PDA

View Full Version : XP and leveling in the real world vs D&D



Fixer
2007-06-28, 06:53 AM
Ok, I have read all around where most people are level 1, a few exceptional people are level 3, and true champions are level 5.

To me, none of that makes a terribly large amount of sense.

For a bit of my background, I got into a LOT of fights when I was a teenager. The exact number is well over 1000 (many years of fighting almost daily). As one example I know I was almost suspended for 63 documented fights at school in one semester (I had gotten in more than that out of school). After that everyone pretty much stopped keeping track, even school authorities. (The reason I was not expelled was because back in my day, defending oneself was still allowed and I never actually started any of those fights at school. I waited until after school.)

Assuming I was doing nothing more than fighting level 1 NPC classes (and I know I tangled with a couple rogues) AND assuming I won no more than 100 fights I should be higher than 5th level just from that.

100 fights net 15000 xp (even taking into account going up levels). (100 @ 150xp each for a single level 1 warrior or expert or even commoner) I know I got into a lot more fights than that, but according to just basic D&D experience rules I should be at least 6th level making me some sort of champion. If I count all the fights and presume all were against CR1 challenges, I could be no higher than 8th level, though, as you stop earning XP after that because the encounters are no longer challenges.

None of this takes into account any non-combat challenges I have accomplished: negotiating out of tickets, talking the boss into giving me a raise, winning in contests, or other less public activites I have done.


Bottom line, I do not believe that 5th level should demonstrate some superhero character. If anything, I believe that living active teenage years should bring a person close to 2nd level. Level 1 people simply live very sheltered lives and try to avoid challenges of any sort. In medieval times living a sheltered life might be more common than in todays world, but level 1 people really have never done anything with their lives but get up, do what they already know how to do, and then go back to sleep. Even encountering one challenge of half your level once a year from age 15 will get you to 2nd level by age 22.

Matthew
2007-06-28, 07:16 AM
Thoughtbot has been on about this for a while. The thing is, the experience point system and game mechanics don't really drive the game world. They only exist insofar as you need them in place during the game. Extending the levelling rules to NPCs and treating the game world like a MOMCRPG creates contradictions within the RAW in the DMG. One thing to bear in mind is that a lot of this information is based on previous editions where the overwhelming majority of NPCs simply did not have the capacity to level up. In order to keep that relative power disparity, the DMG simply states that the same order of magnitude in the D&D 3.x only exist at levels 1-3, with even those in more dangerous places only making it to level 4 or 5.

To be honest, hordes of NPCs above Level 5 make little sense to me. The RAW is illogical and not just on this point, but it is just a model of the game world not the game world itself.

Fixer
2007-06-28, 07:21 AM
What level are you?

Think about your life and figure out your level.

Matthew
2007-06-28, 07:22 AM
I'm level 1. If some guy hits me with a Sword, I'm dead (most likely).

[Edit] Seriously, though, you can make a case for any level you like relative to what you think other people are best represented by. There will always be contradictions because any model is by its nature imperfect. However, the DMG states the 'reality' of most NPCs. They're level 1-5 with an overwhelming majority being 1-3. Saying 'that doesn't make sense in the context of these mechanics' is to misunderstand the purpose. One could equally argue that the mechanics don't make sense in the light of this 'reality'.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-28, 07:33 AM
I've done this joke before but:

I'm level eleven.

I can hit an untrained, unarmed, unarmoured, unsuspecting opponent at least 95% of the time, and since I have no formal military training, I'm clearly not in a class with full BAB progression.

Fixer
2007-06-28, 07:35 AM
Ok, ignore the NPCs for a moment.

Why is it that PCs are being categorized in the same 1/3/5 level template? People actively seek out adventure, challenges, and excitement are not going to remain level 1/3/5 for very long.

Please tell me I am not all alone in having an active and exciting 'childhood'. (Which I am using to refer to everything up to 25.)

Matthew
2007-06-28, 07:47 AM
It's because PCs and experience are artificial constructs for playing the game, rather than mechanics that underlie the game world. If you want a gameworld where everybody jumps from level 1-20 over the course of one exciting year, then go ahead and build one. If you want commoners to rapidly move up levels because of fist fights they had as children, then go ahead and make it so.

The DMG does contradict itself and whilst consistancy is a major issue for any game system/model, it is even more an issue with the paradigm shift that was the transition between 2.x and 3.x. The rapidity of experience accumulation and levelling up in D&D 3.x is at odds with other basic 'D&D' ideas about the nature of the gameworld. Killing an Orc, back in the day, was worth 15 XP. You needed 2,000 XP to reach Fighter 2.

Quietus
2007-06-28, 07:52 AM
And besides all that, aren't humanoids with NPC classes 1/2 CR?

Roog
2007-06-28, 08:37 AM
For a bit of my background, I got into a LOT of fights when I was a teenager. The exact number is well over 1000 (many years of fighting almost daily). As one example I know I was almost suspended for 63 documented fights at school in one semester (I had gotten in more than that out of school). After that everyone pretty much stopped keeping track, even school authorities. (The reason I was not expelled was because back in my day, defending oneself was still allowed and I never actually started any of those fights at school. I waited until after school.)

But how many of those fights were fights to the point of KO/Death. If the fights are of lesser risk than standard encounters, shouldn't they also be of lesser XP reward.

Ashdate
2007-06-28, 10:05 AM
Given a large enough population, the DMG in fact will create quite a few high level NPC's. A city with about 20,000 individuals for instance, gets a +9 to determining their highest level NPC. That would mean the lowest possible level for an Adept and Aristocrat would be 10, and expert would be 12, and a commoner would be 13. Rolling three times as the rules suggest, it wouldn't be unreasonable to find a level 20 Commoner (just the NPC to put the smack down on some greedy low-level NPC's).

So I'm just saying, that by the rules, it's quite possible to have "high" level NPC's. The thing is that the VAST majority of them are in fact, low level.

So you can have your 1000 fist fights and level too!

- Eddie

Telonius
2007-06-28, 10:07 AM
You're at the top end of the curve, that's all. A study done in 2004 is here (http://www.nichd.nih.gov/news/releases/adolescent_violence.cfm):


For the American adolescents, 60.2 percent had not been involved in a fight during the previous year. Likewise, an average of 60.2 percent of youth in the five countries combined had not been involved in a fight during the same time period. Similarly, 89 percent of U.S. youths had not carried a weapon in the previous year, identical to the average percentage of youth in the five countries combined who had not carried a weapon in the previous year. In the U.S., 84.5 percent of U.S. youth said they had not been injured in a fight during the previous year, while the average for all five countries combined was 84.6 percent.



I'd say that a normal, active high school existence would probably only mean one fight per year at most. That was definitely my experience.

Counterpower
2007-06-28, 10:10 AM
I agree that in a nonlethal battle, you're going to get less XP than you would in a fight to the death. And you, um, are at the top end of the curve. I've never been in a fight in school, or even really at all. And honestly, a desk job or a series of tests doesn't really give much XP.

Delaney Gale
2007-06-28, 10:18 AM
Maybe the real world runs mainly on roleplaying experience? :D

Matthew
2007-06-28, 10:23 AM
Heh, it's probably Story Based, but it still wouldn't make a lick of sense. Over sixty years of life an NPC can potentially not even gain 1,000 Experience Points, remaining Level 1 for his entire life. This wouldn't be unusual, either. The mechanics do not define the game world, they are just an imperfect way of modelling it for the purposes of playing a game.

truemane
2007-06-28, 10:34 AM
What you have to understand is that the DnD system was orginally meant to describe a world where the only things you ever did (by and large) was enter dungeons, kill stuff, grab stuff, and then go take a nap. Consistency between PC's and NPC's weren't really needed because NPC's were just background noise.

