Do characters know their class level?

I agree with [MENTION=6674931]Jimlock[/MENTION] in that while there may not be an in-game number to denote power/ability/status, one can gauge "I'm stronger than him", "She's more powerful than me", and "I am now stronger than before!"

Some class abilities gradually improve, such as the Rogue's Sneak Attack. The Rogue learns with the experience of many combats, how to stab that dagger deeper this time than before.

Other abilities, like Uncanny Dodge, you realize from this moment forward, how that opponent isn't going to have that advantage over you ever again.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I believe such a bit of fiction would be counterproductive to your intended purpose. The other DM would argue that this is exactly what must occur for people to gauge each other's comparitive strength as opposed to referring to one's level. His believe is that no one conceptualizes it as levels.
I can get on board with his idea that nobody in game thinks of levels as a 1-20 scale. But without a doubt, PCs and NPCs have some idea of their experience/power level. For example, I know next to nothing about football but I do know that there's a scale of experience; there are non-players like me (0-level), there are backyard players (1-5 level), there are high school jocks (6-10 level), there are college amateurs (11-15 level) and there are pro players (16-20 level). If I knew much about the game, I'm sure I could apply an even finer scale to ball players.

So absolutely, even fighters should have some idea of their relative level. Casters should be able to peg themselves to within two levels, because of spell levels.

A friend and I are co-DMing a Faerun 3.5 campaign. Immersion is a big thing for him. We had a situation where we had to go buy some 1st level scrolls and naturally wanted ones cast by the highest caster we could find. The DM decides that people don't know what levels are and gave us the blank stare.
Maybe he just wanted you to describe levels with in-game terminology. Try asking a mage merchant "What's the highest spell level you can cast?" Even better, call them 'spell circles' or some mumbo-jumbo. ('Course, there's no guarantee the mage won't lie, but it should satisfy your friend's sense of immersion.)
 

I can get on board with his idea that nobody in game thinks of levels as a 1-20 scale. But without a doubt, PCs and NPCs have some idea of their experience/power level.
Right. The question is whether anyone would know their specific class level and conceptualize it as such. It isn't a question of people perceiving a difference in power ability.

For example, I know next to nothing about football but I do know that there's a scale of experience; there are non-players like me (0-level), there are backyard players (1-5 level), there are high school jocks (6-10 level), there are college amateurs (11-15 level) and there are pro players (16-20 level). If I knew much about the game, I'm sure I could apply an even finer scale to ball players.

The problem with football is that it is not analogus to being a Fighter. The difference between Michael Vick and Tom Brady would be in skill ranks or natural modfiers, not levels. The closest thing you'd have to levels is years in the NFL and everyone knows that exactly don't they? But in D&D, you "level-up" and in some cases you get spell like abilities. Those abilities are binary. One day you don't have them...one dead hobgoblin later, you have them. Nothing in real life works like that because no one in real life gains spell-like or even special abilities as a result of "experience."

To speak more specifically, the other DM would agree that some organizations might have levels that were inforced by membership in that organization. Yet somehow he is unwilling to acknowledge that those organizaitons exist on any general level and more specifically in our campaign. For example, he recognizes that amateur tennis has levels in real life, but he argues that is a nation wide standard and our campaign doesn't have anything like that...for any class..specifically Wizard.

I'm going to write a more elaborate response to Jimlock because he more closely represents the mentality of our DM...though not perfectly.

FYI, there is no debate about something like Skill ranks or modifiers, those are clearly metagame.

Casters should be able to peg themselves to within two levels, because of spell levels.
A caster would be able to peg themselves to the EXACT level by virture of the fact that the cost of making scrolls is level dependent. Not only that, but spell durations are level dependent. Read Jack Simth's post about using Detect Magic as a measure of arcane ability. This would lead to exact level determination.


Maybe he just wanted you to describe levels with in-game terminology.
Yes and no. Unlike Jimlock, he feels that nobody in-game knows level or determines it, it's not just a matter of abstraction. He also expects the player to infer level and provides no OOC information on what the true level is. In and of itself, this is not some major issue one way or the other, but the problem is that when dealing with spells and spell casters, pretending that exact level is uknown on any level to the characters, creates a lot of problems for the players.

So why go through this rigamoroll? His argument is immersion, but that cuts both ways. If one's perception that casters knowing level is a part of D&D, then your breaking someone else's immersion on top of making it an ordeal to get a CLW cast by a 5th level cleric.
 

Indeed. They are not aware of levels. But they can be aware of power and experience, and difference in power and experience.
The evidence and the game rulese say otherwise. I'm sure you've read Jack Simth's post about Detect Magic. But your response says you're ignoring the underlying implication:

If something can be done, it will be done.

If casters could devise a means of categorizing and classifyting and accurately describign how magic works, Wizards would assuredly have don it eons ago. The game says casters and all classes gain power in levels. It's homebrew to decide that's not really how it works but just an abstraction. This is how D&D is. This is how it has always been. Classes level up. It's not reality, it's a game. Yes, you can change the nature of the game and say that a "level" is just an invention for the player but doesn't exist for the character, but then you're running into the brick wall of spell duration and distince and cost being level dependent...to the precise level...with no variation.

