If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, I’m gong to echo the sentiment that if an encounter is only challenging to players who don’t know the monster’s weakness, then it’s not a very challenging encounter.

 

[Yardiff]

How about a seasoned strategist and admired leader who isn’t himself a fearsome 1v1 combatant?

In other words, how does the game term “level” correlate to the in-game fiction?

He doesn't have to be a fighter class. But seasoned/veteran/etc all point to being more then just a commoner off the street. High intelligence(strategist) and charisma(admired leader) alone isn't enough, those thing generally need some experience(levels) in something to account for seasoning. At least its how I see it.

 

[iserith]

So would it be fair to say that at your table a character who had never encountered a particular monster would be free to use player knowledge, and that if the character/player knowledge divide were important to that player, he/she would be welcome to narrate whatever fiction explained it, such as luck, observation of a detail, flash of divine insight, recollection of an old folk tale, etc?

Yeah, or no fiction at all. I'm there to adjudicate actions, not judge whether the action itself is valid to take based on some arbitrary assessment of what the character knows or doesn't know. That's none of my business as DM.

 

[Guest 6801328]

He doesn't have to be a fighter class. But seasoned/veteran/etc all point to being more then just a commoner off the street. High intelligence(strategist) and charisma(admired leader) alone isn't enough, those thing generally need some experience(levels) in something to account for seasoning. At least its how I see it.

Ok, so what separates an experienced...I dunno...merchant from an experienced general? Is the head of the Royal Order of Vinters and Brewers high level because he's experienced? He's led people, made decisions, resolved conflicts.

Or is it only people who have experience killing things that gain levels? And, if so, is it only people who have experience killing things that have knowledge of ferocious monsters? What if you are high level but you've only ever killed orcs? Does that leave you effectively "level 1" when fighting other monsters?

I haven't thought deeply about this before, so I'm really just making this up as I go along, but I think we're starting to bump into a problem between the game rules and the fiction. "Level" seems to be something we apply to the game world in order to keep the game itself fun, but it really starts to break down if we ask what it means, in a real-world sense.

 

[Yardiff]

Ok, so what separates an experienced...I dunno...merchant from an experienced general? Is the head of the Royal Order of Vinters and Brewers high level because he's experienced? He's led people, made decisions, resolved conflicts.

Or is it only people who have experience killing things that gain levels? And, if so, is it only people who have experience killing things that have knowledge of ferocious monsters? What if you are high level but you've only ever killed orcs? Does that leave you effectively "level 1" when fighting other monsters?

I haven't thought deeply about this before, so I'm really just making this up as I go along, but I think we're starting to bump into a problem between the game rules and the fiction. "Level" seems to be something we apply to the game world in order to keep the game itself fun, but it really starts to break down if we ask what it means, in a real-world sense.

One way to gain experience is but defeating challenges, that to lots of people is killing monsters, but defeating a creature challenge does not always mean killing the creature.

The vintners/brewers example would be of a 'seasoned' person could be admired as a leader and be a good organizer but where would he have obtain any strategy that would be combat viable?


If you've only ever fought one creature type then you would most likely not know the best strategy to combat something new.

There are many different playstyle, some playstyles only allow 'levels' to PC and special NPCs.

I personally have no issue with a '3rd level' barmaid being able to handle rowdy patrons.

 

[Yardiff]

Campaign setting I prefer to playing, Icon D&D creatures are not generally 'commonly' known, especially if their supposedly rare/reclusive creature. I think its generally best to set a standard for what is common knowledge. If you think troll, werecreature, skeletons/zombies, etc are considered common lore, great I have no problem with something like this.


Someone saying that he got 'divine inspiration' for a reason for creature knowledge....


This is the playstyle I prefer. So we're back to you do you and I'll do me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I personally have no issue with a 3rd level barmaid being able to handle rowdy patrons.

Sure, but you're still equating "level" with "combat prowess".

I think the problem I'm seeing out of the corner of my eye is that if you try to define "level" in real world terms, it always breaks down. It's only in the game because it's a convenient mechanic (for PCs) if you want to both reward players for success but steadily making them more powerful, and thus it's necessary (for NPCs) if you want to keep challenging those PCs, but otherwise it doesn't...it can't...really have any meaning other than prowess in 1 on 1 or small group combat*, unless you're willing to accept a whole host of paradoxes.

*And even then it falls apart logically in all sorts of ways, since according to the rules (in 5e, anyway) you get better at all sorts of things when you level up. A character who levels up doing nothing but fighting in a shield wall against vikings, or fighting only gladiator fights, improves equally versus any kind of opponent, even though he's only really used to one kind.

The moral of the story is, I think, to not try to hang too much meaning on "level". It's entirely a metagame construct.

 

[Oofta]

Ok, so what separates an experienced...I dunno...merchant from an experienced general? Is the head of the Royal Order of Vinters and Brewers high level because he's experienced? He's led people, made decisions, resolved conflicts.

Or is it only people who have experience killing things that gain levels? And, if so, is it only people who have experience killing things that have knowledge of ferocious monsters? What if you are high level but you've only ever killed orcs? Does that leave you effectively "level 1" when fighting other monsters?

I haven't thought deeply about this before, so I'm really just making this up as I go along, but I think we're starting to bump into a problem between the game rules and the fiction. "Level" seems to be something we apply to the game world in order to keep the game itself fun, but it really starts to break down if we ask what it means, in a real-world sense.

Well, obviously level probably makes about as much sense as hit points ... it's a useful abstraction but beyond that I wouldn't think about it too much.

But I kind of like the idea of commoner classes from previous editions, a novice cook is level 1 a master chef is level 10, a chef that is unbelievably gifted talented and experienced is level 20.

I know that in my field (software development) there are certainly different "levels" of developer, we just limit to a handful of "levels" that broadly define responsibility, scope of influence and aptitude. A junior level developer and senior level developer will have extremely different capabilities.

But just because I'm a decent software developer doesn't mean I wouldn't get the snot kicked out of me in a street fight. Develop an application? I'm your guy. Fight orcs? Unless I'm rolling a D20 see ya later.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Well, obviously level probably makes about as much sense as hit points ... it's a useful abstraction but beyond that I wouldn't think about it too much.

But I kind of like the idea of commoner classes from previous editions, a novice cook is level 1 a master chef is level 10, a chef that is unbelievably gifted talented and experienced is level 20.

I know that in my field (software development) there are certainly different "levels" of developer, we just limit to a handful of "levels" that broadly define responsibility, scope of influence and aptitude. A junior level developer and senior level developer will have extremely different capabilities.

But just because I'm a decent software developer doesn't mean I wouldn't get the snot kicked out of me in a street fight. Develop an application? I'm your guy. Fight orcs? Unless I'm rolling a D20 see ya later.

Right, which is why it makes no sense to say that a level 1 character wouldn't know about...Beholders, let's say...but a level 20 character would. What if it's a level 20 chef? Or even a level 20 Fighter who (to use my previous example) has just fought gladiator duels his whole life?

 

[Satyrn]

But I kind of like the idea of commoner classes from previous editions, a novice cook is level 1 a master chef is level 10, a chef that is unbelievably gifted talented and experienced is level 20.

I grew to hate those classes. I feel like I let their very existence trick me into forgetting that D&D is a game about adventurers having adventures, and I spent far too much time and effort treating D&D as a world simulation instead of an adventure game.

I hate those classes with the passion of a thousand @lowkey13s