typically, no one is going to be performing epic skill checks in E6 with mundane classes. Yet you can still represent continued growth past level 6 and account for people with absurd skill point totals and Renaissance men.

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-11, 03:12 PM

They've also survived falling into lava

Um.

What?

No. I call bull. Surviving a fall into a lava tube, (http://cavingnews.com/20130411-teenager-survives-fall-into-hawaii-lava-tube-volcanoes-national-park) I can believe, because a lava tube is just a tube carved out by lava, it doesn't itself necessarily have lava in it (and this one didn't). But lava's something like 1,300 to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. That's hot enough to flash-boil all the liquid in your body. You do not survive this, unless we're talking about an incredibly small amount of lava - like, a frying pan's worth only.

Flickerdart

2013-12-11, 03:22 PM

Multiple humans have not just survived but walked off just fine falling out of a plane from well in excess of 10,000 feet (iirc the record is close to 30,000 ft.).
There's a good case to be made that Diehard should be a "real life" human bonus feat - it's pretty common for people to do stuff with life-threatening injuries while they're being kept upright by adrenaline, and then pass out after the situation is over.

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-11, 03:27 PM

There's a good case to be made that Diehard should be a "real life" human bonus feat - it's pretty common for people to do stuff with life-threatening injuries while they're being kept upright by adrenaline, and then pass out after the situation is over.

My own take on "realistic" human racial traits looks something like this...

+2 Con, -2 Wis. Humans are tough and durable, but have poor senses compared to other animals.
Medium-sized.
Human base land speed is 30 feet.
+1 to attack rolls with ranged weapons. Humans have exceptional hand-eye coordination and accuracy.
1 extra skill point at each level (x4 at first level). Humans are versatile, able to master many talents.
Humans receive Diehard as a bonus feat at 1st level, ignoring the feat's normal prerequisites.
Automatic Languages: Common and any one other. Bonus languages: Any
Favored Class: Any

Flickerdart

2013-12-11, 03:34 PM

+2 Con, -2 Wis. Humans are tough and durable, but have poor senses compared to other animals.

https://images.encyclopediadramatica.es/thumb/a/a1/U_Wot_M8_Original.jpg/180px-U_Wot_M8_Original.jpg

Humans have absolutely incredible senses compared to most animals, and we're one of the most all-round species when it comes to that. The majority of animals focus on one sense - they'll have really good hearing, or smell, or sight, but utterly awful everything else. Hell, the fact that we have binocular vision and can see colours is practically a superpower as far as most animals are concerned.

Eladrinblade

2013-12-11, 03:39 PM

I still think we have -2 wisdom. I think something like PF humans might be accurate, where they get a +2 to any one stat, but I would add a -2 wisdom to it (so, they can put that +2 in wisdom for a total of +0 if they want, or else have like +2 str, -2 wis).

I think we're in that phase of development where we relatively recently got some new abilities, but haven't yet sorted ourselves out.

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-11, 03:43 PM

https://images.encyclopediadramatica.es/thumb/a/a1/U_Wot_M8_Original.jpg/180px-U_Wot_M8_Original.jpg

Our daylight vision is exceeded only by birds, it's true. But our night vision is atrocious - cats, for comparison, may not see color as well as we do, but their night vision is basically as good as their daylight vision (which is by no means bad, just not very colorful), and have exceptional hearing and smell on top of it.

Dogs and wolves have similarly good daylight vision vision that lacks some of our color (dogs can't distinguish between red and green) but works much better than ours at night, and they have even better senses of smell than cats (a dog's sense of smell is something like sixteen million times better than ours).

Humans - actually, great apes in general, but especially humans - actually have pretty poor senses of sight, hearing, and smell when compared to other members of the animal kingdom.

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-11, 03:44 PM

Humans average straight 10's precisely because humans are the baseline.

If you are comparing to the whole animal kingdom then humans have like +10 Int, +4 Dexterity, and probably positive boosts to a number of other ability scores.

The only reason that humans aren't massively OP is that humans decided to set the baseline at "the level of humans".

SowZ

2013-12-11, 04:19 PM

Um.

What?

No. I call bull. Surviving a fall into a lava tube, (http://cavingnews.com/20130411-teenager-survives-fall-into-hawaii-lava-tube-volcanoes-national-park) I can believe, because a lava tube is just a tube carved out by lava, it doesn't itself necessarily have lava in it (and this one didn't). But lava's something like 1,300 to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. That's hot enough to flash-boil all the liquid in your body. You do not survive this, unless we're talking about an incredibly small amount of lava - like, a frying pan's worth only.

Google George Ulrich and Jeffrey Judd, both Volcanologists who fell into lava and survived with nothing more than serious scars and extended hospital stays. Ulrich went in to his knees and didn't get out for what I think he estimates at around five seconds.

Urpriest

2013-12-11, 04:56 PM

SowZ

2013-12-11, 05:11 PM

Why are comparisons to real humans relevant? D&D is supposed to simulate a fantasy setting. Few fantasy settings depict their humans consistently with the traits of real humans, and almost none of those are within the typical reading material of the designers, judging by their thematic tastes.

Because we are nerds and so like to figure out things as pointless as, "Who would win in a fight if they were given sentience and legs? A banana or a pomegranate?"

Urpriest

2013-12-11, 05:12 PM

Because we are nerds and so like to figure out things as pointless as, "Who would win in a fight if they were given sentience and legs? A banana or a pomegranate?"

I'm just saying, analyzing the narrative conventions involved should be more useful and just as nerdy. Read some Vance or something, and figure out what D&D levels were supposed to correspond to on that metric.

Chronos

2013-12-11, 05:16 PM

How the heck do you fall into lava up to your knees? Even if you were somehow immune to the heat, rock is a lot denser than flesh. You'd float higher than that.

AstralFire

2013-12-11, 05:17 PM

How the heck do you fall into lava up to your knees? Even if you were somehow immune to the heat, rock is a lot denser than flesh. You'd float higher than that.

Force of impact, maybe?

SowZ

2013-12-11, 05:18 PM

How the heck do you fall into lava up to your knees? Even if you were somehow immune to the heat, rock is a lot denser than flesh. You'd float higher than that.

He was in a hole he thought was just a vent, but there were lava pockets in the nearby earth that collapsed into it.

Zweisteine

2013-12-11, 05:47 PM

Warning: Wall of Text below

I keep seeing flaws in arguments being tossed around here, so I thought I might join in.

That infamous Alexandrian article pretty conclusively proves that any person with a PhD is at least level 5. I know that's not what he thinks he proved, but there's a word for "someone who has learned something no human has ever known before", and that word isn't "Einstein", it's "doctor".

Not too long after you get a doctorate, you get a tenure-track position (though not all doctors get to this point). This is when you can start taking on graduate students. This fits in nicely with D&D, where level 6 is when you can take the Leadership feat.

There are other notable milestones past this: When you become a fully-tenured professor, when you become head of the research group in your specialty, when you become head of the whole department. Let's say those are roughly levels 7, 8, and 9.

"Infamous" is rather subjective. If anything, I might consider the article to be properly famous. But that's personal opinion.

The error I see in the first of those statements is that "something nobody has known before" is not the same as "something nobody has tried to know before." A PhD's research may only be a paper on a never-before used topic, not necessarily an entirely new type of research or something nobody has . To elaborate on that poorly explained statement, I bring examples from the Alexandrian article (which it claims are in the PH, but are not in the SRD where he said they are):

DC 25 = among the hardest questions known
DC 30 = hardest questions known (which may or may not yet have been answered, or even though of, previously)
DC 40 = "so intractable that no one has ever understood it before"

I would guess that a PhD requires something in the second category. What Einstein did was of the third category. Of course, in the modern world, DCs might be higher, because we have so much access to knowledge, and questions once in those high categories have already been answered. A PhD might have 5 directly relevant skill points, 15 intelligence (+2), skill focus (+3), two assistants (+4), a skill synergy (+2), access to huge amounts of knowledge through the internet (+6) That's a +22 bonus: enough to answer questions harder than any others known to humanity. He cannot, however, reliably answer questions of the third difficulty (which probably has a higher DC, as many DC 40 questions have been answered).