There wasn't even a skill system until AD&D.

So the whole concept of acquiring XP and levelling up and bonuses to hit vs. Armour Class and all the rest was designed around a world in which there were only PC's and monsters. And in THAT world, it is perfectly consistent and makes perfect sense.

It's only as Gaming in general and D&D in particular matured that there was a need for the system to cover social situations, and non adventureres more complex that THE INNKEEPER and the BARTENDER. d20 does a lot of things very well, but it's primary flaw is it's dependance on Level as the lynchpin of every stat. That's not the way it works in "Real Life."

For example, Fixer (the OP) has done a lot of fighting, and therefore can be expected to have a high BAB and maybe some decent HP as well. Does that mean that he (by necessity) has a Bucket of Skill Points and hight Max Ranks for them all too?

Does it make sense that, just becuase he's done a lot of fighting, that he can now have 13 ranks in Craft: Webcomic or Profession: Retail Manager as opposed to someone who hasn't done as much fighting?

Of course not. But all that sort of things is secondary to what the system ORIGINALLY was meant to represent.

That's all.

Real people don't have levels. And if they did, their EVERY stat isn't tied to their level in that fashion.

Yechezkiel
2007-06-28, 11:00 AM
Maybe we're not PCs! Maybe we're just the nameless barkeeps and shopowners of someone ELSE'S life!

Oh no! We're NPCs!

Do NPCs even gain xp?! Do we even get character sheets?!

Matthew
2007-06-28, 11:00 AM
Funnily enough (A)D&D did a better job of modelling that with regard to NPCs. Character Points and a lack of level capped Proficiencies made just about all of that possible and before that the DM simply gave the NPCs the appropriate Skills and Modifiers without regard for any mechanics at all. Prior to that, the concept of even rolling for success wasn't even needed. If the carpenter carpented he succeeded or failed at the DM's discretion.

The only thing it failed to do well was increase combat potential for NPCs - that was pretty much tied to level.

Yechezkiel: Yes, in 3.x NPCs gain experience points and Level Up, but the process is ill defined (i.e. 'they do it exactly as PCs do?' Huh?)

Dan_Hemmens
2007-06-28, 11:01 AM
Maybe we're not PCs! Maybe we're just the nameless barkeeps and shopowners of someone ELSE'S life!

Oh no! We're NPCs!

Do NPCs even gain xp?! Do we even get character sheets?!

We get stats. Otherwise the players wouldn't know how to kill us and take our stuff.

bugsysservant
2007-06-28, 11:13 AM
What you're forgetting is that the rules for gaining your first level are hazy at best. Since a fighter can initially train by getting into fights (as opposed to, say, a fighter college) all Fixer could have been doing was getting access to a better class. Yes, some of those fights probably netted you XP, but ultimately there is a reason for the starting ages in the PH: so you don't have people abruptly gain all the skills and talents that their character's have at the age of ten.

hewhosaysfish
2007-06-28, 11:29 AM
Bottom line, I do not believe that 5th level should demonstrate some superhero character. If anything, I believe that living active teenage years should bring a person close to 2nd level. Level 1 people simply live very sheltered lives and try to avoid challenges of any sort.

The rate of gain of xp (and thus levels) does not mesh with the assumption that normal humanity can be represented in levels 1-5.
However, I do have to disagree with your fix of keeping the xp system and dropping the assumed range. If we do that, then you (after your teenage scraps) could be a level 8 commoner (or expert, if you prefer) with a better BAB than a lion and enough skill ranks to reliably hit DCs of 18-27. Can you long jump 20 feet, play an instrument (live) well enough to be known nationwide or feed yourself and 4 others from what you forage in the woods?

Better, perhaps to keep the assumption that everyone (normal) is level 1-5 and rework the xp system. Note that wherever you decide to set the limits of "normality", if we follow the guidelines of the rules, classes are supposed to be balanced for 4 encounters per day and it should take 13 encounters to level up. Even if you get encounters on one day per week and the rest are just just downtime, that's from level one to 16 in a week. With encounters every day, you could reach epic level in just over 2 months.

Matthew
2007-06-28, 11:35 AM
Eh? No it's not. One encounter per week is fifty two encounters a year, which is enough to go to level four after a year. Four encounters per week would be enough to reach Level 16 after a year.

Lòkki Gallansbayne
2007-06-28, 11:41 AM
He said one day of encounters per week, not one encounter per week. Since he said four encounters per day, this is the same as four encounters per week, hence his figure of level 16 after a year (I presume level 16 after a week was a typo and was meant to say year).

Matthew
2007-06-28, 11:44 AM
Yeah, I know, which is why I multiplied up, but then he goes on to say Epic after two months, so it's not quite a typo, it's an error.

Tormsskull
2007-06-28, 11:51 AM
Maybe a couple of the fights you got hit in the head hard enough to cause a loss of experience? :smalltongue:

I would say that I am a level 3 expert. Level 3 because it is a whole lot better than 1 or 2, and not any higher because I am not that arrogant. I put my skill points in Knowledge (Computers), Knowledge (Role Playing Games) Profession (Microsoft Engineer), and Sense Motive.

Lòkki Gallansbayne
2007-06-28, 12:02 PM
Yeah, I know, which is why I multiplied up, but then he goes on to say Epic after two months, so it's not quite a typo, it's an error.
With [four] encounters every day, you could reach epic level in just over 2 months. Emphasis mine. :smalltongue:

Matthew
2007-06-28, 12:06 PM
Fair enough, though my original statement would still be accurate.

Quietus
2007-06-28, 12:06 PM
As an addendum; How many of those fights did he WIN?

Let's assume 1/2 CR for an NPC class win, 1/4 XP for it being nonlethal, and only count the fights he won. What level's he at now?

Fixer
2007-06-28, 12:15 PM
Since when do XP get discounted for non-lethal combat? (And, for the record, I was in a gang and there were knives and the ocassional pistol involved in at least half the fights. I am exceptionally lucky I only got shot once and it was a graze.)

If I have skill levels, I am probably a Ranger 3/Rogue ? with skill points spread all over the place (only Escape Artist, Hide, Move Silent, and my Craft skills would be very high).


I realize I cannot change what is RAW but I believe, in my campaign worlds, that I'll give NPCs minimum levels by age categories. 3rd level for the first elder category, 5th for the second, and 6th for the third. Only the truly sheltered wouldn't get these.

Telonius
2007-06-28, 12:28 PM
A real-world gang member would probably almost automatically be a Rogue or a Fighter (or Bard if we're talking gangsta rapper) in D&D terms. So no, what you're describing doesn't really detract from the RAW at all. Gang members (who get in a disproportionate amount of fights) aren't NPC's.

I do think that the "minimum level by age" is a good idea, depending on the NPC class. Commoners would probably max out at a lower level than warriors, adepts, experts, and aristocrats, unless there's a specific reason for a particular commoner to have leveled up.

Tormsskull
2007-06-28, 12:37 PM
A real-world gang member would probably almost automatically be a Rogue or a Fighter (or Bard if we're talking gangsta rapper) in D&D terms. So no, what you're describing doesn't really detract from the RAW at all. Gang members (who get in a disproportionate amount of fights) aren't NPC's.


