Levels IRL

freyar

Extradimensional Explorer
So, Celebrim and I have had a short discussion over in the Giants in the Earth thread on the appropriate level for Albert Einstein. This gets me thinking: what are the appropriate levels for real people -- average people we know, people at various levels of education and training, and extraordinary people of one stripe or another. I'm assuming that most people will be commoners or experts, but what level? How much XP does 4 years of college get you, for example?

I look forward to seeing what you all have to say when I wake up in the morning! :cool:
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I was thinking of something related to this just the other day. I'm not sure how many "levels" the average person recieves but it struck me that there are probably fewer commoners. We receive quite a bit of formal education and that makes me think that most people are experts with many of their points in knowledge skills.
 

You could always throw the person of progressively higher hills until they fall unconscious. That'd give you a measure of their hit points, which will tell you what level they are.

Or stab them with a dagger. On average, you'll do 2.5 hp's of damage.

...

What? ;-)
 

If we assume that ordinary individuals are 1st and 2nd level, then we are dealing with in a 20th level fighter someone that could face 300+ opponents in melee combat and defeat them handedly. We are dealing with someone who can fall from tall places reach terminal velocity and for whatever reason (destiny, superhuman toughness, luck, whatever hit points represent) and not be in mortal peril. We are dealing with someone that can easily and reutinely defeat a dozen well trained armed individuals with his bare hands.

How much XP does 4 years of college get you, for example.

By the book, absolutely none. Since this answer doesn't reflect our experience, it probably reasonable to suggest that there are ways of obtaining XP which are not reflected in the rules because they don't reutinely come up in play. For example, training. Simulated challenges overcome are still challenges overcome. They may not grant you XP at anything like a rate that would profit adventurers compared to killing things and taking thier stuff, but they are probably out there.

The question of how much XP you obtain for training of a particular intensity is an interesting one, but since we've no widely accepted rules, it won't really help us answer what level Einstein was. A better approach is the pair of questions: "Is there anything Einstein did that the suggested character cannot do?" and "Is there anything that the suggested character can do that Einstein cannot?"

In the case of Einstein, I believe that my suggestion reflects Einstein about as well as the D&D rules can. A +22 bonus to a Knowledge skill means that you can sit down with a paper and pencil, 'take 10' and answer even the hardest and most obscure questions about that field of knowledge (DC 30). By taking 20, Einstein could answer questions of DC 42, which is a reasonable DC for hard problems for which no one has the answer too. But this is hardly the hardest problem that Einstein can answer. By taking 20, with the aid of an assistant such as his wife (+2 bonus from 'Aid Other'), books and journals in physics (+2 bonus from masterwork physics kit) or a lab, and other means of obtaining bonuses, the suggested 'Einstein' can answer questions approaching DC 50. I have no problem believing that solving even the most sophisticated problems can be considered to be succeeding in a series of smaller DC 50 challenges.

I would go further than that. My Einstein plays the violin (usually badly), has a reasonable amount of time invested in skills he's picked up from doing all the things that he does when he's not doing physics - like working as a patent clerk, for example. And he still has enough skill points for all of that, even as a 'lowly' 8th level character. So no, within the limits of the rules, there is nothing that Einstein could do that the suggested character couldn't do, and furthermore there is very little that the suggested character could do that Einstien couldn't do. The suggested character is somewhat better in combat than I would be perfectly happy with, but neither is that character a match for any sort of trained martial character.

But, back to the question of how much XP you get from 4 years of college, since such a question can tell you what level ordinary people are. If it is reasonable to assume that ordinary people are commonly higher than 8th level, then its unreasonable to assume that extraordinary people are only 8th level.

However, I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that ordinary people are less than 8th level.

Imagine that normal training amounts to 1 XP per day, and can generally begin whenever someone obtains maturity (and they become full fledged 1st level characters, and not merely 0th level apprentices). Imagine further that studious people don't waste their time and can manage to perform work which is beneficial to thier education 300 days a year. So, in 10 years time they might obtain a PhD (and perhaps a bit of post-doc experience), and they would be 3rd level experts with about 3000 XP. At that point, the hypothetical theoretical physicist might have a +12 bonus in his chosen field, capable of taking 10 and answer ordinary tough physics questions (DC 20) of the sort we'd only expect experts to know at will, and when taking 20 answering some of the hardest questions in the character's chosen field (DC 30) of the sort that only experts can even pose. Of course, most people don't daily do things that improve thier abilities, and most people aren't so studious as to push themselves 300 days a year, so few people actually become so skilled. Extremely talented physicists with the highest commitment to thier work might with the best training obtain 5th level or so before thier mental faculties and energy begin to fade, and such keen powers of perception and problem solving might earn them the universal recognition of thier peers.
 

awayfarer said:
I was thinking of something related to this just the other day. I'm not sure how many "levels" the average person recieves but it struck me that there are probably fewer commoners. We receive quite a bit of formal education and that makes me think that most people are experts with many of their points in knowledge skills.