The second of these two statements equates the leadership feat to having subordinates in an organization. Graduate students do not follow you because they admire you and want to serve you (well, they might admire you). They follow you because they want to learn, and they need someone to teach them. Leadership represents your ability to make others follow you personally. Taking on grad students is more of a "you need helpers, they need a teacher" type of thing.

You make that same mistake with your third point. You again equate organizational rank with level progress. Becoming a department head is not the same as gaining a level. It just means you are a little better at organizing people and perhaps at being a professor than you colleagues are. These differences are hard to represent in D&D, but they range from having a higher intelligence or charisma to being more experienced (not necessarily having more experience points) to simply having a better (unquantifiable) ability to run a department.
If the Queen of England were to summon me and say "I'm retiring; you're King now," I would not suddenly gain a level, even if I was a trained king.

According to WOTC itself, olympic athletes clock in at level 8 depending on the sport; and just statting a regular person with university level education easily requires 4-6 levels to get the skill points down.

This starts off with the assumption that WotC knew what it was doing, when in fact it's generally accepted on these boards that WotC had no clue what it was doing. As my counter-argument to your argument, I present the fighter.

No, it shows that WOTC wasn't aiming to have level 1-5 represent "humanity".

WOTC may not have checked their math about Olympic athletes. That could be a prime example of the incompetency Rogue Shadows mentions. However, to assume that WOTC is completely incompetent is fallacious.

I doubt level 8 for olympic athletes was the design goal; it was probably something they came up with afterwards with flawed math done by a non-expert staff member (i.e. semi-incomepent). I would guess, in fact, that the people creating the game were thinking more about the lower levels (1 to 5 to 8) when creating the skills, as they meant for higher-level characters to be superhuman (with the DCs they set, they aren't so incompetent as to think 15+ skill ranks is not superhuman).

Even if they were aiming for Olympic 8, it is not absurd to assume that they accidentally hit Olympic 4-5 instead. That just takes a few poor assumptions and/or some bad math.

No, it shows that WOTC wasn't aiming to have level 1-5 represent "humanity". Since this was never a design goal, and it's absurd to assume that WOTC's lack of competence just happened to hit that exact level range purely by accident, we know that it's false that all of humanity maps to levels 1-5. (and of course we already knew that because we have evidence that directly contradicts it anyway, such as Chronos's point).

This, too, makes a number of poor/inaccurate assumptions. For now, I will act as if the design goal was for level 8 to be the human pinnacle.
1. "Absurd" is really not a word you should use about assumptions, except for the really and truly absurd (it's absurd to assume that, because I speak English, that I am from Ukraine).
2. You say that we should not assume that WOTC made the level range from 1-5 effectively model humanity "purely by accident." If they had been aiming for levels 1-5, and levels 1-8 happened to model humanity, you could say the same thing. Assuming D&D, excepting magic, does attempt to model reality (which this discussion inherently does), and that the design goal was for level 1 characters to be average people (in the given settings, where most receive little to no formal training of any type), the upper end of the realistic spectrum had to fall somewhere. To state that it is "absurd" that level 5 happened to be that cap rather than, say, level 7 or level 9, is fallacious. This is somewhat analogous to saying that calling a chair a chair is absurd because it could be called anything else.
3. That last point invalidates your argument. There is no reason that the assumption that WOTC, whether intentionally or unintentionally, made levels 1-5 model humanity realistically is absurd.

I prefer the statement I made before, of course. WOTC was probably aiming for level 5 as the "normal" human peak achievement, even if they did not mean for it to be as accurate as it seems to be (in my own and many others' eyes).

Different argument style for the last bits:
1. You assume that the design goal was for human pinnacle at level 8.
2. You assume that WOTC was not aiming for reality to fall between levels 1 and 5.
3. You assume that WOTC could not have accidentally made a certain range of levels model reality.
4. You assume that WOTC is completely incompetent, which is untrue (the basics of the system, at least, are good, as demonstrated by the game's popularity).

Those assumptions simultaneously say that (4) WOTC could not do something right and that (3) it could not do something wrong by accident (i.e. "Wizards of the Coast is incompetent, so they could not have accidentally done something when they meant to do it slightly differently."). This statement contradicts itself.

Just statting a regular person with university level education easily requires 4-6 levels to get the skill points down.

What class? If you think about it, modern people probably have different classes than D&D chaaracters, even NPCs. At least one, the "scholar" class, which would model those who have gone to college, would get a great number of skill points, though available skills might be quite restricted.

Age by class seems to agree as well. The complex classes generally complete first level training at around age 22, so they have about the right amount of training to have gone to college. After that, we would need another level of complexity for the "graduate student" class. More likely, graduate school is just getting the experience to gain another level in the "scholar" class.

As so often happens when I try to participate in large discussions, I do not have time to write more, though I have more to say.

SowZ

2013-12-11, 05:53 PM

These are well documented events, I encourage anyone who doubts me to look it up. A person can survive lava. They can survive getting shot 21 times, (multiple times in the head,) and live without being nearly as bad off as you think.

But no one can do these things reliably. Which is why level 6 is a good cap for things like HP, and people have already shown that level six as a cap for total invested skill points works out well, but total skill points and feats are harder to put a cap on. Hence why Epic Six works out.

Shining Wrath

2013-12-11, 06:02 PM

LordBiscuit

2013-12-11, 07:17 PM

A lot of waffle.

The key thing is that DnD was meant to simulate Adventuring classes by default, hence non-adventuring classes such as scholors are not accurately repersenting using a system designed for adventuring classes from the ground up. Non-heroic classes in principle are what comprise these mortal, yet studious individuals. Hence no matter how hard a person studies, they will advance in a non-heroic manner that will grant them a very narrow (in the grand scheme of things) skill point progression.

Athletes are exactly the same that they train in physical attributes, but are not adventurers hence are not heroic, hence while their physical stats should make them more suited to a fight then your average commoner still means that they are specialised non-heroic class with perhaps 1 level in a heroic class dedicated to their athletic purpose. Of course, I think DnD commoners are a more anamised repersentation of people, in that as far as combat is concerned a single hero of 4-5 level could probably take them all out quite easily in their drones.

As far as soldiers are concerned, I would probably say without exception every person in mankind is between 1-3 in their heroic levels with exceptional levels of luck accounting for the exceptions. After all, a few levels and a couple of well selected feats can mean a single soldier can kill a lot of people with the modifers that a modern firearm has. In other cases an individual is exceptionally lucky to avoid harm.

To be clear on what I mean by "heroic", Heroic characters are adventurers that are fundimentally different to the rest of the world and are super natural or are superior to other beings by nature. They are the beings descibed or condictioned to fight encounters do well in them against what would be difficult for a normal human being. Most people on this earth, including soldiers, simply are not "Heroic" or superior as the system suggests.

Anything else is overthinking it in the real world scale of things and of course assumes we are limited on action ecomany and to the sample rules stated within the DnD handbook. Real life has inconsistancies that isn't the simple mathmatics stated within the handbook. Such as shooting 5 people with a pistol in 1 round is simply impossible in DnD.

Also, to answer the TC's questions, using Star Wars D20 as the basic system:

Obi-Wan: 11 Jedi in his prime. (Episode 3) then he simply lost heroic levels because he was no longer adventuring.
Vader: 14-16 levels. Mostly built towards melee combat as the amount of cybernetics heavily gimped his use the force checks, probably suffering a -10 as standard, not to mention whatever perniment condictions he's undergoing. Despite this though his force abilities could easily toy with up to level 7 Heroic characters.
Grevious: Probably 7 in streight soldier -1 in elite soldier with a host of modifiers due to his unique casisus. He's so specialised at what he does, he's more brutal then his lack of levels suggest.
Yoda: 14-16. Any force wizard using the star wars D20 system is relentlessly broken in the way that you have spells of a wizard and full BAB.
Palp: Ditto Yoda. Force lightning is the most potent offensive force power in the game that simply makes him more powerful then meer levels suggest. He doesn't need to be strong, he just needs to have force lightning and I'm sure there are enough force powers to make his lightsaber play impressive.
Boba: Level 4-8. He's an elite soldier with a lot of gear, good armour and that level range is easily enough for him to do well at owning the scum of the galexy. I don't read EU, unless we start having him as a 70 year old man beating up Jedi.

Really, you don't need to hit level 20 to eclipse or match Jedi, just as long as your use the force check is high enough anything is possible in Starwars D20.