Oh yeah, totally. Give em ranks in Knowledge (Local - 8 Mile), and Perform (Rap). Now your Bard has some street cred.

Delaney Gale
2007-06-28, 12:59 PM
Oh yeah, totally. Give em ranks in Knowledge (Local - 8 Mile), and Perform (Rap). Now your Bard has some street cred.

I probably have ranks in Knowledge(Local - 8 Mile). It comes from growing up off 10 Mile. ^^ A gangsta rapper bard makes me laugh.

I'd say that if were were going to be giving real people class levels, we should go for D20 Modern classes. I probably have a few levels in Smart Hero myself- I should hope that after taking IB Physics and Chem, majoring in physics and math, and working for LIGO, I have more than 8 ranks in Knowledge (Natural Science)!

Diggorian
2007-06-28, 01:46 PM
I probably have ranks in Knowledge(Local - 8 Mile). It comes from growing up off 10 Mile. ^^ A gangsta rapper bard makes me laugh.


I've got the most ranks in Knowledge 8-mile being raised two blocks from it and living two blocks from it currently. I've left street cred underdeveloped. :smallamused:

I dont have a level and class because real life is a skill point system like Alternity, Vampire, and Mutants and Masterminds. I go through challenges in life that give me motivation points to buy ranks in select skills. If D&D's system was the way the world worked college would be like fight club, you gotta beat your classmates to gain the ability to put more ranks in the course material.

I do subscribe to the 5th level equals superhero precept from Alexandrian's article (Hell, it's linked in my sig). Part of it's reasoning is the recognition that at level 5 you can reach DC's that are far beyond the scope of noraml experience. We all see DC 1-14 tasks everyday, but no one reading this has ever seen a true DC 30 task I bet.

Pronounceable
2007-06-28, 05:47 PM
Life grants us skill and stat increases. Not XP. I have never been in a serious fight, never took 1 subdual damage. Yet I'm a physics major, so I have at least +10 Knowledge (Physics) and (Maths), judging from PHB examples. DnD isn't that good on skills anyway.

And once I have witnessed one "Knowledge (Maths)" check from a proffesor which would be DC 40+ in DnD terms.

Also, I believe one gains stat increases through life. I think it's +2 int, -1 wis, -1 cha for me (majoring physics for 4 years now). I believe some profs around here got +6 int.


And I regularly see DC 30s. We get one in almost all exams. And I know of some problems around DC 60.

(numbers are an estimate on my part, yet I feel thay aren't really off)

Belteshazzar
2007-06-29, 05:16 AM
DC 60 would be knowing the 'truth' about how the physical universe functions on the quantum string level of existence so unless there has been some major breakthroughs in the field of sub-atomic physics where you live I doubt you have seen someone make a skill check of 60+

However to address the leveling discussion I will say that I award XP based on:
A. Has your character learned from a genuinely new experience (ahh! so this is what it takes to kill a man, dragon, troll...)
B. Has your character progressed or grown in scope or character (I used to be nameless, faceless rogue #41 but now I am John Ansible the Scarlet Shadow)
C. The plot demandeth they level up soon give experience now.

Delaney Gale
2007-06-29, 10:09 AM
DC 60 would be knowing the 'truth' about how the physical universe functions on the quantum string level of existence so unless there has been some major breakthroughs in the field of sub-atomic physics where you live I doubt you have seen someone make a skill check of 60+.

You know, if that was to happen, it would undoubtably be in a research group... and I would still call proving string theory a DC 100. It's so convoluted 60 is probably a gross underestimate! I bet physical science has some kind of house rule that allows people to add their checks together in some fashion (rather than get a +2 for assisting).

Diggorian
2007-06-29, 10:23 AM
And I regularly see DC 30s. We get one in almost all exams. And I know of some problems around DC 60.

(numbers are an estimate on my part, yet I feel thay aren't really off)

I gotta disagree.

A math problem that is DC 30 is harder mentally than physically kicking in an iron door using only your own strength with two tries (DC 28 Str check). The DC 30 for long jumping 30ft has never been achieved in recorded history even with wind assistance, the record is 29ft.

I'd give better examples but Knowledge (Math) isnt used much in adventures.

Iku Rex
2007-06-29, 10:28 AM
For a bit of my background, I got into a LOT of fights when I was a teenager. The exact number is well over 1000 (many years of fighting almost daily).

(And, for the record, I was in a gang and there were knives and the ocassional pistol involved in at least half the fights. I am exceptionally lucky I only got shot once and it was a graze.)
Shenanigans!

Nuff said.

Pronounceable
2007-06-29, 06:52 PM
...DC 60 would be knowing the 'truth' about how the physical universe functions on the quantum string level of existence...

Yes, I was thinking about string theory, physical cosmology, nanobiology and stuff like that. I said I "know of" DC 60s, not I've seen one made. Although I believe some there have been such checks in history (namely Planck).


A math problem that is DC 30 is harder mentally than physically kicking in an iron door using only your own strength with two tries (DC 28 Str check).

The thing is, it's not an Int check, it's a Knowledge(something) check. Simple maths knowledge like subtraction has DC less than 10, so anyone can take 10 and be done with it. An integral's DC would be slightly higher than 20, so an untrained person can never make it, while someone with any ranks in maths would eventually solve it. When it comes to harder (abstact) stuff like tensors I can easily see DC skyrocketing into 30s. I'll bet most of the population wouldn't even recognise a tensor problem as math, much as I wouldn't recognise a diseased plant from healthy one.
My point, physical stats and skills affected by them can nicely be quantified (like +5 feet per rank or whatever) whereas mental ones cannot.
(Above comes from my understanding of knowledge skill from PHB.)


...I bet physical science has some kind of house rule that allows people to add their checks together in some fashion...

Major scientific research DCs are as epic spellcasting, if I understand those rules correct that is.

Tor the Fallen
2007-06-30, 12:00 AM
What level are you?

Think about your life and figure out your level.

Very few of my skills, talents, and abilities fall nicely into discrete categories represented by discrete values.

Reinboom
2007-06-30, 01:48 AM
Well, I see an issue with much of this, you can't really define your ranks in anything I believe.
I, for one, know how to pick specific locks using improvised tools (though not all locks) and I know how to hot-wire certain vehicles. I can explain large portions of certain points in history, heavy emphasis Japanese, American, Mesopotamian, and certain bits of Roman history. I can explain to you the basis of certain religions, their belief system, and ideas stemming from them and even in a few cases how they extend to the current world. I can normally handle cats quite well, and a few other animals. I can describe the importance and emphasis of certain processes in construction.
Yet... I definitely can't unpick all locks, only specific ones. Perhaps the rest have a higher DC? Who knows. I know how to disable many devices (I believe this would be hot-wiring.) However, there is a lot I can not disable. My brother is definitely more skilled at disabling many many different things, yet, there are things I am better at than he is in this same area.. just with different items.
I clearly can "out-brain" in history terms a specific good friend in the specifics of Japanese history, and even in a few cases for my other specialties. This friend, however, is a history major with emphasis on Europe's past and as such knows considerably more than I do when this is the topic. Considerably more. My DCs commonly exceed 10 for many of these historical "checks", as such, I have to have at least 1 rank in them; yet; I can't have more rank in history knowledge... otherwise... according to D&D... I would know so much more about Europe as well.
This is also true about religions. I have studied into a vast number of religions, their values, beliefs, etc. However, I am certainly outshone by many who emphasizes on one. Yet to many of these folk, me bringing up something about a different religion than that of which they are emphasized in, even something basic at times, and it may be very knew to them. Even if the DC would otherwise be considered really low and I know they are making higher than even a DC 15 knowledge (religion) check.
As I have said, I am well off with handling cats and other specific types of animals (notably, smaller dogs). I can't handle larger animals very well however in contrast. This applies also to what I stated above.