I would agree. Formal education is much more common today than it is in a medieval inspired setting. I would argue that anyone that completes a high school diploma is a 1st level expert, rather than a commoner. I don't know if this is official rules, but at least in my campaign commoners are assumed to be illiterate (as the Barbarian). If this is true, then you could look at the literacy rates of a country in a particular time period to get a rough idea of the maximum number of commoners in a society.

The reverse of this is that our societies are great at turning out experts, but are very poor at turning out warriors (much less barbarians). Almost no one grows up in the sort of rough and tumble dangerous setting which produces warriors rather than commoners and experts - just a few inner city ghettos and tough impoverished rural regions. We have become civilized and therefore 'soft'. Granted, the 1st world countries do turn out a small number of highly trained leveled Fighters in our armed forces, but the percentage of the population the armed forces has been falling for 50 years now even in say the USA which by far has the largest armed forces (both in size and as a percentage) of any of the 1st world major powers. So yes, lots and lots of experts, but not many people with high BAB and alot of people treating CON as a 'dump stat'.
 
Last edited:

well on the stat yerself thread I think I cam out as a Commoner1/expert2 with a fair number of points from int (14ish); Handle animal, craft (house framing) and skill focus: gaming.
how many levels from undergrad? none
from gradschool? probably 1 in expert, I worked a lot harder for my masters.
 

awayfarer said:
I was thinking of something related to this just the other day. I'm not sure how many "levels" the average person recieves but it struck me that there are probably fewer commoners. We receive quite a bit of formal education and that makes me think that most people are experts with many of their points in knowledge skills.
I think people do overestimate the number of experts vs. commoners. After all, a commoner really only needs to sink his points into a couple of professions and/or crafts. It's only those people with widely skill sets (say 6 or more skills focused on) who need to be experts.

I think it's more than the D&D standard, but it probably isn't as high as assumed.
 

Celebrim said:
I would agree. Formal education is much more common today than it is in a medieval inspired setting. I would argue that anyone that completes a high school diploma is a 1st level expert, rather than a commoner. <SNIP>
I would love to agree, but I would say that assumption is proabaly a bit too far reaching. While the average person that attains a HS diploma would be knowledgeble in several areas, they are far from an expert at anything. By way of comparrison to a medieval counterpart, a modern HS diploma would be better than almost any degree available at the time, true, but the average person no longer twakes their studies as seriously as one did at that time.

Everyone is required to attend HS (whether or not they complete it) in most states until they are 16 and until they are 15 in most 1st world countries. The learning curiculum is based on generalized learing of math, science, history, social stucies, language and physical education. Elective studies can run the gamut depending on which states, county and town you attend school in. At no time is it required that you actually learn anything, just pass the proficiency exams or show basic skill. And even though most people do focus on something, there are an equal number of folks that just show up and still receive the same diploma.

Of course the same can be said of a college education, but it is a little different, usually you want to go, if you are actually attending. But an employee hring manager once told me, remember companies look for a diploma, not your at your grades. So simply having a diploma doesn't necessarily mean that person has actually attained any knowledge. A nit pick I know, and with most of the folks here, probably not the case, but if you think hard, I'm sure you'll figure out what I'm trying to say.
 

Ignoring hit points:

Academia
High school graduate: Level 1
4-year University graduate or equivalent: Level 1
Masters graduate: Level 1
PhD graduate: Level 2
4 years paid work: Level 3
20 years paid work: Level 4
Elite in field: Level 5

Military
Basic training completed: Level 1
4 years, junior N/CO rank: Level 2
8 years, mid-rank N/CO: Level 3
16 years, Senior N/CO, or special forces recruit: Level 4
Special forces N/CO: Level 5

Class will vary, but most soldiers are Warriors not Fighters. For the US military, Marine Force Recon, Army Rangers and Special Ops may be Fighters, for the UK the equivalent are Royal Marine Commandos, Parachute Regiment and SAS. In a typical third-world military most soldiers may be Commoners, with Warriors only in 'elite' units.
 

Re Commoners vs Experts, I don't think modern education turns out people appreciably more skilled than in medieval times at age 18, their skills are simply in different areas. This may be different in Japan, but I'd say in US/UK you're typically a Com-1 at 18 and at best an Expert-1 after University graduation, assuming you did meaningful study at University. More likely you're still a Com-1; only doing an applied study like Medicine or US Law School (or UK equivalent) or a real Masters gets you to Expert-1.
 

Remove ads

Top