Magneto: I don't know. Probably pscionic or wizard with a lot of levels in both dedicated to a very narrow band of spells.

DizzyXI

2013-12-29, 10:41 PM

In real life, if I stab you in the gut, even if it's a non-lethal wound that does not drop you to "zero hit points," you are not operating at full capacity. You are doubled over in pain, even if you don't have to make your "save or die vs. massive damage" check. You are clutching at the wound trying to keep your insides on the inside. And I am going to jail.

I realize this is from a way back, but I wanted to comment on this. In real life, people who are stabbed in a fight often don't realize it until the fight ends. It takes considerable damage to stop a human from moving, and often that damage is fairly lethal. A lethal blow to the head from contusion (a brain bleed) won't show up for a few hours), fractured ribs causing serious internal bleeding or a lung puncture won't even slow you down for 20 seconds or so (which is a few rounds), and a stab to the belly will kill in minutes, not seconds. DnD fails to have rules for damage over time, but the in combat representation does a good job of showing the need to put in enough damage to stop the system working completely (shattering pelvis for example) or causing unconsciousness due to shock or sufficiently sharp impact to the brain. Depending on how riled people get in the situation this can vary (modelled by differing HP for different people), and morale issues can also be a factor (shown in your example of someone stopping and clutching their wound while still conscious, aware, and capable of the motor functions required to fight).

Pain is a separate issue, but rarely a limiting factor in a life or death fight, adrenaline and metaphorical tunnel-vision (as opposed to actual tunnel-vision!) will take care of that. If not, then again that's a morale issue, and a DM could suggest a will save vs fear.

In terms of the question of WotC's balancing, I'd suggest that they were assuming a shoddy level of optimization for NPCs (which I can have some sympathy with, people don't usually plan out their acquisition of skills with the forethought of character optimization), and with more capable characters increased level to reach the ability required. However if we assume that in fact there is a variety of optimization ability through actual forethought or through luck, we can see the olympic athlete (someone who's skill acquisition has been carefully crafted to minmax like a bitch) manages to achieve exceptional results at low levels.

This also allows us to, say, bump normal humans up to level 2 NPC classes in general, allowing for less "cat kills human" shenanigans, and lowering any issues with BaB or similar due to optimized scientists being levels 3-5. As has been shown this isn't necessary, optimized level 1 can achieve a lot, but it might be better to have the levels a lot closer together, to show similar abilities in areas that haven't been focussed on between the skilled and unskilled.

zlefin

2013-12-29, 11:33 PM

one point of comparison I'd be interested in is real world fighters vs animals. I don't know how many roman records we have, but things like gladiator vs bear/lion/wolf/multiples would provide a point of comparison with the cr system. Rome certainly had enough of those battles in the circus to provide good info, if we have the records still.
I mention ancient times so that the equipment advantages of modern times doesn't kick in, though medieval times would work as well.
Of course the humans often have situational advantages in such situations that would make it easier.

AMFV

2013-12-30, 04:39 AM

I realize this is from a way back, but I wanted to comment on this. In real life, people who are stabbed in a fight often don't realize it until the fight ends. It takes considerable damage to stop a human from moving, and often that damage is fairly lethal. A lethal blow to the head from contusion (a brain bleed) won't show up for a few hours), fractured ribs causing serious internal bleeding or a lung puncture won't even slow you down for 20 seconds or so (which is a few rounds), and a stab to the belly will kill in minutes, not seconds. DnD fails to have rules for damage over time, but the in combat representation does a good job of showing the need to put in enough damage to stop the system working completely (shattering pelvis for example) or causing unconsciousness due to shock or sufficiently sharp impact to the brain. Depending on how riled people get in the situation this can vary (modelled by differing HP for different people), and morale issues can also be a factor (shown in your example of someone stopping and clutching their wound while still conscious, aware, and capable of the motor functions required to fight).

Some people can even survive and continue to operate after they've had multiple gunshots to the chest. Which is pretty wrecking on your organs. Humans are pretty tough as far as it goes. Although at some point the hit point system does become ridiculous.

Pain is a separate issue, but rarely a limiting factor in a life or death fight, adrenaline and metaphorical tunnel-vision (as opposed to actual tunnel-vision!) will take care of that. If not, then again that's a morale issue, and a DM could suggest a will save vs fear.

It's not really a morale issue, adrenaline can keep you moving even if you're afraid. Fight or Flight is so powerful that it can overcome virtually any pain you feel, people have a very strong instinct to survive.

one point of comparison I'd be interested in is real world fighters vs animals. I don't know how many roman records we have, but things like gladiator vs bear/lion/wolf/multiples would provide a point of comparison with the cr system. Rome certainly had enough of those battles in the circus to provide good info, if we have the records still.
I mention ancient times so that the equipment advantages of modern times doesn't kick in, though medieval times would work as well.
Of course the humans often have situational advantages in such situations that would make it easier.

Something people tend to forget is that humans are large sized apex predators. We're on the very big end of things, few animals regularly exceed 180 lbs, and human males frequently do. It's why stories of people driving off animals aren't exciting to me, it's not a surprise that humans frequently win fights with animals, we're apex predators and large apex predators at that.

CRtwenty

2013-12-30, 05:17 AM

Hey I'm having trouble trying to understand Levels.
I assume that a level 1 character is the "equivalent" to a black belt (first Dan). So what's the equivalent of level 2, 3, 4, etc...?

I'm not very familiar with martial arts ranks. But a person who has a single level in a PC class has effectively completed any sort of training that's required for them to do their job. The rest is just honing those skills through experience (literally, in the case of XP). A first level Monk would be capable of competing in the most high level martial arts tournaments on Earth, though winning wouldn't be guaranteed.

Also, how much "in game" time does a character require to attain a new level? I always imagine high level human characters (say, 17) to be 60+ years old.

It varies. Think of leveling up as less "constant training" and more like an action anime where exposure to death causes your powers to increase. A Fighter who played it relatively safe and simply served in several campaigns for his Lord's army would probably reach level 5-8 by the end of his career a few decades later. A Fighther who joined an adventurering group and began hunting dangerous magical beasts would level up far faster, and if he survived could reach that same level in only a few years.

DizzyXI

2013-12-30, 02:04 PM

Some people can even survive and continue to operate after they've had multiple gunshots to the chest. Which is pretty wrecking on your organs. Humans are pretty tough as far as it goes. Although at some point the hit point system does become ridiculous.

Wasn't disagreeing here! :p

It's not really a morale issue, adrenaline can keep you moving even if you're afraid. Fight or Flight is so powerful that it can overcome virtually any pain you feel, people have a very strong instinct to survive.

Often, although Freeze is the third response which can be triggered, or an adrenaline dump can cause shock. Someone getting stabbed then freaking out isn't exactly impossible, just far less likely if they have already activated either fight or flight. Anyway, I think we are basically in agreement here :smallwink:

Frozen_Feet

2013-12-30, 06:15 PM

Einstein, 5th level expert has a bab of +3.

Let that sink in for a minute.

So? His total AB is likely to be just +1 due to a flaw called "noncombatant" - take a wild guess what it's meant to model. It's a flat -2 penalty to attack rolls, and realistically, every single human who has not undergone some degree of combat training will have that flaw.

Also, Expert can only use simple weapons. With any other sort of weapon, add in -4 non-proficiency penalty, and our master scientist is rocking total AB of -3.

Compare this to 1st level Warrior's flat +1, no questions asked, always works with every weapon.

Like most people in majority of stat threads, you are taking one number from a character sheet and generalizing it to mean something it doesn't. Base Attack Bonus represents the baseline for average strenght, average dexterity character who has had combat training and is familiar with the weapon he's using. Einstein was not a combatant, and hence unlikely to be familiar with any weapons, so he's already going to be worse than that baseline.

I'm going to side with Tippy in this argument, because Tippy can do his math. I do, however, also agree with AstralFire's argument that it's hard to state a definitive level cap for real-life humans, because d20 D&D has multiple (and often redundant) ways of modelling any given character. Using only what you find in the SRD, you will be hard-pressed to model the greatest warriors and leaders of Earth while staying within ECL 6; you will occasionally find someone who warrants ECL 8 or 10. I've still not seen a single historical human who you would need full 20 levels to model.