In short, my level can't be defined in D&D terms... or really... in almost any game settings terms that doesn't get extremely specific with its "skills".
However, in these cases, it would become too tedious to try and play.
Really, who wants to go through a few thousand page document of a character sheet looking over each skill...
...
Disable Device (Hot-wiring) (Chevrolet) (Monte Carlo) (Fifth Generation)
Disable Device (Hot-wiring) (Chevrolet) (Monte Carlo) (Sixth Generation)
Disable Device (Hot-wiring) (Chevrolet) (Manza)
...

Diggorian
2007-06-30, 10:35 AM
My point, physical stats and skills affected by them can nicely be quantified (like +5 feet per rank or whatever) whereas mental ones cannot.
(Above comes from my understanding of knowledge skill from PHB.)

PHB description of Knowledge skills is poor. 15 is a "basic" questions in the field, 20-30 are "really tough". These are vague and subjective adjectives that tell little. A better description of skills is found in the DMG. 30-33, including alot more examples.

In d20, DC 30 is DC 30 regardless of which ability it challenges. Skill checks are simply ability checks which are bonused with training/education.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-06-30, 10:53 AM
Ok, ignore the NPCs for a moment.

Why is it that PCs are being categorized in the same 1/3/5 level template? People actively seek out adventure, challenges, and excitement are not going to remain level 1/3/5 for very long.

You're looking at it the wrong way round. Look at the level first, xp mechanics second. 5th level is almost superhuman (well into the realm of heroic), 6th and higher is superhuman. Unless you are superhuman, the xp mechanics simply don't apply.

Besides, the xp mechanics are PC only. It doesn't matter what you're doing, you're just an npc :smalltongue:


(ps: nice to see I'm not the only one here who grew up in a rough way)

Matthew
2007-07-01, 01:29 PM
Besides, the xp mechanics are PC only. It doesn't matter what you're doing, you're just an npc :smalltongue:

Oh how I wish that were true. unfortunately, the DMG says exactly the opposite. Apparently, NPCs level up and gain experience in exactly the same way as PCs (makes my head hurt just thinking about the implications of a statement like that). However, the DMG also says that the vast majority of NPCs are levels 1-3, with a majority of them being levels 1-2 and many never advancing beyond level 1. NPCs that have a more dangerous lifestyle (living on the borders/frontier seems to be the idea) are likely to be slightly higher level [i.e. something like levels 1-5, with the majority being 1-3].

Making sense of these sorts of statements is a headache, so I would tend to agree with you that it's best to ignore NPC experience progression, but unfortunately it doesn't appear to be the RAW.

Orzel
2007-07-01, 01:53 PM
I'm a Rogue1/NewYorker2

I know I have a Move Silently mod of at least 7 or so and my DEX isn't that great.

The HP rolls in RL are just bad. Very bad rolls. And someone houseruled how skill checks are made.

I'd put most decently experienced persons over the age of 15 at level 2. People over 50 and the well learned/experienced/trained gain a level or 2.

Matthew
2007-07-01, 02:01 PM
I never really understand this concept of Child = Level 1. Level 2 isn't even that much of a step up.

Thanatos 51-50
2007-07-01, 02:05 PM
I can say I definatly have good modifers in:
Iron (Uniforms)
Fold (Laundry)
Bluff
Move Silently
Knowledge (Reilgion)
Disguise
Clean (Compartment)

And also some decent ranks in
Knowledge (Meterology)
Knowledge (Oceanography)
Knowledge (Electromagnetic Wave Propagation)
Use Rope
Profession (Sailor)
Knowledge (Tactics)
Hide
Diplomacy

So, I MUST be a skill-monkey class of some sort, and yet I, personally wouldn't give me anything better than commoner/expert or Warrior (maybe Fighter on days when my self-esteem is up), and Rogue in my DREAMS (Seriously).

evisiron
2007-07-01, 02:11 PM
This conversation reminds me of one I had with my friend, and spread into 'at least 1 exp for every living thing you kill'. It basically ended with the image of some guy going to mow the lawn and coming back as a MUSCLE BOUND HULKING BARBARIAN with A GIANT AXE MADE FROM THE REMAINS OF THE LAWNMOWER!

Good times.

Anyway, more to the point, wouldn't some modern system be better for figuring out your level?

Orzel
2007-07-01, 02:25 PM
I never really understand this concept of Child = Level 1. Level 2 isn't even that much of a step up.

Children, Levels, and Sense don't mix. The game doesn't cover people at that amount of knowledge because INT is so abstract. I'd put modern day human at a much higher INT than D&D ones due to the more frequent use of the mind.

Matthew
2007-07-01, 02:30 PM
I would say a good case could be made for the opposite view, people don't use their minds nearly as much as they pretend to...

I get what you're saying, I'm just not sure I agree. Medieval people were no less intelligent on average than the average modern person, just less educated (whatever that means). I think we're just producing proportionally more Experts than Commoners now, if you see what I'm saying.

Orzel
2007-07-01, 02:34 PM
I would say a good case could be made for the opposite view, people don't use their minds nearly as much as they pretend to...

I get what you're saying, I'm just not sure I agree. Medieval people were no less intelligent on average than the average modern person, just less educated (whatever that means). I think we're just producing proportionally more Experts than Commoners now, if you see what I'm saying.


Yeah that makes more sense. We have more experts and aristocrats walking around these days.

AtomicKitKat
2007-07-01, 02:36 PM
I apparently took whatever Feat it is that lets you make Knowledge(anything) checks untrained, as long as you have 1 rank in any Knowledge skill.:smallbiggrin:

Indon
2007-07-01, 04:28 PM
Well, really, a lot of it has to do with how the attack roll works.

If you can hit something more than 5% of the time, every additional 5% chance you have of hitting it implies another increase in attack modifier; If you're a fair shot, say, with a ranged weapon in real life, you either have an exceptional dexterity, or an exceptional BAB in D&D terms.

Similarly, if you've published a peer-reviewed paper or advanced the state of your art, you either have a ridiculous int or an inhuman number of HD (since you can't take 20 on knowledge checks).

It wouldn't be so bad if level 1 characters weren't so... unimpressive.

Kyace
2007-07-01, 05:00 PM
This conversation reminds me of one I had with my friend, and spread into 'at least 1 exp for every living thing you kill'. It basically ended with the image of some guy going to mow the lawn and coming back as a MUSCLE BOUND HULKING BARBARIAN with A GIANT AXE MADE FROM THE REMAINS OF THE LAWNMOWER!

Good times.

Anyway, more to the point, wouldn't some modern system be better for figuring out your level?
That explains why Link cuts grass in his downtime!

Plant Type

This type comprises vegetable creatures. Note that regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Wisdom and Charisma scores (see Nonabilities) and are not creatures, but objects, even though they are alive.