You're also ignoring that several classes would have levels as part of the organizational structure e.g. Clerics, Druids, Monks, etc. That advancement within the group would be based on one's in-game level and the granting of special abilities would trigger one's ascension up the ranks.

The simplest conclusion many people would have come to ...oh, about 2000 years before anyone's campaign were to take place, is the concept of levels exactly describes an occurance in nature...and that nature would infact drive the use of the concept of "levels" to describe reality.

A perfect example is again, quantam mechanics. Scientists have learned that electrons occupy "quanta." So in order to understand and describe what happens with electrons, they had to come up with a concept prefectly represents it...

The same exact thing would happen with spell casters. Wizards would seek the simplest and most accurate way to describe how their discipline workds and "levels' would describe it perfectly. Why a DM would feel the need to construct some elaborate reality to work around this is beyond me. Why not just argue that it's really not "magic" but science and the game just calls it "magic" for the benefit of the players because the science is so advanced we can't possibly understand it?

I'm being partially facetious, but it's really a funny thing to me to see people just refuse to accept that casters would know of and use the concept of levels.

This means that things should not be as clear-cut for them.
For some classes, I agree. As I said before, it's unlikely Barbarians would derive any in-game benefit from being able to communicate each others levels. For spell casters, it would be exceedingly clear cut and the clearness of the level distinctions would be unavoidable because of the precision of spell durations and distance and the basis under which the classes might be employed. To deny this is to simply be obstinant. Add to the fact that the specificity of spell durations and distances would have been known by the discipline for eons. Wizard guilds would constantly be testing and retesting spells to see that Detect Magic cast by a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level casters today lasted just as long as one cast 300 years ago according to the spell books.

For a 10th level PC, a 12th level NPC, is not a "character with two
more levels than him".
The 10th level Wizard would know precisely what level the NPC Wizard was by virtue of the 12th level's Wall of Force would last 12 seconds longer and take up 20 more feet.

Seriously Jimlock, how do you explain away so many spells would allow you to know exactly the level of spell casters? In fact, I'm sure a guild would have a number of markers/tests/physical distance markers for gauging a spell casters level by an exact number. And why wouldn't they? Knowing the caster level of a scroll is important as it determine the scrolls cost and ability. It's irrational to argue that Wizards wouldn't track level precisely.


I understand how this sounds weird. And a reasonable question would be: "Why act like you don't really know, when the game's rules provides you with the exact numbers?"


Not at all. As as been discussed, some things are abstractions, some things aren't. Do you think Rangers know the exact difference in ranges of various types of bows?


If not, it is up to the game group to decide collectively, whether they are willing to keep out their meta-game thinking and always react according to what their PCs perceive, by simulating real-life perception.
Is there RAW that says "level" is metagame? I'm asking, not insinuating.

Of course, this is no RAW... far from it. It is just how I like my games :)

It's always one's perrogative to play however. But have you considered that maybe it's less immersive to deny something that would be a natural occurance? I think a better approach is to look at this on a class basis. Spells work in a manner that makes it unavoidable for casters to know they have levels...that their power increases in step functions. The nature of the magic commodities makes knowing spell caster level vitally important to the economy.

Is it possible some groups or individuals might not have bothered to determine their level or memorize it? Sure. But on the whole, the caster community would be very attuned to the very thing that they depend on for survival.
 

Expert MAT Tutoring

Dear Parent -



I understand that the decision to invest in Magical Aptitude Test (MAT) preparation is an important one, and that it can be difficult sorting through so many options. Given this, my primary goal in the following pages is to help you understand how MagicPoint MAT tutoring is different.


If you are considering MAT classes or small group MAT preparation:

You should know that MagicPoint's specialty is highly personalized one-to-one tutoring in the convenience of your home. Clearly private MAT tutoring is a premium service, and if you can make the added investment, personalized instruction is the single most effective way to raise your child's MAT scores. With a private MAT tutor your child will have the undivided attention of his or her instructor, which means that your child will be more engaged in lessons and more accountable for homework and practice tests. In a classroom or small group setting it is almost impossible for the instructor to focus on your child's specific strengths and weaknesses. With a MagicPoint MAT tutor your child's needs are the instructor's only focus.


If you have already decided to work with a private MAT tutor:

You should know that private, one-to-one tutoring is and always has been our only focus. A lot of companies offer MAT tutoring, but very few actually specialize in it. All too many are generalists, offering classroom based programs at local arcanums, or small group test prep in their mage's towers.


From an educational perspective, one-to-one tutoring is a unique specialty with specific curriculum design needs. Too many companies have simply taken their small group or classroom MAT materials, changed the covers, and handed them to 'tutors'. Developing a world class MAT tutoring operation takes focus and investment, and the quality of programming suffers when companies try to be all things to all people.