But once you allow the whole wealth of material available for the system, the treshold for achieving impressive feats comes down, way down. I would stat, say, Simo Häyhä as Commoner 1/Martial Ranger 8, but following Tippy's method you can probably do all the same things with Factotum 6. Both methods are equally valid, because they yield similar results.

And that's what the Alexandrian's article was really about. Calibrate your expectations - instead of getting hung up on one, single thing, consider the whole scope of the rules being used, as well as what you're trying to model.

Chronos

2013-12-30, 08:11 PM

I don't know about ancient battles, but there was a case a few years ago where a human killed a big cat (I think it was a leopard) with his bare hands. That certainly didn't involve the advantage of modern weaponry, even though it was in modern times.

Frozen_Feet

2013-12-30, 08:16 PM

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-30, 08:36 PM

Can you tell me more of this human? A leopard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/leopard.htm)is perfectly within parameters of an unarmed human character below level 6 to kill, but I'd rather want to know what sort of person I'm modeling.

If it's the incident I'm remembering then it was a sixty something Indian guy who killed a leopard with his bare hands when it attacked him while walking one night.

It's also the kind of thing that is really best handled with critical hits, lucky damage rolls, and the like.

Frozen_Feet

2013-12-30, 08:44 PM

Certainly, though knowing just that much allows for counting the rough probability.

Chronos

2013-12-30, 09:32 PM

Found it (http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ageing_Farmer_Kills_Leopard_With_Bare_Hands_In_Ken ya.html). It was a 73-year-old Kenyan, and he reported hearing a "voice from God" guiding him during the encounter (which perhaps gives some clues as to class). While searching for him, I also found information about Carl Akeley (http://www.badassoftheweek.com/akeley.html), a professional badass who likewise killed a leopard with his bare hands, a century ago (after surviving a bite/rake/rake from the animal).

ben-zayb

2013-12-30, 09:51 PM

My problem with using D&D system for this is not just about the HP scaling. I find it absurd that specializing in a profession that inherently promotes sedentary lifestyle will result in the professional somehow getting better reflexes, fortitude, and accuracy (BAB). And, no, making up fluff that will not apply anyway to EVERY circumstance/institution offering said specialization is not an excuse. So is the "just so happens that circumstance A forced person X to practice unrelated activity Y".

That, and the fact that D&D doesn't have much common mundane speed-increasing options (for runners) to speak of, outside of being an inherently illiterate person or being someone who inexplicably is also a lethal unarmed combatant.

TuggyNE

2013-12-30, 11:01 PM

Found it (http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ageing_Farmer_Kills_Leopard_With_Bare_Hands_In_Ken ya.html). It was a 73-year-old Kenyan, and he reported hearing a "voice from God" guiding him during the encounter (which perhaps gives some clues as to class).

Yep, definitely a Divine Mind using offensive precognition and grip of iron, and possibly offensive prescience and thicken skin. :smallwink:

Talakeal

2013-12-31, 04:47 AM

Well, Vader in the Star Wars RPG was usually statted out as very high-level...in the Revised Core Rulebook, he's (by Episode IV) a Fringer 1/Jedi Guardian 11/Sith Lord 6 (18th level overall), while in SAGA edition, he's a Jedi 7/Jedi Knight 5/Ace Pilot 2/Sith Apprentice 2/Sith Lord 3 (19th level overall).

SAGA edition somewhat less so, but the Revised edition of Star Wars d20 was directly portable over to 3.0/3.5. So Vader is, in Revised, directly equal to an 18th level character. Not a wizard, mind. Probably something somewhere between a Fighter and a Warblade. He's got neat tricks but most of them require him to cast from hitpoints.

Oh, and Anakin in Episode II in Revised d20 was a Fringer 1/Jedi Guardian 5, while Luke in Episode VI was a Fringer 2/Jedi Guardian 7.

The problem with this line of thought is that Vader's feats in the movies are nowhere near what a 19th level D&D character should be capable of. Adaptions never fit quite right.

Scootaloo

2013-12-31, 06:54 AM

I'm not sure about most of them, but in Dragon Magazine they statted Gandalf as a 5th level wizard.

But of course, that 5 levels is stacked on top of 30 hit dice worth of Maiar

Prime32

2013-12-31, 12:19 PM

Rogue Shadows

2013-12-31, 02:41 PM

The problem with this line of thought is that Vader's feats in the movies are nowhere near what a 19th level D&D character should be capable of. Adaptions never fit quite right.

Well, like I pointed out later in the thread, level means something a little different in Star Wars than it does in D&D. Keep in mind as well that a 20th level character in the Revised Core Rulebook will still be working with the same equipment available to a 1st-level character, he'll just have more of it and be better at using it.

Talakeal

2014-01-01, 12:23 AM

We can conclusively say that Einstein was not level 20 - he never demonstrated any of the toughness or combat skill that even a 20th level commoner would have.

Which is of course the whole crux of the problem of trying to translate things into d&d levels. The system has a number of built in assumptions. Class abilities, skills, feats, ability bonuses, saves, BaB, and HP are all directly tied to level. People in real life or other mediums can have a vast discrepancy between their ability in one of these areas and another, d&d characters cannot. At least without some really really weird builds and other shenanigans.

Rogue Shadows

2014-01-01, 12:43 AM

Which is of course the whole crux of the problem of trying to translate things into d&d levels. The system has a number of built in assumptions. Class abilities, skills, feats, ability bonuses, saves, BaB, and HP are all directly tied to level. People in real life or other mediums can have a vast discrepancy between their ability in one of these areas and another, d&d characters cannot. At least without some really really weird builds and other shenanigans.

Do I have to whip out my 5th-level expert Einstein that can perform in combat about as well against 1st-level characters as I'd expect the real-life Einstein to be able to again?

Einstein, Theoretical Physicist: Human Expert 5; Medium humanoid (human); HD 5d6-10; hp 5; Init -3; Spd 30 ft; AC 7 (touch 7, flat-footed 7); Base Attack +3; Grp +1; Atk +1 melee (1d3-2, unarmed) or +0 ranged (by weapon); SA --; SQ Human traits, Expert features; AL NG; SV Fort -1, Ref -2, Will +7; AB Str 6, Dex 4, Con 7, Int 19, Wis 17, Cha 11.
Skills and Feats: Knowledge (Physics) +15, any 9 others at 8 ranks and 1 other at 4 ranks (cross-class); Skill Focus (Knowledge [physics]) and any 2 others.

Compare/contrast him to a 1st-level human commoner:

Average Joe the average joe: Human Commoner 1; Medium humanoid (human); HD 1d4; hp 5; Init +0; Spd 30 ft; AC 10 (touch 10, flat-footed 10); Base Attack +0; Grp +1; Atk +0 melee (1d3, unarmed) or +0 ranged (by weapon); SA --; SQ Human traits, Commoner features; AL N; SV Fort +0, Ref +0, Will +0; AB Str 10, Dex 10, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
Skills and Feats: Craft (any one) +7, Handle Animal +4, Profession (any one) +4; Skill Focus (Craft), Toughness

In a fist fight between Average Joe and Einstein, Average Joe is more likely to move first, more likely to hit Einstein than Einstein is to hit him (Einstein hits on a 9 or better, but Joe hits on a 7 or better thanks to Einstein's low AC), and can actually deal more than 1 point of damage. They have the same hit points but Average Joe has a better Fortitude and Reflex. I'll admit that Einstein is unusually good at grappling, though.

That all sounds about right (apart from the grappling) for a typical schmuck with no combat training going up against an intelligent schmuck with no combat training who's pushing 80.

It's not perfect, I won't claim that it's perfect - but I didn't exactly have to twist the system to get the desired result, either.

Talakeal

2014-01-01, 05:27 AM

D&D isnt bad at modeling real people, it is just limited. I also think if you tried to model Einstein as a younger person I think it would be significantly harder.

AMFV

2014-01-01, 05:48 AM

The guy who mostly fought with a sword, got his magic from a ring (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#ringofElementalCommandFire), did more damage against evil creatures, made people more courageous in his presence, and could summon a special mount... had all his levels in wizard? Really? :smalltongue:

Also worth noting: in D&D it takes only an lv1 spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromEvil.htm) to block the influence of the One Ring.

