Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arial Black" data-source="post: 6776181" data-attributes="member: 6799649">Agreed. 'Spell level' is a real in-game thing that can be understood and discussed in character, whether they use the term 'level' or 'circle' or whatever. The characters in Jack Vance's Dying Earth stories did exactly that, and this is the concept upon which Gygax built the D&D magic system; it's why it's referred to as 'Vancian casting'.Not so much. Sure, you can say that one is more likely to beat the other in melee combat, but creatures in game cannot know the game mechanics behind each character; they can only observe the results of what they do, and form opinions based on that.If the W2/F6 kept missing while the W5 kept critting, the W5 would not only win but also seem to be a better fighter than the fighter. Unlike being able to identify spell (and spell level) by observation, there is no 'attack roll' that is observably a different 'thing' than any other attack.By what mechanism would an observer know that W2/F6 was a 'higher level' fighter than W5, despite the fact that the only observation the observer had was that he saw W2/F6 get his butt kicked by the W5? How would he know that this was unlikely?The creatures in game have no knowledge that they are merely pawns in a game (unless you're going for comedy, but the game does not assume that!), and cannot know about 'combat rounds' or that at 5th level (whatever that is!) fighters get the Extra Attack class feature.By what mechanism can an observer know, for a fact, that W2/F6 is a 'higher level character' than W5?</blockquote>

Verification