I'd also say that killing a large number of bugs would actually be modeled as a weak swarm. Thus, maybe 1 exp for every 10,000 ants.

Matthew
2007-07-01, 05:30 PM
Well, really, a lot of it has to do with how the attack roll works.

If you can hit something more than 5% of the time, every additional 5% chance you have of hitting it implies another increase in attack modifier; If you're a fair shot, say, with a ranged weapon in real life, you either have an exceptional dexterity, or an exceptional BAB in D&D terms.

Similarly, if you've published a peer-reviewed paper or advanced the state of your art, you either have a ridiculous int or an inhuman number of HD (since you can't take 20 on knowledge checks).

It wouldn't be so bad if level 1 characters weren't so... unimpressive.
Not really. It could be looked at in that way, but then you have to take into account the circumstances. Academics produce papers, but they don't produce papers of equal quality and they don't put them out at a very speedy rate. Presumably, somewhere along the line, Circumstance Modifiers are plying their trade [i.e. Resources + Time = +X].

The Combat Roll works on more or less the same principle. To begin with you are unskilled (i.e. not Proficient). So, you start with -4 AB. After training you might progress to 0 AB (20% increase), followed by a Class related increase (+1 BAB), perhaps a stat increase from 11 to 12 and a Weapon Focus (such and such), for a total increase from Non Proficient to Level 1 of +7. Over the course of a lifetime you may manage to increase another couple of levels to make +9 or +45%.

The relative skill between a Non Proficient Level 1 Character and a Skilled Level 1 Character is pretty huge. How that then translates into the combat mechanic is where things become problematic, but relatively speaking, Level 1 Characters skilled in the practice of arms are considerably better than Level 1 Characters who are unskilled in the practice of arms.

It's all about expectations, I suppose. I find Level 1 Characters to be pretty impressive, relatively speaking.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-07-01, 06:27 PM
Making sense of these sorts of statements is a headache, so I would tend to agree with you that it's best to ignore NPC experience progression, but unfortunately it doesn't appear to be the RAW.

*headdesk* Damn! *resolves to check better next time before posting* :smallredface:

Matthew
2007-07-01, 09:36 PM
I know the feeling. Until last month I could have sworn that NPCs didn't use PC experience progression. Must have just been one of those things I blanked from my mind when I first read the 3.0 DMG.

Haikiah
2007-07-01, 09:50 PM
I think God owes me some bonus XP for my perfect roleplaying of myself for the last 18 or so years.

AtomicKitKat
2007-07-02, 12:57 AM
I can catch objects more or less equally well with both eyes open or one eye shut(either one). I can even do it with either hand fairly equally. So should that count as Ambidexterity+inhuman Dexterity?:smallwink: Because I can't do the whole "sit on your own head" thing, although I can bring my toes up to my ears and beyond. :smalltongue:

Dervag
2007-07-02, 01:21 AM
Yeah that makes more sense. We have more experts and aristocrats walking around these days.If anything, we have fewer aristocrats; instead we have created a new variant on the 'aristocrat' class, the Executive, with a slightly higher emphasis on skills and a greatly reduced emphasis on military capability.

The Aristocrat class, as a class proficient with martial weapons, probably died out in World War One. There were examples of the class during the 1800s, but very few people who could be placed in it after that.

horseboy
2007-07-02, 02:21 AM
Ranger around level 5 or 6.
Started with scouts, then moved to the middle of nowhere. The kind of places where you have to learn to be self sufficient real quick. (What's the CR on a cervine?) Then there were my friends in the SFCA where I learned to sword fight. Then I moved to the East coast. Nothing shows you your level like a change of zones. I'd marvel when I got there at how people who were older (and supposedly wiser) than me had absolutely NO spot, check or listen whatsoever.

(Oh and apparently I'm range weapon focus, as I learned I shoot better than a city boy who's gone through boot camp, yet have NO dex bonus)

In fact, after one particular day of working retail, marveling at the stupidity of the indigenous denizens, I went into the break room and cried out: "They have no drive skill, no spot/search, no weapon skills, no speak or read language skills, no skills involving logic or reason period. What the Hell are they spending all their skill points on? Hmmmmm, wonder what the development cost (cross class) is for that Kevin Bacon game. Oh, wait! That's right, they're all first level."

Capt'n Ironbrow
2007-07-02, 06:38 AM
I could be classed as a bard, and I recently went level-up to, say, 7 with additional feats in rockabilly and blues.. how I improved:) this all came from an ancient artefact of musicianship that found her way into my posession for a mere 65 GC ;) It's the legendary Egmond Jazz-guitar of old, confering Dex and Charisma bonusses like you wouldn't believe ;)

Cyborg Pirate
2007-07-02, 06:42 AM
Ranger around level 5 or 6.


I could be classed as a bard, and I recently went level-up to, say, 7 with additional feats in rockabilly and blues..

So, you're both superhuman? :smallamused:

Dausuul
2007-07-02, 07:12 AM
My point, physical stats and skills affected by them can nicely be quantified (like +5 feet per rank or whatever) whereas mental ones cannot.

Actually, even physical skills don't work very well. 1d20 is way, way too variable. Consider Jump, since we're discussing that.

An Olympic long jumper is presumably going to try to do the best s/he possibly can, right? If you want to get the maximum possible jumping distance, you won't take 10, since you can get up to 10 feet farther by rolling. And you certainly can't take 20, since you only get the one try.

So the jumper is going to roll. We'll assume that a typical Olympic long jumper is going to have something like +9 on Jump checks (including circumstance modifiers and the like), since the distance you jump is roughly equal to the result of your check and the record distance is 29 feet.

That means that 5% of the time, an Olympic long jumper will jump only 10 feet. 30% of the time, s/he will go 15 feet or less.

While athletes will no doubt trip and fall once in a long while, I find it highly unlikely that it happens as often as 1 in 20, and 3 in 10 is preposterous.

Indon
2007-07-02, 07:53 AM
So, you're both superhuman? :smallamused:

Everyone with a negative DEX modifier in the military practically has to be to qualify with an M-16. :P

And I'm pretty sure that's with proficiency.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-07-02, 07:55 AM
Everyone with a negative DEX modifier in the military practically has to be to qualify with an M-16. :P

And I'm pretty sure that's with proficiency.

I'm talking about their self-assigned levels. LvL 5 is supposed to be very heroic, and LvL 6 and above is superhuman.

Indon
2007-07-02, 07:59 AM
I'm talking about their self-assigned levels. LvL 5 is supposed to be very heroic, and LvL 6 and above is superhuman.

Yeah. I'm saying that based on what a person can in real life regularly accomplish without being able to take 10, you can easily extrapolate a high level out of it.

I was using attacking as an example.

Thanatos 51-50
2007-07-02, 08:00 AM
Everyone with a negative DEX modifier in the military practically has to be to qualify with an M-16. :P

And I'm pretty sure that's with proficiency.


Not int the Navy. All we have in Boot Camp is pistol quals and Shotgun framilization. I did hear something floating around about training recruits on crew-served weapons (.50s on the fantail) a while back, though.

Matthew
2007-07-02, 08:03 AM
Yeah. I'm saying that based on what a person can in real life regularly accomplish without being able to take 10, you can easily extrapolate a high level out of it.

I was using attacking as an example.
It would be reasonable to think you'd be taking ten when qualifying, as you're not in a combat situation, but I doubt that's supported by the RAW (Doesn't the Complete Warrior have some rules for martial competitions? Can you 'take ten' in that context?).