Lord of the Rings is extremely difficult to model in D&D. Also Gandalf used magic that wasn't from the ring on several occasions, although nothing really dramatic, I think subtlety was important. He didn't do more damage to evil creatures that we are aware of, and he explicitly stated that he was dangerous to good creatures as well.

Also the One Ring would probably not be blocked by Protection from Evil, if you were modelling it, it's kind of a special case, it gets most of its power from the user giving it domain and using it, which would likely remove the protections. Although LoTR is one of the most difficult books to model in D&D terms at least in terms of 3.5, it just doesn't fit very well.

Because the characters have greater informed ability, and we don't know exactly what their limits are, many of them are deliberately avoiding using their full strength for any number of reasons. Or are not permitted to, as in the case of Gandalf.

ben-zayb

2014-01-01, 06:02 AM

Do I have to whip out my 5th-level expert Einstein that can perform in combat about as well against 1st-level characters as I'd expect the real-life Einstein to be able to again?

Einstein, Theoretical Physicist: Human Expert 5; Medium humanoid (human); HD 5d6-10; hp 5; Init -3; Spd 30 ft; AC 7 (touch 7, flat-footed 7); Base Attack +3; Grp +1; Atk +1 melee (1d3-2, unarmed) or +0 ranged (by weapon); SA --; SQ Human traits, Expert features; AL NG; SV Fort -1, Ref -2, Will +7; AB Str 6, Dex 4, Con 7, Int 19, Wis 17, Cha 11.
Skills and Feats: Knowledge (Physics) +15, any 9 others at 8 ranks and 1 other at 4 ranks (cross-class); Skill Focus (Knowledge [physics]) and any 2 others.

Compare/contrast him to a 1st-level human commoner:

Average Joe the average joe: Human Commoner 1; Medium humanoid (human); HD 1d4; hp 5; Init +0; Spd 30 ft; AC 10 (touch 10, flat-footed 10); Base Attack +0; Grp +1; Atk +0 melee (1d3, unarmed) or +0 ranged (by weapon); SA --; SQ Human traits, Commoner features; AL N; SV Fort +0, Ref +0, Will +0; AB Str 10, Dex 10, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
Skills and Feats: Craft (any one) +7, Handle Animal +4, Profession (any one) +4; Skill Focus (Craft), Toughness
In a fist fight between Average Joe and Einstein, Average Joe is more likely to move first, more likely to hit Einstein than Einstein is to hit him (Einstein hits on a 9 or better, but Joe hits on a 7 or better thanks to Einstein's low AC), and can actually deal more than 1 point of damage. They have the same hit points but Average Joe has a better Fortitude and Reflex. I'll admit that Einstein is unusually good at grappling, though.

That all sounds about right (apart from the grappling) for a typical schmuck with no combat training going up against an intelligent schmuck with no combat training who's pushing 80.

It's not perfect, I won't claim that it's perfect - but I didn't exactly have to twist the system to get the desired result, either.The only thing this proves is that ANY sufficiently flawed character who doesn't use commoner array and rolled poorly on physical stats will fare poorly even at level5 against an average joe at level1. Shocker!

It's funny that we have to assume every sort of supergenius have to be this wimpy just to make a deathmatch against a Commoner more sensible or "balanced".

Rogue Shadows

2014-01-01, 09:46 AM

It's funny that we have to assume every sort of supergenius have to be this wimpy just to make a deathmatch against a Commoner more sensible or "balanced".

He's not wimpy, he's an 80-year-old man (as he is venerable he has an accumulated total of -6 to all physical stats and +3 to all mental ones) who never had any particular reason to take care of himself physically, though nor was he ever in particular bad shape. I'd love to see how good at throwing down you'll be at 80.

D&D isnt bad at modeling real people, it is just limited. I also think if you tried to model Einstein as a younger person I think it would be significantly harder.

What, you mean, like, level 2, when he's an adult just out of college?

Einstein, College Graduate: Human Expert 2; Medium humanoid (human); HD 2d6+2; hp 4; Init +0; Spd 30 ft; AC 10 (touch 10, flat-footed 10); Base Attack +1; Grp +2; Atk +2 melee (1d3+1, unarmed) or +0 ranged (by weapon); SA --; SQ Human traits, Expert features; AL NG; SV Fort +1, Ref +0, Will +5; AB Str 12, Dex 10, Con 13, Int 15, Wis 14, Cha 8.
Skills and Feats: Knowledge (Physics) +10, any 8 others at 5 ranks; Skill Focus (Knowledge [physics]) and any 1 other.

Einstein as an adult man still has a +10 bonus to Knowledge (physics). When taking 10 he can hit a DC 20 Knowledge check, which allows for insight into very specific questions about physics, if not necessarily the hardest of them all. About 25% of the time he can hit a DC 25, and every now and again he could make up to a DC 36 Knowledge check with help from access to a library (+2 circumstance bonus), aid from research assistants (+2 aid another), access to specialized equipment (+2 equipment bonus), allowing him to answer the hardest questions known to man.

And this is discounting something like Knowledge (Physics) getting a synergy bonus from ranks in Knowledge (mathematics) that he might have (+2 synergy) or his free second feat being some +2/+2 skill feat that adds to knowledge checks (another +2 bonus). So we're looking at a maximum potential of him hitting DC 40 skill checks - things that no one's ever known before, i.e., special relativity and mass-energy equivalence.

Meanwhile, as a younger man, he's better at fighting than his older self by virtue of better ability scores that haven't degraded due to age; better than Joe Average the human commoner, that is. A 1st-level fighter or rogue still walks all over him. Probably a warrior, too (remember that I kept him at only 1 hp per hit die for consistency with his older self; even still, though, his average hp would be only 8, not much better when it can be reasonably assumed that a 2nd-level warrior would have the same even with no CON modifier just by rolling average on a d8)

Once again, it's not perfect, but I don't ask it to be, I just ask it to be satisfactory. I had to twist just slightly here to get him the extra +4 to hit DC 40 knowledge checks, but not in any game-breaking or unreasonable way.

Chronos

2014-01-01, 11:30 AM

Remember, most of Einstein's greatest work was done when he was 25 years old, and all of his greatest work was completed by the time he was 35. And he was never an 80-year-old man: He died at age 76.

Rogue Shadows

2014-01-01, 12:16 PM

Remember, most of Einstein's greatest work was done when he was 25 years old, and all of his greatest work was completed by the time he was 35. And he was never an 80-year-old man: He died at age 76.

Well, whatever - that still puts him at Venerable at the end of his life, and his 2nd-level healthy adult version can still come up with things like special relativity and mass-energy equivalence with the proper tools (and why wouldn't he have the proper tools?)

A revised version of him at 5th level at age 54 (Old; accumulated -3 to all physical stats and +2 to all mental stats), when he emmigrated to America in 1933, would look like this:

Einstein, Theoretical Physicist: Human Expert 5; Medium humanoid (human); HD 5d6; hp 5; Init -2; Spd 30 ft; AC 8 (touch 8, flat-footed 8); Base Attack +3; Grp +2; Atk +2 melee (1d3-1, unarmed) or +1 ranged (by weapon); SA --; SQ Human traits, Expert features; AL NG; SV Fort +1, Ref -1, Will +7; AB Str 9, Dex 7, Con 10, Int 18, Wis 16, Cha 10.
Skills and Feats: Knowledge (Physics) +15, any 9 others at 8 ranks and 1 other at 4 ranks (cross-class); Skill Focus (Knowledge [physics]) and any 2 others.

Still broadly satisfied, though he remains a bit weirdly good at grappling. Throw in the Noncombatant flaw for -2 to melee attack rolls and use the bonus feat to pick up Skill Focus (Knowledge [mathematics]) or something and you're good to go.

ben-zayb

2014-01-01, 05:12 PM

Well, whatever - that still puts him at Venerable at the end of his life, and his 2nd-level healthy adult version can still come up with things like special relativity and mass-energy equivalence with the proper tools (and why wouldn't he have the proper tools?)

