Celebrim
Legend
If having a doctoral degree corresponds to being a Sage specialist, then in AD&D they have 8HD and can cast 6th level spells.
If you're following the "Aragorn was only sixth level" idea in a modern setting, how would college degrees be defined?
If having a doctoral degree corresponds to being a Sage specialist, then in AD&D they have 8HD and can cast 6th level spells.
I have a PhD, and I supervise PhD students.
The idea of modelling via levelling seems pretty wonky to me.
There's also all the stuff about degrees of specialisation. (Although in my experience some fields - eg philosophy - encourage doctoral graduates with a wider scope of expertise than other fields - eg law.)
There's also a huge varation across individual candidates (just as there is for undergraduate students). Some PhD candidates pass easily although they really know coparatively little (eg they got lucky with examiners, or their supervisor wrote the thesis, or some other random factor). Others can come to grief although they've mastered a wide range of material(eg unlucky with examiners, or they don't write very well, or some other random factor).
I don't see how it can be modelled using the 3E or 4e skill system. Free descriptors (eg 13th Age backgrounds) would seem to me to do a better job.
(Another weird thing about the skill system is that it has to set DCs for knowledge checks. Whereas in fact, at least in my fields, there is no objective measure of the obscurity of a question. It mostly depends on what literature you happen to have read, or what papers you happen to have seen delivered. Cleverness is more about the ability to come up with new arguments and new ideas, than just knowing more stuff.)
The idea of modelling via levelling seems pretty wonky to me.
There's also all the stuff about degrees of specialisation. (Although in my experience some fields - eg philosophy - encourage doctoral graduates with a wider scope of expertise than other fields - eg law.)
There's also a huge varation across individual candidates (just as there is for undergraduate students). Some PhD candidates pass easily although they really know coparatively little (eg they got lucky with examiners, or their supervisor wrote the thesis, or some other random factor). Others can come to grief although they've mastered a wide range of material(eg unlucky with examiners, or they don't write very well, or some other random factor).
I don't see how it can be modelled using the 3E or 4e skill system. Free descriptors (eg 13th Age backgrounds) would seem to me to do a better job.
(Another weird thing about the skill system is that it has to set DCs for knowledge checks. Whereas in fact, at least in my fields, there is no objective measure of the obscurity of a question. It mostly depends on what literature you happen to have read, or what papers you happen to have seen delivered. Cleverness is more about the ability to come up with new arguments and new ideas, than just knowing more stuff.)
Li Shenron
Legend
If we start from "Aragorn was only 6th level", the correspondence you suggest between old ranks and level is pretty much spot-on!
But OTOH, the correspondence with modern-day degrees is not. I'd say you are at least 2 levels too generous. I'd say a MSc postgrad student is a novice or apprentice, a PhD postdoc researcher is an apprentice or journeyman, an assistant professor or senior researcher is a journeyman or master, a professor or academy fellow is a master, and a senior professor or senior academy fellow is a grand master.
A
amerigoV
Guest
There is no way Aragon is 6th level if Gandalf is only 5th. 4th level I might give you - maybe. They did fight a troll (CR 5) plus a few goblins in the Mines (so maybe EL7, about right for that group).
Odhanan
Adventurer
I spoke too fast in that it would greatly vary with the specialty, but basically there's no strict correlation between level and some sort of diploma or expertise in a particular area of knowledge. It's treated under Expert Hirelings in the DMG (e.g. architects, alchemists, armorers etc etc). The idea of making a correlation between level and theoretical expertise strikes me as utterly inappropriate as far as the O/AD&D game is concerned, the same way it'd be pointless to ascribe too much "realism" to the game, or to wonder what level Gandalf would be.
I'd say, in 3.5 rules:
No education through Bachelors = 1st level (unless you've done something cool)
Masters = probably 2nd level (could be lower or higher)
PhD = probably at least 3rd level
So a computer science major writing production code would start as Expert 1st or rarely 2nd level . . . even with no GP to XP conversion, I'd still say Zuck or Sergei Brin was like Expert 12th level, and Bill Gates or Steve Jobs would be Expert 20th (anyone paying any attention at all knows who they are, they had a profound impact on the world, and they will be widely remembered at least a generation after their deaths).
Of course, some might say I run a low-level campaign. I've never gone above 13th with PC's and no NPC is higher than 20th . . . if your power has reached "Google founder" levels, I think the game isn't as fun.
No education through Bachelors = 1st level (unless you've done something cool)
Masters = probably 2nd level (could be lower or higher)
PhD = probably at least 3rd level
So a computer science major writing production code would start as Expert 1st or rarely 2nd level . . . even with no GP to XP conversion, I'd still say Zuck or Sergei Brin was like Expert 12th level, and Bill Gates or Steve Jobs would be Expert 20th (anyone paying any attention at all knows who they are, they had a profound impact on the world, and they will be widely remembered at least a generation after their deaths).
Of course, some might say I run a low-level campaign. I've never gone above 13th with PC's and no NPC is higher than 20th . . . if your power has reached "Google founder" levels, I think the game isn't as fun.
Savage Wombat
Hero
Fame does not equal level. Many programmers better than Gates. Maybe not businessmen, though.
Similar Threads