Indon
2007-07-02, 08:03 AM
Not int the Navy. All we have in Boot Camp is pistol quals and Shotgun framilization. I did hear something floating around about training recruits on crew-served weapons (.50s on the fantail) a while back, though.

Well, fair enough. To qualify with applicable weaponry.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-02, 09:14 AM
I'm talking about their self-assigned levels. LvL 5 is supposed to be very heroic, and LvL 6 and above is superhuman.

The problem is that level 6 is superhuman in some ways, and subhuman in others. A sixth level Fighter can still try and slap somebody and miss roughly 10% of the time.

Combat is the particular glitch, because the combat system in no way models what a person can actually *do*. Heck the WotC boards themselves identify Olympic-level archery as making you a 17th level Ranger.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-07-02, 09:19 AM
The problem is that level 6 is superhuman in some ways, and subhuman in others. A sixth level Fighter can still try and slap somebody and miss roughly 10% of the time.

Combat is the particular glitch, because the combat system in no way models what a person can actually *do*. Heck the WotC boards themselves identify Olympic-level archery as making you a 17th level Ranger.

True, but this is the inherent problem with the DnD system, especially with rolling d20's. No bell curve, no great variation in rolls.

Matthew
2007-07-02, 09:22 AM
Not that I'm saying that D&D Combat is a realistic model, but is it so unbelievable that someone could avoid a slap, even from somebody in the 'superhuman' category? Even looking at the 5% automatic miss chance, is it so unlikely that 1 in 20 blows will fail to connect properly?

Cyborg Pirate
2007-07-02, 09:27 AM
Not that I'm saying that D&D Combat is a realistic model, but is it so unbelievable that someone could avoid a slap, even from somebody in the 'superhuman' category? Even looking at the 5% automatic miss chance, is it so unlikely that 1 in 20 blows will fail to connect properly?

Lets avoid the combat system for the moment, as it's so damn abstract and I'm never sure what HP is supposed to be.

Skills offer a nice view of the issues of the system, to quote Dasuul:


Actually, even physical skills don't work very well. 1d20 is way, way too variable. Consider Jump, since we're discussing that.

An Olympic long jumper is presumably going to try to do the best s/he possibly can, right? If you want to get the maximum possible jumping distance, you won't take 10, since you can get up to 10 feet farther by rolling. And you certainly can't take 20, since you only get the one try.

So the jumper is going to roll. We'll assume that a typical Olympic long jumper is going to have something like +9 on Jump checks (including circumstance modifiers and the like), since the distance you jump is roughly equal to the result of your check and the record distance is 29 feet.

That means that 5% of the time, an Olympic long jumper will jump only 10 feet. 30% of the time, s/he will go 15 feet or less.

While athletes will no doubt trip and fall once in a long while, I find it highly unlikely that it happens as often as 1 in 20, and 3 in 10 is preposterous.

Matthew
2007-07-02, 10:00 AM
It's been a while since I watched any Olympics, but I recall there being a fair number of 'false starts' and mistakes for Olympic Jumpers.

Anyway, let's take a look at the Skill.

Say an Olympic Jumper is a Level 3 Expert. He has 6 Ranks in Jump. He also has Jump Focus (+3) and the Run Feat (+4). We'll assume he has a Srength Bonus of +2. Assuming no other synergies, we're looking at an adjustment of 6(15), which means an Olympic Jumper can make 25' by 'taking ten'.

Now, what if the Jumper should attempt to go higher? If he wants to aim higher the DC is increased and he cannot 'take ten' to make it. However, here's the thing. Failure doesn't mean 1-20' difference. All Failure means is that the jumper failed to reach the distance he wanted. There is no sliding scale on the Skill entry for failure, only for establishing DC. So, it would be reasonable to model the level of failure however you choose. It could mean that rolling a 1 means he only jumped 16 feet or it could mean he managed 25', but not 30'.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-07-02, 10:02 AM
Now, what if the Jumper should attempt to go higher? If he wants to aim higher the DC is increased and he cannot 'take ten' to make it. However, here's the thing. Failure doesn't mean 1-20' difference. All Failure means is that the jumper failed to reach the distance he wanted. There is no sliding scale on the Skill entry. So, it would be reasonable to model the level of failure however you choose. It could mean that rolling a 1 means he only jumped 16 feet or it could mean he managed 25', but not 30'.

So we're down to DM interpretation? Or did I misunderstand you?

Matthew
2007-07-02, 10:06 AM
Absolutely, no misunderstanding. The Rules should model a reasonable approximation of reality and there are no specific RAW consequences for failure beyond those printed. If the group considers it a reasonable approximation of reality to make each pip on a D20 equivalent to 1' jumped, that's up to them, but it would be a House Rule, as far as I can see.

Capt'n Ironbrow
2007-07-02, 10:45 AM
So, you're both superhuman? :smallamused:

aw.... I don't know much about levels (i'm a WFRPdude)... so I'd have to moderate my statement then... level 1 is like normal? anyways, I recall leveling up a few times adding skill and knowledge and a bit of equipment... but then, I ain't a virtuoso so lvl 2-3ish might be more accurate then ;)

elliott20
2007-07-02, 11:03 AM
I personally think it's really funny that Fixer claims he has been in more than 1000 fights, he was also in a gang, but that he's never the instigater.

Oh well, but his life is not the topic of discussion here.

D&D is intrinsically a terrible system to portray reality.

horseboy
2007-07-02, 05:33 PM
I'm talking about their self-assigned levels. LvL 5 is supposed to be very heroic, and LvL 6 and above is superhuman.

Oh, somewhere between Frank Castle and Nightwing. :smallwink:
You've got to remember most people don't lead interesting lives. They make stuff up to occupy them. In the modern world we call this "Drama". "It's all sound and furry, signifying nothing." (To quote the Monarch)

You've got to remember what the expectations of someone 1st level would be. Once I was helping a couple buy a new computer. I was explaining the new model of HP something or the other, and the wife just flipped out: "It's too much! I can't make this decision! There's too much pressure to get the right one! I've got to go!" She was bordering on rolling in the floor in anxiety. And it was just over a computer. So I did what I do naturally, I laughed. Her husband looks at me and glares:
"What's so funny?"
"Well, if she thinks this is anxiety, I'd hate to see her have to tournaque her father at 16 so he can make it the 30 miles to the hospital to save his life." His jaw dropped almost as far as his wife had. "What? That's not even one of my good stories."

If I'm super human I'm super human because the bar's pretty low.

Chronos
2007-07-02, 06:27 PM
That Alexandrian article (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html) just doesn't work, on many scores. First of all, the Player's Handbook states explicitly that "legendary" level is around 11 (in the description for the Legend Lore spell). If the highest anyone in the real world has ever gotten was 5 or 6, this would imply that we've never even come close to having anyone legendary in the world.

Second, he concludes that Einstein was about level 5, since
And when he’s doing research he’ll be able to add the benefits of being able to reference scientific journals (+2 circumstance bonus), gain insight from fellow colleagues (+2 bonus from aid another), use top-of-the-line equipment (+2 circumstance bonus), and similar resources to gain understanding of a problem so intractable that no one has ever understood it before (DC 40+).Yes, Einstein did that, but so do a lot of other physicists who are far short of Einstein. In fact, there's a very specific term in academia for someone who, given all those favorable circumstances, can gain understanding of a problem no one has ever understood before. Such a person is called "Doctor". So by this standard, every single one of your college professors was at least fifth level, the level that article is saying should be considered once-in-multiple-lifetimes.