A revised version of him at 5th level at age 54 (Old; accumulated -3 to all physical stats and +2 to all mental stats), when he emmigrated to America in 1933, would look like this:

Einstein, Theoretical Physicist: Human Expert 5; Medium humanoid (human); HD 5d6; hp 5; Init -2; Spd 30 ft; AC 8 (touch 8, flat-footed 8); Base Attack +3; Grp +2; Atk +2 melee (1d3-1, unarmed) or +1 ranged (by weapon); SA --; SQ Human traits, Expert features; AL NG; SV Fort +1, Ref -1, Will +7; AB Str 9, Dex 7, Con 10, Int 18, Wis 16, Cha 10.
Skills and Feats: Knowledge (Physics) +15, any 9 others at 8 ranks and 1 other at 4 ranks (cross-class); Skill Focus (Knowledge [physics]) and any 2 others.

Still broadly satisfied, though he remains a bit weirdly good at grappling. Throw in the Noncombatant flaw for -2 to melee attack rolls and use the bonus feat to pick up Skill Focus (Knowledge [mathematics]) or something and you're good to go.Again, that doesn't answer why nonflawed supergeniuses (of respective different disciplines, like an Expert in the field computer architecture for example) have more natural reflexes, fortitude, accuracy, and grappling abilities than an average joe.

Imagine this: if there is an identical twin (same rolls or array), and one decides to be an expert (marine biology) who strives to master his craft at the expense of having a sedentary lifestyle (advanced to L5) while the other becomes your average commoner farmer (L1), why would the marine biologist be, regardless of equipment or lack thereof, naturally healthier and more resistant (fort saves) to poison and diseases? Why is the marine biologist, regardless of his equipment or lack thereof, more capable of taking down, grappling, and attacking farm pests and predators, than the farmer itself? (and more of them at a time, no less, if we use the CR system)

rmnimoc

2014-01-01, 07:16 PM

Imagine this: if there is an identical twin (same rolls or array), and one decides to be an expert (marine biology) who strives to master his craft at the expense of having a sedentary lifestyle (advanced to L5) while the other becomes your average commoner farmer (L1), why would the marine biologist be, regardless of equipment or lack thereof, naturally healthier and more resistant (fort saves) to poison and diseases? Why is the marine biologist, regardless of his equipment or lack thereof, more capable of taking down, grappling, and attacking farm pests and predators, than the farmer itself? (and more of them at a time, no less, if we use the CR system)

It makes more sense than it would seem at first glance.
Degree or not Steve Irwin was a marine (and non-marine cause he was awesome like that) biologist. Tell me he can't grapple.
You can't reach level five of expert through reading books on marine biology alone, so you will at some point have to have contact with those aquatic creatures, and other people who have studied them. That means you have spent more time around people who have spent more time around people than the standard commoner. Plus, many marine animals migrate a rather far distance, which means you will be encountering researchers from around a huge area. It's a pretty documented thing that sailors, soldiers, and traveling merchants tend to have rather good immune systems for that reason. There is also the fact your body can build up a resistance to most organic poisons, and being around a large number of animals would bring you into contact with small amounts of those poisons. While the biologist's job may require him to be rather sedentary, a commoners life require stagnation. The exact same task, repeated over, and over, and over, all day, every day. Test the reflexes of people with standard unskilled labor jobs and then the reflexes of biologists. You would be amazed how good your reflexes get when you are constantly having to grab stacks of paper and books mid-fall to keep from making a mess that would take important research time to sort out. Experts make more money as a general rule, and that means they probably can afford more/better food, as opposed to whatever the commoners chump change can afford. Eating right is huge when it comes to a person's overall health and as biologists it would be rather hard NOT to be aware of that. The pest problem makes sense to when you consider the fact that biologists know more about animals and predators, so they very well could have subconciously mimiced those animals for combat purposes. (I'll admit that takes a rather large leap though.)
Stupid BAB. Always has to ruin everything. Other than the attack bonuses though it makes total sense.

Rogue Shadows

2014-01-01, 08:36 PM

Stupid BAB. Always has to ruin everything. Other than the attack bonuses though it makes total sense.

Even attack bonuses make a degree of sense for the example marine biologist. Such a character might take a dip in an aquarium and for one reason or another run into an otherwise benign shark or eel having a bad day and looking for trouble. Said biologist learns how to react in such situations and how to fend off the shark, since he's not an aquatic creature and so simply swimming away (AKA, his armor class) isn't alone enough.

Imagine this

I also, furthermore, suggested earlier that Modern commoners might get a different skill set from D&D commoners, which includes free choice of Knowledge skills. After all, City of Sharn posits that simply living in a city is enough to change how adepts function; surely this age of computers and cell phones is enough to suggest that commoners might be different, too.

DizzyXI

2014-01-01, 08:54 PM

AMFV

2014-01-01, 09:34 PM

And again, it's worth noting that the original claim was not that you can model real life people with the levelling system. It's that you could make a low level character as capable as a real life person. In this world even scholars apparently tend to get some basic martial training for example; as we can see in the BaB. The main thing is, you can create a world of people who have abilities of a similar level to people in the real world, without going above level 5-6; and that's only for the extreme edge cases.

But since the model is already flawed then the level range becomes kind of irrelevant, Really D&D is bad at modeling people in many respects, particularly because advancement in the real world is very different from D&D. Also because it just isn't a good model for people that could be so varied. Because even some academics have very broad spectrum of talent which are not well represented.

In that Model we only have Einstein's abilities as a physicist. We don't have his ability as a patent clerk, or his other talents. And Einstein is pretty focused on one thing, it's much harder to model people that have different tracks of interest. Almost impossible. It's why E6 really isn't more realistic, it's a different tone of setting, but it's equally unrealistic.

Rogue Shadows

2014-01-01, 09:41 PM

In that Model we only have Einstein's abilities as a physicist. We don't have his ability as a patent clerk, or his other talents.

To be entirely fair, even his 2nd-level, 25-year-old version has up to 8 maxed-out skills (a total of 40 unused skill points) that haven't been specified. It just hasn't been relevant to talk about his ranks in Profession (Patent Clerk), though, for the record, it'd be at +7 (+5 ranks, +2 Wisdom).

I don't know how good (or not good) a patent clerk he was, though.

AMFV

2014-01-01, 09:45 PM

To be entirely fair, even his 2nd-level, 25-year-old version has up to 8 maxed-out skills (a total of 40 unused skill points) that haven't been specified. It just hasn't been relevant to talk about his ranks in Profession (Patent Clerk), though, for the record, it'd be at +7 (+5 ranks, +2 Wisdom).

I don't know how good (or not good) a patent clerk he was, though.

Also Einstein is easy to model, let's go with something more complex. Let's try to model me... I've been in the military, so I'd have some kind of combat experience, probably a martial class. However I've also been to school, and have studied various things, I've studied map-making, various radio technologies, certain computer programs, geology, and managing schools and training, all well enough to do those things professionally. That's the problem you can model Einstein fine, but modelling Arnold Schwarzenegger is almost impossible. Since he has so many different abilities in so many different lines.

Note, I'm not saying Schwarzenegger is more competent or a better person, just infinitely more difficult to model in that system since he has so many different professional level abilities and has clearly above the Elite Array in several areas stats.

Rogue Shadows

2014-01-01, 10:00 PM

Note, I'm not saying Schwarzenegger is more competent or a better person, just infinitely more difficult to model in that system since he has so many different professional level abilities and has clearly above the Elite Array in several areas stats.

Well, the Elite Array is merely used to simulate rolling 4d6, dropping the lowest die, and repeating this six times, which is the default method of character creation (it is important to remember that point buy is a variant from the DMG, and not the way characters are assumed to be created by D&D's own rules, however popular point buy may be amongst the fanbase). Statistically (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/dnd/abilities.html) it's the most likely series of results from this process; well, provided you round down as you're supposed to always do in D&D and which WotC clearly did (the actual statistical results are closer to 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9 when following normal rounding rules, but this doesn't make for an easy and convenient point buy system)

It is not impossible that Arnold Schwarzenegger is among the elite of the elite and rolled multiple 18s, and isn't an expert, but rather a member of some PC class that grants a huge skill base.

Emperor Tippy

2014-01-01, 10:01 PM

Also Einstein is easy to model, let's go with something more complex. Let's try to model me... I've been in the military, so I'd have some kind of combat experience, probably a martial class. However I've also been to school, and have studied various things, I've studied map-making, various radio technologies, certain computer programs, geology, and managing schools and training, all well enough to do those things professionally. That's the problem you can model Einstein fine, but modelling Arnold Schwarzenegger is almost impossible. Since he has so many different abilities in so many different lines.

