If you're following the "Aragorn was only sixth level" idea in a modern setting, how would college degrees be defined?

[Alzrius]

As others have noted, the class-level system that D&D uses is problematic, since it requires that certain things be bundled together with certain other things. You want more skill points? Fine, but you need to take more Hit Dice, more base attack bonus, and more saving throw bonuses. Oh, and we'll also throw in these non-refundable weapon proficiencies; I hope you like battleaxes!

That said, the only real measurement that D&D (in the last few editions) has for non-combat ability grading is in skill ranks. Ergo, higher learning would presumably be measured that way. Luckily, it's comparatively easy to bump up skill ranks (scroll down to the "Knowledge and Crafting" header).

That said, I'd caution against tying this to actually having a diploma. Character stats are usually meant to represent personal ability, not professional recognition.

 

[TwoSix]

Another issue is that the Bachelors->Masters->Ph.D scale only comfortably matches up to Knowledge skills, and Knowledge skills are represented very poorly by d20 rolls. Most Knowledge checks that aren't done in stressful situations should be done as Take 20, so that the professor with 9 ranks and +3 Int won't be bested by the merchant with 1 rank of Knowledge and a +1 Int.

 

[ST]

I would treat level of education as flavor only. 3e/d20Modern explicitly don't work if you try to define them this way. For example, an 8th+ lvl multiclass Soldier has the equivalent level of skill to a US Army soldier straight out of basic (comparing skills known, weapon familiarities, etc.).

If you want to use D20 in the modern era, I find that you should think of a TV show, where the protagonists are Xth level, and average people on the street, no matter age or experience level, are 1st level commoners. (I don't really know what kind of campaign this is for; personally, I switched almost immediately from d20M to FATE as I wanted something more abstract.)

 

[Celebrim]

I would treat level of education as flavor only. 3e/d20Modern explicitly don't work if you try to define them this way. For example, an 8th+ lvl multiclass Soldier has the equivalent level of skill to a US Army soldier straight out of basic (comparing skills known, weapon familiarities, etc.).

What? I don't get that at all. I think that's the came sort of logic that gets "Aragorn is a 20th level character". What I would say is that all those diverse skills known might boil down in D20 terms to having a +1 BAB and martial weapon proficiencies appropriate for the tech level (personal firearms, for example). None of that requires more than a single level in D20. I'm perfectly happy to see typical straight out of boot US soldiers as something like 1st level Tough ordinaries with Profession Milltary. Arguably, because the US is an all volunteer force and fairly selective in recruiting, I'd add a level of Dedicated ordinary to many of them representing their pre-military education and beliefs, and maybe a level of Smart ordinary to some of the officers (who usually have 4 year degrees of some sort). Veteran combat experienced soldiers probably end up with a second level of Tough ordinary, and of course their will be individual variation (some soldiers in a unit would be Fast Ordinaries, others Strong ordinaries, others might have two levels of Dedicated ordinary after both camp, etc.)

In D&D terms, a typical modern soldier for me might be a Fighter 1/Expert 1.

As for D&D better emulating a TV show or other literary genera than reality, I generally tend to agree with that (but would probably say the same about all RPGs). But I don't think that even in typical police procedurals that gap in competence is as great as 8th level vs. 1st level. I would tend to see the divide as between 1st-2nd level ordinaries, and 4th-5th level heroes unless the hero is portrayed in a super-heroic fashion (Rambo, James Bond, Sherlock, Batman, etc.)

 

[Desdichado]

I know that when I finished college, I got new hit dice.

Not.

College degrees are about accreditation. You spend the time and money to check the box so you can get the salary on the tail end of the experience. You learn a few things (hopefully) but the notion that they correspond in any way whatsoever to "leveling up" is completely counter to by university experience. Everything useful or even interesting that I've learned in my life, I've either learned on the job or through my own independent research into topics I was interested in.

If I were statting up academic types for a d20 Modern game, I'd probably make them 1st or 2nd level Smart heroes, with the Skill Focus (Knowledge x) feat. I wouldn't give them any bonus at all for having been to college or not; they can get the exact same stat-line in all kinds of ways other than going to college.

Although if they were college academics, I'd probably give them the Background associated with it.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Aragorn was at least 10th level, otherwise he couldn't have used the Palantiri.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Aragorn was at least 10th level, otherwise he couldn't have used the Palantiri.

Only because Gary never read the relevant Alexandrian article.

 

[Odhanan]

All these would be 0-level specialists in O/AD&D.

 

[Cadence]

I'm fond of the old ranks used by guilds and such, so this would be my ranking:

Acolyte --> 8th Grade --> 1st
Novice --> High School Graduate --> 2nd
Apprentice --> Associate's Degree --> 3rd
Journeyman --> Bachelor's Degree --> 4th
Master --> Master's Degree --> 5th
Grand Master --> Doctorate --> 6th

The Doctorate is just the first step into a lot of careers though. Beyond that you'd have Post-Doc/Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Full Professor (or their equivalents in other occupations) and they get more depth and breadth as they go on through those ranks.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

3.X skill system would have a hard time emulating real life academic accomplishment. As someone else already pointed out, our field of specialization becomes narrower as we advance. As a JSD student in the field of Legal Theory, I'd have no difficulty answering some pretty hard questions in that field of expertise. At the same time, though, I'd have almost no chance of answering questions about Tax Law (which happens to be really complicated in Brazil) without probably taking a lot of further research. Knowledge (Law) cannot cover that.

If I had to give it a try, I'd use a skill called Scientific Research and roll with that skill. If I had to define something that certainly improves with academic accomplishment, that wouldn't be your knowledge of a subject, but your ability to go through a lot of stated knowledge about your field of expertise and refine everything until you're able to produce acceptable answers out of what you're looking for. Having 5 ranks of Knowledge in the related field would give you a synergy bonus for the roll, but everybody would be rolling Scientific Research. You could have Scientific Research (Humanities) and Scientific Research (Nature Sciences) if that sounds more realistic, though. I can assure you that, while I'm probably able to research topics in the fields of Sociology or Literature, I'd have no idea of where to start with college-level Physics or Biology.

I believe that would be more accurate because, while I'm not sure about my knowledge of Law in general, I'm pretty sure that my skill as a researcher has greatly improved from my days of undergraduate to the point where I'm now. Obviously, I'm only discussing acknowledged expertise in a field through a degree, not the importance of the degree itself for that. You'll probably find PhDs/PhD students that are still mediocre researchers by that point in their career, but one would have to ask how they managed to get there, I believe.

Cheers!