Incidentally, there are academic ranks above "doctor". Above that would be associate professors, assistant professors, and full professors, and some full professors are then head of a research group, or of a whole department. What happens if we assume each of those advances corresponds to a gain of a level? Then we'd get that a department chair is typically about level 9 or 10. For comparison, the head of my department has a couple of equations named after him, but most folks in the field would still refer to those equations by description rather than by his name. By the standards of academia, that means he would fall somewhat short of legendary, consistent with him being level 9 or 10. Also incidentally, "level 6" in this scheme is where such a character could take on a graduate student, the same level at which the D&D rules allow a cohort.

Next the article takes on Aragorn and similar classic fantasy characters, again putting them in the level 5 range. Now we must ask: Where the heck did all of his experience points go? At the time of the Lord of the Rings story, he'd been living in the wilderness and adventuring for close to 70 years. Even assuming that he never fought anything but level 1 warrior orcs, each one would be worth 150 xp to him. If he's level 5, that means that he has less than, what, 15,000 xp? So in those 70 years in the wilderness, he's killed less than 100 orcs, or about three orcs per two years.

OK, but one might argue that we don't know how exciting his life has been. Then let's look at someplace where we do have numbers: The Battle of Helm's Deep. During the battle, Gimli killed 42 orcs, and Legolas 41. Again, even assuming that every single one of those orcs was a first-level cannon fodder, and further assuming that both of them had no experience at all before that battle (despite us seeing them both fight earlier in the books, and both of them already having reputations as formidable fighters before that), that's enough experience in that single battle to take them straight to level 4. Isn't it much more realistic that a guy who's spent 70 years adventuring is at least somewhere in his teens in level?

Finally, the article makes some odd assumptions about ability scores. Yes, most human ability scores will be between 8 and 13. But "most" is not "all", and extreme ability scores are not all that rare. One person in 216 will have a strength of 18, and one person in 216 will have a 3 (before any changes from level, age, or other sources). Even if you're looking at multiple ability scores at once, it's still not astronomical: One person in 46656 will have 18s in both Strength and Dex. Olympic athletes are a lot rarer than 1 in 50 thousand, so it's not even unreasonable to assume that every Olympic athlete has multiple 18s.

Matthew
2007-07-02, 06:41 PM
This has been more fully explored elsewhere, particularly the Analysing Aragorn Thread discusses the 42/43 Orc thing, currently on page 2 or 3 of the Forum.

Really, it all depends on your point of view, which is largely what the article was talking about. D&D is internally inconsistant and things won't always work out perfectly, but there is no reason to think an Academic need be Level 15 to be able to work out Theory X.

Level 2 = 5 Ranks + 2 Intelligence + 3 Focus = 10. More than enough to answer most questions and with access to books, time or other resources easily enough to produce qulaity papers regularly.

Doctor, Lecturer, Reader and Professor (as it is here in England) could be easily represented by Levels 1-5, if you chose to do so.

Snooder
2007-07-02, 07:27 PM
That Alexandrian article (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html) just doesn't work, on many scores. First of all, the Player's Handbook states explicitly that "legendary" level is around 11 (in the description for the Legend Lore spell). If the highest anyone in the real world has ever gotten was 5 or 6, this would imply that we've never even come close to having anyone legendary in the world.


Exactly the point I think he was trying to make. D&D is supposed to model film/novel heroics. Heroics like that just aren't possible in real life. In real life a hero who falls off a cliff dies, end of story. In a movie, he might sprain his ankle or be interestingly dirty, but at worst he'll spend a week or two in bed and wake up with an unexplained memory loss.


The real problem is in 2 things:
1.) D&D doesn't have enough levels to model real life accurately. The 17 year old working at Jack-in-the-box? He's 1st lvl commoner. The 21 year old college student, also 1st lvl (maybe second if he learns really fast). Basically we have a level for every major event in your life. Einstein is 5th lvl because we have this lvl progression.
1 - up to college
2 - grad-school
3 - post-grad
4 - respected professor
5 - EINSTEIN
Basically you have levels of
1 - unschooled
2 - proficient
3 - knowledgeable
4 - very good
5 - once-in-a-lifetime
This does not quite model the gradiations we have in real life between, as you say, an associate professor and a tenured professor who hasn't been extensively published yet, or between a freshman at a community college and a senior at harvard.

2.) Real life does not have bags of xp on a linear curve. Simply put, the D&D experience system does not model how people gain experience in real life. By the D&D system, if you do the same thing repeatedly, you will eventually become GODLY. In real life, experience plateaus. Some people, for instance, just are NOT smart enough to gain levels of adept. No matter how many times they work on equations, they'll never the breakthrough that moves them from a mere professor to that guy with the equations named after him. Even if you do have the requisite skill, in real life accomplishing task of a lesser difficulty, CR if you will, does not grant any experience at all. Reading a children's novel once you are past the age of 13, for instance, no longer makes you a better reader.


I think the Alexandrian article's point was that within those levels, 1-5, you can aproximate a model of real life acheivement. Because it's a game of "heroic" stature, the xp system is designed to get you out of the lower levels as quickly as possible, and so PCs tend to get an unreasonable advancement out of the real-life modelled levels.



Next the article takes on Aragorn and similar classic fantasy characters, again putting them in the level 5 range. Now we must ask: Where the heck did all of his experience points go?


The article shows that the system is modelled well at certain levels. However, what it doesn't address, and for good reason, is the question of how characters GET to those levels. In D&D, killing all of those orcs would lvl Aragorn up. But LOTR does not follow D&D's leveling system. Think about it as a DM who only awards role-playing xp. In LOTR's xp awardance system, Aragorn probably got zero xp for killing orcs. In fact, the LOTR xp system, and the system in most fantasy, seems less based around incremental xp awards that eventually result in levelling up as on sudden, dramatic increases xp boons that level up the character. Heros spend forever travelling around, presumably doing stuff, but they don't actually get better at it until they face the world-destroying evil. No fantasy hero ever walked outside, cut down a tree, then miraculously levelled because he was only a point away.

Skjaldbakka
2007-07-02, 07:48 PM
this thread reminds me of something a friend of mine has says.

"A month as a commoner ought to count as a CR 1 encounter. I'd say a month as a commoner sucks about as much as being stabbed 4 times by a goblin."

WhiteHarness
2007-07-02, 08:57 PM
It boggles the mind that some guy thinks he's fifth level or so just because he's been in a bunch of schoolyard fights.

Diggorian
2007-07-02, 09:10 PM
It boggles the mind that some guy thinks he's fifth level or so just because he's been in a bunch of schoolyard fights.

A friend of mine pointed out the issue is Fixer earned that fight XP before he reached the starting age for his class ... so it went to waste :smallbiggrin:

AtomicKitKat
2007-07-02, 10:03 PM
Finally, the article makes some odd assumptions about ability scores. Yes, most human ability scores will be between 8 and 13. But "most" is not "all", and extreme ability scores are not all that rare. One person in 216 will have a strength of 18, and one person in 216 will have a 3 (before any changes from level, age, or other sources). Even if you're looking at multiple ability scores at once, it's still not astronomical: One person in 46656 will have 18s in both Strength and Dex. Olympic athletes are a lot rarer than 1 in 50 thousand, so it's not even unreasonable to assume that every Olympic athlete has multiple 18s.