Note, I'm not saying Schwarzenegger is more competent or a better person, just infinitely more difficult to model in that system since he has so many different professional level abilities and has clearly above the Elite Array in several areas stats.

Factotum 3/ Martial Monk 1 with a slightly above average Int should do it

Rogue Shadows

2014-01-01, 10:02 PM

Factotum 3/ Martial Monk 1 with a slightly above average Int should do it

I'd like it on record that I really hate the Factotum, by the way.

AMFV

2014-01-01, 10:02 PM

Factotum 3/ Martial Monk 1 with a slightly above average Int should do it

For Schwarzenegger? Possibly, although then you'd have him using his intellect to make strength related checks, which isn't really a good model, I mean you'd have similar capabilities, just for very different reasons, and that actually matters if you're trying to create a system where things should be modeled.

Emperor Tippy

2014-01-01, 10:24 PM

For Schwarzenegger? Possibly, although then you'd have him using his intellect to make strength related checks, which isn't really a good model, I mean you'd have similar capabilities, just for very different reasons, and that actually matters if you're trying to create a system where things should be modeled.

No, for you.

Schwarzenegger would probably get a level or three of Factotum as well but I might do him differently.

AMFV

2014-01-01, 10:25 PM

No, for you.

Schwarzenegger would probably get a level or three of Factotum as well but I might do him differently.

Ah well that might work for me, but Schwarzenegger is more difficult to model particularly given his wide breadth of talents, those are the kinds of things that are most difficult to accurately model, particularly if you're referring to more than capabilities but the fluff behind them.

Overall while D&D is a good system, it's not good for modelling real life, the physics and aging, and various other things are simply too removed.

CRtwenty

2014-01-01, 10:27 PM

Overall while D&D is a good system, it's not good for modelling real life, the physics and aging, and various other things are simply too removed.

Pretty much this. D&D was never intended to be realistic.

ben-zayb

2014-01-01, 10:46 PM

It makes more sense than it would seem at first glance.
Degree or not Steve Irwin was a marine (and non-marine cause he was awesome like that) biologist. Tell me he can't grapple.
You can't reach level five of expert through reading books on marine biology alone, so you will at some point have to have contact with those aquatic creatures, and other people who have studied them. That means you have spent more time around people who have spent more time around people than the standard commoner. Plus, many marine animals migrate a rather far distance, which means you will be encountering researchers from around a huge area. It's a pretty documented thing that sailors, soldiers, and traveling merchants tend to have rather good immune systems for that reason. There is also the fact your body can build up a resistance to most organic poisons, and being around a large number of animals would bring you into contact with small amounts of those poisons. While the biologist's job may require him to be rather sedentary, a commoners life require stagnation. The exact same task, repeated over, and over, and over, all day, every day. Test the reflexes of people with standard unskilled labor jobs and then the reflexes of biologists. You would be amazed how good your reflexes get when you are constantly having to grab stacks of paper and books mid-fall to keep from making a mess that would take important research time to sort out. Experts make more money as a general rule, and that means they probably can afford more/better food, as opposed to whatever the commoners chump change can afford. Eating right is huge when it comes to a person's overall health and as biologists it would be rather hard NOT to be aware of that. The pest problem makes sense to when you consider the fact that biologists know more about animals and predators, so they very well could have subconciously mimiced those animals for combat purposes. (I'll admit that takes a rather large leap though.)
Stupid BAB. Always has to ruin everything. Other than the attack bonuses though it makes total sense.Once again, we resort to circumstancial explanations that do not necessarily apply to each and every sample. If we go by that logic, any average L1 commoner can be justified just as well to be having these circumstancial *fluffs*, yet they aren't better equipped for it than Mr. Expert 5. Travelling, meeting up with X, not being able to achieve a feat while constrained to a place, silly notion of Universal Poison/Diseases in the real world, commoners having unskilled jobs, commoners lacking access to good food, commoner labor universally stagnant in nature... yeah, seriously doubting these assumptions apply to the majority in general, or heck even minority in a local setting.

Besides, the Marine Biology reference was an arbitrary example deliberately made to be easily explainable. Now try that for every discipline with a REAL sedentary lifestyle, especially those experts who never even worked outside a business office, university, or research laboratory.

Rogue Shadows

2014-01-01, 11:35 PM

Besides, the Marine Biology reference was an arbitrary example deliberately made to be easily explainable. Now try that for every discipline with a REAL sedentary lifestyle, especially those experts who never even worked outside a business office, university, or research laboratory.

Such people probably aren't beyond 3rd level anyway, so I don't see the problem.

Again, it is more than possible at 1st or 2nd level (mostly 2nd - gotta love that synergy) to hit DC 40 skill checks, usually the hardest checks in D&D. Taking that into account, and remembering that the vast, vast majority of people don't regularly face enough challenges to warrant gaining XP or find themselves in situations where they need to hit that high to get by, then I don't see how a 5th-level character that has led such a sedentary lifestyle could exist.

Or in short, being 5th level means you've faced enough serious challenges to warrant being 5th level; no, you haven't necessarily fought carrion crawlers (or even fought anything) to get from 4th to 5th, but you overcame challenges that were as difficult as carrion crawlers.

But you're deliberately describing someone who faces no serious challenges in life. So why would that person be 5th level?

georgie_leech

2014-01-01, 11:44 PM

We're missing the obvious here guys. How do we model famous actors and musicians? There's no way their Perform checks are high enough to manage their contracts.

rmnimoc

2014-01-01, 11:59 PM

Once again, we resort to circumstancial explanations that do not necessarily apply to each and every sample. If we go by that logic, any average L1 commoner can be justified just as well to be having these circumstancial *fluffs*, yet they aren't better equipped for it than Mr. Expert 5. Travelling, meeting up with X, not being able to achieve a feat while constrained to a place, silly notion of Universal Poison/Diseases in the real world, commoners having unskilled jobs, commoners lacking access to good food, commoner labor universally stagnant in nature... yeah, seriously doubting these assumptions apply to the majority in general, or heck even minority in a local setting.

Besides, the Marine Biology reference was an arbitrary example deliberately made to be easily explainable. Now try that for every discipline with a REAL sedentary lifestyle, especially those experts who never even worked outside a business office, university, or research laboratory.

why would the marine biologist be, regardless of equipment or lack thereof, naturally healthier and more resistant (fort saves) to poison and diseases? Why is the marine biologist, regardless of his equipment or lack thereof, more capable of taking down, grappling, and attacking farm pests and predators, than the farmer itself? (and more of them at a time, no less, if we use the CR system)

WARNING- This post contains liberal amounts of sarcasm.
You have been warned.

1. You wanted an explanation for how it could happen. I think the appropriate thing to say is "Thank you". You're welcome. Then again if I hurt your feelings by pointing out a way that your hypothetical scenario isn't as implausible as you wanted it to be, I am truly and deeply sorry.
2. "Once again, we resort to circumstancial explanations that do not necessarily apply to each and every sample." Right, how silly of me to have tailored my answer to your question. That sure was silly of me.
3."If we go by that logic, any average L1 commoner can be justified just as well to be having these circumstancial *fluffs*, yet they aren't better equipped for it than Mr. Expert 5." I must have missed the errata that said leveling up no longer came from experience. I'm sorry for explaining how the expert 5 came to have the benefits he gets for being an expert 5. Because those "circumstancial *fluffs*" were me trying to explain to you how a human having benefits of a level of a class makes sense. I'll make it up to you though, and prove you right all in one go. "The expert 5 just suddenly gained all sorts of random knowledge and skills that in no way make sense for him to have accumulated in all the hard work he had to put in to get to that level." See? Now you get what you wanted, a total lack of a reason for someone to have obtained such skills, because I totally wasn't explaining how it logically makes sense for a marine biologist to be healthier, and more disease resistant than an average kid off the street. I'm kind of curious how you expect to reach Einstein levels of knowledge in a subject without ever meeting up with any other expert or ever interacting with what you are studying in the first place. Mind enlightning me? Also how do you manage to level to a fifth level expert while still being an average first level commoner?
3. Unskilled level 1 commoners. How many skill points do commoners get at level one? Cause I'm pretty sure it isn't enough to be an expert in something, otherwise they would, you know, be an expert. Plus you would make more money than it costs to buy a loaf of bread a day if you had a skilled labor position. I bought a loaf a bread this morning. $1.79. That is how much your first level commoner is making a day. Man I wish I had his job.
4. Commoners and hunger/malnutrition. The average commoner makes around 2 sp per day. That is a 1/2 lb of bread. He can't afford much as far as meat goes, 0.375 lbs a day if he spends all his wages every day on it. If a commoner wants good food though, he can only get it every third day since it costs 2.5 times his daily wage. Either every commoner is a farmer, or some wizard managed to replace the entire food pyramid with one loaf of bread. I tip my hat to you food pyramid shuffling wizard.
5. Do I need to explain why a job where you gain one/fifth the experience of your twin is stagnant? When was the last time you had enough new experiences to level? Oh right, NEVER.
6. I'm going to stop this here, I'm overexerting my sarcasm gland and this much blue is almost painful to see.
Edit: I'm pretty sure Arnold is a gestalt bardbarian.