From here I welcome you to learn more about our MAT tutoring by reading the enclosed package. We're very good at what we do, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with your family.
Sincerely,


James Solomon Ozymandias, Archmage
 

So why go through this rigamoroll? His argument is immersion, but that cuts both ways. If one's perception that casters knowing level is a part of D&D, then your breaking someone else's immersion on top of making it an ordeal to get a CLW cast by a 5th level cleric.
I'm not 100% on board with you that every caster necessarily knows his exact level, but try this tack with your friend:

Ask him whether there's an in-game difference between say, Int 11 and Int 13. (Most gamers seem to believe such a difference should be noticeable in game, whether it actually is or not.) If he says yes, point out that the difference between 11 and 13 is one bonus -- the same difference between 1 caster level and 2 caster levels.
 

I'm not 100% on board with you that every caster necessarily knows his exact level, but try this tack with your friend:

Ask him whether there's an in-game difference between say, Int 11 and Int 13. (Most gamers seem to believe such a difference should be noticeable in game, whether it actually is or not.) If he says yes, point out that the difference between 11 and 13 is one bonus -- the same difference between 1 caster level and 2 caster levels.
I'm not sure I understand the purpose of your suggestion. He would agree that people can perceive the difference in ability. But his argument is that no one conceptualizes it as a quantized difference...or that abilities are quantized to begin with. Again, using his football disanalogy, you would argue that Tom Brady is better than Matt Hasselbeck, but you couldn't translate that to a number or even know what number Hasselbeck or Brady were at.

In D&D...you can. If being a QB in football were analogous to being a Wizard (which it's not), the distance you could pass a football would be determined by your level, so it would be trivial to determine who was better and by how many increments. Everytime you threw a football, it would go exactly X feet. You'd gain a level and it would go exactly X feet plus your level increment. You'd see this pattern repeated over and over. You'd see that every other QB had the same exact pattern and threw in exactly the same incremental increases...it would be self-evident that the world of football QB's advanced in quantized levels and people would start rating their QB's according to those levels. This level classification would occur naturally as a result of the QB's abilities being dependent on his level and that his level would give you a 100% accurate predictor of the QB's abilities to do various things. It would be unavoidable that levels would be used by coaches, owners, and everybody else who's livelihood depended on knowing their QB's abilities.

With Intelligence...you wouldn't know your "bonus" because I'm not aware of anything in D&D that could be used to metric it (I'm not aware of it...but maybe it exists). A better example would be Strength. One could and can determine the amount you can lift. There is strength chart in the game that tells you how many pounds you can lift. This could be used by people to determine a persons strenght "bonus." You could load some up with weights and then document to the pound, when someone's movement level went from 30' to 20'.

But...to what real advantage would that be? It's not really important for a Fighter to know his bonus like it is for a Wizard to know his spell range or radius or how many hit dice of damage he can do. So while Fighters might could go through a process to accurately determine their Strength bonus...and indeed some Fighters might have even determined it...that information isn't very useful in the context of being a Fighter. Yes, if I were higring a Fighter, I'd like to know his bonus, but I'm concerned about his level...and...I can just arm wrestle him to gauge his strength. Finally, even if a Fighter knew his strength modifier, it would be talked about in terms of pounds since nobody knows how much damage weapons do...just their relative effectiveness against various targets.
 

I don't know what to say, dude. You and your friend seem to be stuck in your ways, and I don't think any of us can help you.

My last suggestion is to simply take advantage of the fact that you're the other DM: everyone should just stock up on scrolls when you're running the game, if you want them at particular CLs. *shrug*
 

I've done some more digging.

Analyze Dweomer
You discern all spells and magical properties present in a number of creatures or objects. Each round, you may examine a single creature or object that you can see as a free action. In the case of a magic item, you learn its functions, how to activate its functions (if appropriate), and how many charges are left (if it uses charges). In the case of an object or creature with active spells cast upon it, you learn each spell, its effect, and its caster level.
Arcane Sight
You know the location and power of all magical auras within your sight. An aura’s power depends on a spell’s functioning level or an item’s caster level, as noted in the description of the detect magic spell. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Spellcraft skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura; DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + one-half caster level for a nonspell effect.)
If you concentrate on a specific creature within 120 feet of you as a standard action, you can determine whether it has any spellcasting or spell-like abilities, whether these are arcane or divine (spell-like abilities register as arcane), and the strength of the most powerful spell or spell-like ability the creature currently has available for use.
Detect Magic
Aura Strength

An aura’s power depends on a spell’s functioning spell level or an item’s caster level. If an aura falls into more than one category, detect magic indicates the stronger of the two.
Spell or Object Aura Power Faint Moderate Strong Overwhelming Functioning spell (spell level) 3rd or lower 4th-6th 7th-9th 10th+ (deity-level) Magic item (caster level) 5th or lower 6th-11th 12th-20th 21st+ (artifact)

With Intelligence...you wouldn't know your "bonus" because I'm not aware of anything in D&D that could be used to metric it (I'm not aware of it...but maybe it exists).
You could take a standardized test.
 

[MENTION=85158]Dandu[/MENTION] i just XP'd you on your ToB errata (everyone should look at that thread), but this is excellent... well, I guess I am saying that b/c it agrees with how I play ;)
 

Remove ads

Top