Assuming a world population of 6,000,000,000, 1/50,000=120,000 possible Olympic athletes. I guess we have to discard anyone who doesn't roll better than 16(?), so 1/4 of that, for about 30,000 champions?

Alternatively, 1 in 10,077,896 people have 18s in Str/Dex/Con combined. These born athletes make up approximately 1/600th of the population. There are only 595 of them in the world.:smalleek:

Chronos
2007-07-03, 12:01 AM
The real problem is in 2 things:
1.) D&D doesn't have enough levels to model real life accurately.Except it does have enough levels. It has 20 of them. It only seems like it doesn't have enough levels if you arbitrarily decide to throw out 3/4 of them for scanty reasons.

Certainly, I agree that the real world (like a well-written story, or a well-played game) is bottom-heavy, and probably a lot more bottom-heavy than a lot of people think of D&D games as being. Using the example of the Expert (physicist) class, since that's what I'm most familiar with, historically, the only level 20s would probably be Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Archimedes, and maybe Maxwell. These guys are a lot rarer than once in a lifetime, and it would be amazing for two level 20 characters to ever meet, in contrast to a D&D game where you might have a whole party of 20s. Most people probably are level 1, with an exponential falloff in higher levels. But to go to the other extreme, and say that the world has never seen anyone above level 6? That just doesn't work with the game mechanics at all, nor with the game descriptions.

Dausuul
2007-07-03, 07:23 AM
It boggles the mind that some guy thinks he's fifth level or so just because he's been in a bunch of schoolyard fights.

Schoolyard fights of which half, by his account, involved knives and/or guns.

Matthew
2007-07-03, 07:29 AM
Most people probably are level 1, with an exponential falloff in higher levels. But to go to the other extreme, and say that the world has never seen anyone above level 6? That just doesn't work with the game mechanics at all, nor with the game descriptions.
I still don't see why not. As far as I can tell, it's all a matter of perspective.

Iku Rex
2007-07-03, 07:43 AM
Schoolyard fights of which half, by his account, involved knives and/or guns.As a gamer I've been in lots of imaginary fights. I don't think it would make me high level.

Just in case there's some confusion here: Fixer has not been in "well over 1000" (basically) street fights as a teenager. And he certainly hasn't been in hundreds of knife- and gunfights. He'd be long since dead.

He's exercising his bluff skill, possibly trying to figure out his total bluff modifier based on the number of posters who fail their sense motive checks despite the enormous circumstance bonus. :smallsmile:

Fixer
2007-07-03, 09:51 AM
I personally think it's really funny that Fixer claims he has been in more than 1000 fights, he was also in a gang, but that he's never the instigater.

I never said I didn't instigate them. I just never started them, (i.e. throwing the first punch). I will admit my mouth did start some of those. And my tendency of not backing down.

(Just setting the record straight.)


As a gamer I've been in lots of imaginary fights. I don't think it would make me high level.

Just in case there's some confusion here: Fixer has not been in "well over 1000" (basically) street fights as a teenager. And he certainly hasn't been in hundreds of knife- and gunfights. He'd be long since dead.

He's exercising his bluff skill, possibly trying to figure out his total bluff modifier based on the number of posters who fail their sense motive checks despite the enormous circumstance bonus. :smallsmile:

No, not exaggerating. Although I am not sure where the 100s of gun/knife fights came from. A couple had a gun (thankfully only one was pointed at me) and about 20-30 had knives.


My point (which seems to have been lost somewhere) is that real life by itself is full of challenges that would result in any person leading a relatively ordinary life should not remain 1st level for any number of years. To say that the majority of the population in the world is levels 1-5 is not representable using the XP guidelines we all play by. Reality does not play by the same rules we play by and any attempts at comparing one to the other is like comparing kiwis and potatoes. (I spell it with an e, get over it.)

And, of course, I was curious what others had to say on the matter and am very glad that people have felt free to throw in their input. Even those who think I am full of ****. I do not care if you believe me. Believe what you will. This thought exercise has been worth the effort.

Iku Rex
2007-07-03, 10:14 AM
No, not exaggerating. Although I am not sure where the 100s of gun/knife fights came from. A couple had a gun (thankfully only one was pointed at me) and about 20-30 had knives.Answer:
For a bit of my background, I got into a LOT of fights when I was a teenager. The exact number is well over 1000 (many years of fighting almost daily).
New post, same context AFAICS:

(And, for the record, I was in a gang and there were knives and the ocassional pistol involved in at least half the fights. I am exceptionally lucky I only got shot once and it was a graze.)
I don't think the forum rules allow me to fully express my views of your "well over 1000" fights. Never once throwing the first punch, just to top it off. I'll leave it at that. :smallannoyed:

Fixer
2007-07-03, 10:26 AM
I don't think the forum rules allow me to fully express my views of your "well over 1000" fights. Never once throwing the first punch, just to top it off. I'll leave it at that. :smallannoyed:

I seem to have managed to provoke you without throwing a punch, or even trying. I chalk it up to a bad Charisma score on my part.

elliott20
2007-07-03, 11:25 AM
well, I'm not going to pass judgement. There was one point in my life where I would get into some fisticuffs myself. While it was no where near your level of strife, it was there. fact is, it's really not that important.

but anyway, the way I see it, D&D was never meant to be a system that can reflect learning/studying process of becoming more skillful very accurately.

I've known guys, who like you, have been involved in a lot of crap but for one reason or another still can't really fight. The only reason they remain standing is because they just take a lot of punishment but can't deliver a punch.

I've gotten involved in maybe a dozen scuffles in my life time and the rest of my experiences with fighting comes from martial art studies and sparring. When I fought my senpai, I've taken full punches by him, and managed to turn them into a grazing blows. If I used that and apply it to D&D logic, I could very well be a 3rd level fighter.

however, on the flip side of it, I'm not going pretend I can take a greatsword swing and survive.

Fixer
2007-07-03, 11:32 AM
I've gotten involved in maybe a dozen scuffles in my life time and the rest of my experiences with fighting comes from martial art studies and sparring. When I fought my senpai, I've taken full punches by him, and managed to turn them into a grazing blows. If I used that and apply it to D&D logic, I could very well be a 3rd level fighter.

however, on the flip side of it, I'm not going pretend I can take a greatsword swing and survive.

Actually, to me hit points are the easiest thing to understand out of everything. The vast majority of them are straight up 'luck'. A few here and there are actual 'injuries' but the vast majority of them are just avoiding the worst of attacks. Your 30hp character takes a 20 damage hit, the character was literally shaved in some fashion (or clipped with a bludgeoning attack) or whatever and is running out of luck/getting too tired to dodge. That final greatsword to the chest represents your final remaining HP.

And no, I am not going to pretend to take a greatsword hit anywhere.

Matthew
2007-07-03, 05:48 PM
Heh, so what did you conclude from our ramblings, Fixer? Should there be more high level Characters in a typical D&D Campaign World or is the experience system silly?

Murderous Hobo
2007-07-03, 07:49 PM
I counted the medals that I've won for Judo. I've got 35 silver medals for being second place. A match typically has 10 level appropriate people in it so that means I've won 280 fights at normal CR.

That's about 6 levels of Monk for me, or would that just be a Fighter with an improved grapple?

So I think the XP system starts to fail when it comes to training too.