Rogue Shadows

2014-01-02, 01:35 AM

I'm pretty sure Arnold is a gestalt bardbarian.

Hmm...Perform, Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, all Knowledge skills, Profession, d12 hit die...

Yeah, I can totally see that. And again, it's quite possible that he just rolled really well and got more than the elite array.

AMFV

2014-01-02, 02:43 AM

Hmm...Perform, Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, all Knowledge skills, Profession, d12 hit die...

Yeah, I can totally see that. And again, it's quite possible that he just rolled really well and got more than the elite array.

Well partially true, although the amounts of money he made exceed perform. Gestalt is even more terrible for modeling due to dozens of unfortunate implications it brings up. The whole thing is just silly. We're modelling humans in a world where real world physics doesn't work? And Physics is a hard science, of course the models are bogus. I mean we can model some things, or go for a certain concept, but for modelling real life, D&D is terrible.

The Insanity

2014-01-02, 04:42 AM

Average commoners in D&D have BaB and saves higher than RL commoners would have simply because D&D worlds are much more dangerous than modern RL.

AMFV

2014-01-02, 05:16 AM

Average commoners in D&D have BaB and saves higher than RL commoners would have simply because D&D worlds are much more dangerous than modern RL.

I don't know, I'd wager that if you put two people in a ring, they'd hit each other more than half the time, which is the supposition of D&D commoners since they'd both have +0 Dex, so an AC of 10, +0 Strength and BAB, so a melee attack bonus of zero, so then they'd hit an average of 50% of the time, which seems not like any fight I've ever been in.

rmnimoc

2014-01-02, 05:44 AM

I don't know, I'd wager that if you put two people in a ring, they'd hit each other more than half the time, which is the supposition of D&D commoners since they'd both have +0 Dex, so an AC of 10, +0 Strength and BAB, so a melee attack bonus of zero, so then they'd hit an average of 50% of the time, which seems not like any fight I've ever been in.

They can punch someone out with only a few blows, regardless of whether they hit them in the face or body. At 1d3 that is a 66% chance of doing 2 damage or over, which means you will knock the average commoner out in a single blow. The ones who rolled just a little higher (rolled a 4 on their d4) would be able to take two punches 95% of the time. They have a 60% chance of being dropped with that blow, and a 100% chance of being dropped by the next one. Of course this is dependant on them actually hitting, which isn't exactly a guarantee. Odds are though most commoner boxing matches last between 12 and 30 seconds.

Of course that actually proves the opposite of what I'd intended, but that's okay. Commoners are pathetic. I've got a good rule of thumb. If a singular normal housefly (diminutive +4 to ac, +4 to attack rolls, 1 dmg) will kill you more times than you will kill it, you are in serious need of a montage. And possibly a PC level or two.

The Insanity

2014-01-02, 05:49 AM

I don't know, I'd wager that if you put two people in a ring, they'd hit each other more than half the time, which is the supposition of D&D commoners since they'd both have +0 Dex, so an AC of 10, +0 Strength and BAB, so a melee attack bonus of zero, so then they'd hit an average of 50% of the time, which seems not like any fight I've ever been in.
RL Einstein couldn't fight (or maybe he could, I don't know my history, just making a point) like a D&D Einstein would, because RL Einstein didn't need to, but a D&D Einstein would need to have at least a basic combat ability (that +2 or +3 BaB) simply because his life would be in more danger (or more often). Unlike in RL, villages don't have police to keep them safe. They might have a sheriff, but other than that they'd have to defend their homes themselves. And unlike in RL, in D&D it's not just a matter of having a (better) weapon, because in D&D either everyone can have a weapon or you have to fight something like a manticore or dire wolf, which a big sword won't do much against without actual combat ability.

AMFV

2014-01-02, 06:00 AM

RL Einstein couldn't fight (or maybe he could, I don't know my history, just making a point) like a D&D Einstein would, because RL Einstein didn't need to, but a D&D Einstein would need to have at least a basic combat ability (that +2 or +3 BaB) simply because his life would be in more danger (or more often). Unlike in RL, villages don't have police to keep them safe. They might have a sheriff, but other than that they'd have to defend their homes themselves. And unlike in RL, in D&D it's not just a matter of having a (better) weapon, because in D&D either everyone can have a weapon or you have to fight something like a manticore or dire wolf, which a big sword won't do much against without actual combat ability.

The point I'm making is that the model is actually worse the other way, commoners and experts have less fighting ability than actual people. Hell even at level 6, a commoner is probably worse at fighting than most people, since they will only be able to punch a man-sized target 65% of the time, which is probably a more accurate number with a moving target, but it's still not really all that accurate for a real fight, where you can usually hit the other person, unless they are trained at avoiding getting hit.

Rogue Shadows

2014-01-02, 09:10 AM

Hell even at level 6, a commoner is probably worse at fighting than most people, since they will only be able to punch a man-sized target 65% of the time, which is probably a more accurate number with a moving target, but it's still not really all that accurate for a real fight, where you can usually hit the other person, unless they are trained at avoiding getting hit.

They'll only be able to punch a man-sized, moving target appreciably 65% of the time. HP is an abstraction and it can often indicate near-misses or blows that don't matter just as much as it represents real damage.

There are certain sacrifices I'm willing to make for the sake of ease of play, regardless; that doesn't change that I don't find D&D nearly as bad at modeling real people or real events as most roleplaying systems I've come across. "Generally satisfied" is the most I've expected out of it, and "generally satisfied" is what I am. The only significant complaint I ever had was that D&D didn't clearly define falling speed or rules for being in a free fall, but even that was simple to reverse-engineer from real life and apply in an abstract-but-close-enough-to-accurate-for-my-purposes of 500 feet in the first round, 1000 feet every round thereafter, and you can choose to fall at any point in your turn (so that you can take your actions at the beginning of your turn, at the end, or broken up as you like).

AMFV

2014-01-02, 09:21 AM

They'll only be able to punch a man-sized, moving target appreciably 65% of the time. HP is an abstraction and it can often indicate near-misses or blows that don't matter just as much as it represents real damage.

I'm saying that you should be able to hit a man much more than 65% of the time... In a fight. Hell you could me in the same room as a barn, and I bet you $100 that I will not miss the barn five percent of the time.

There are certain sacrifices I'm willing to make for the sake of ease of play, regardless; that doesn't change that I don't find D&D nearly as bad at modeling real people as most roleplaying systems I've come across. "Generally satisfied" is the most I've expected out of it, and "generally satisfied" is what I am. The only significant complaint I ever had was that D&D didn't clearly define falling speed or rules for being in a free fall, but even that was simple to reverse-engineer from real life and apply in an abstract-but-close-enough-to-accurate-for-my-purposes of 500 feet in the first round, 1000 feet every round thereafter, and you can choose to fall at any point in your turn (so that you can take your actions at the beginning of your turn, at the end, or broken up as you like).

Don't get me wrong, it's incredible at modelling fantasy worlds, which is what it's supposed to do, I wouldn't use it for a slice of life roleplay (although I probably wouldn't enjoy that sort of roleplay in any case), but it is good for that sort of model. It's just really bad at modelling real world combat, which is generally unpleasant and not fun anyways, and if you really want that with your friends you can have Fight Club night instead of D&D night. Although you can't talk about it.