What would you consider "name" level in d20?

[Gentlegamer]

Thank you all for the responses!

I'm very familiar with the AD&D level titles . . . would it be appropriate to make the "name" ranks into prestige classes? I know there is an Archmage prestige class (which isn't the "name" level for M-Us, but still a designation of a high level magic-user) . . . perhaps the same could be done for Lord, Guild Master, Ranger Lord, etc.

On names, I call the d20 Wizard "Magician" and save the name "wizard" for a higher level character, as in AD&D.

 

[Particle_Man]

Given the faster advancement and existence of epic levels, I would say that name level is 20th level.

 

[Glyfair]

Something like Eberron, on the other hand, doesn't have nearly as many uber NPCs running around. The most powerful warlords, high priests, and whatnot may be no higher than level 15. In such a world, I'd put name level at around 10 to 12.

I was thinking the same thing. It's most likely world specific.

In Eberron, I would tend to place it at 9th level. At that level you are in league with the "movers and shakers" of the world (plus, you'll have PC classes while they likely have at least some NPC levels).

 

[ThirdWizard]

Depends on the campaign, the scale you are talking about, and the scope of the campaign.

If you're sticking around one place a lot, doing lots of political intrigue, and are confied to a border territory, then "name" level could come as early as 6th level.

If you're in a bustling metropolis, with lots of high level NPCs about, or travel a lot between such areas, not getting involved with the populace much in favor of lots of dungeon crawls, then you might not gain much fame until you're in the late teens.

I have no idea what a generic campaign would be like though. For me, PCs usually gain real notice around 8th level, and then by 12th level start making a place for themselves in the world. My current campaign is a little early, they've been in a smaller city than usual and gained notice around 5th level. Not "name level" but this should put them at some real power within the community around 9th level.

 

[D+1]

I'm an old school AD&Der who has played d20 and is thinking of renewing a long standing campaign, converted to d20.

While d20 has many similar elements to AD&D, it is quite different, especially in character power and level advancement. What d20 experience level would you consider to be "name" level?

From a RAW perspective the question is irrelevant. "Name" level, or "Title" level was wildly variable from class to class in the actual level, the XP needed to reach it, the benefits conferred beyond calling followers, etc. Most of those things are now structured directly into both the individual class and the skill system with the remainder having been simply dropped (such as the "right" to build a stronghold or temple, start a thieves guild, etc.)

The fact that level advancement is now much faster is particularly meaningless because even in AD&D it had nothing to do with taking a given amount of play time to reach "Name" level. It was a mechanic that simply tied an arbitrarily set character level to be "meaningful" in a campaign. But that level could be set anywhere the DM wants it in d20 simply to once again impart significance to reaching that point. But all the old rewards that went with it are now gone, disbursed to other parts of the system unrelated to some "special", arbitrarily set level, so it really is irrelevant WHERE you set it now.

As far as power level goes you simply cannot compare 3E> characters with 2E< because they are functionally unrelated. Their character levels are NOT compatible with each other. The characters have differing capabilities within their individual systems at a given level. The XP totals they have are earned at different rates, for different things, and have VASTLY different values within their system.

Still, if you want to reinstitute "title" level for classes there's no good reason whatever that it should be higher. 2E rules went up to 20th level and above just as 3E rules do. 3E assumes to a certain degree that demographics are pyramidal, with 20th level being the capstone, but it doesn't BREAK the 3E system in any way to assume that the pyramid caps out at a level similar to what was often assumed in 2E campaigns. Just because the rules include spell descriptions for spells up to 9th level doesn't mean that there MUST be someone in every campaign that actually can cast them. Why isn't it assumed that when a PC reaches 15th level or learns to cast 6th level spells that he might be BREAKING NEW GROUND as far as the NPC's in the campaign are concerned? Nothing prevents such an assumption and the rules do not collapse in any way if you do. There's no reason to assume that just because the rules describe a True Resurrection spell that there HAS to be at least 1 NPC capable of casting it.

Therefore, I say if you want to have "Title" levels again in your campaign, 9th level works just as well as any other.

 

[Greylock]

On behalf of myself and my group of friends, I'd have to say 7th. By that point we will have reached the city Maissen, and would HOPE they've heard of us by then. Did I say hope? Make that BETTER have heard of us by then.

HTH

 

[S'mon]

IMC, which has fewer high level NPCs than 3e standard, it's still around 9th or so - 9th is when Clerics Raise & Wizards teleport, the tone of the game changes, and mundane enemies are no longer much of a threat - reaching 9th means no XP for CR1 foes/challenges, which seems like a big break-point to me. Only exceptional people IMC rise above 9th. Forgotten Realms would be different, of course. I

 

[Evilhalfling]

IMC it is probably 11th. The two of last three games I ran ended at about that level, with two with the PCs saddled down with responisbilites, and the last with a lot of loose threads. The PC's had beaten the Archvillian, using a wish to imprison him, and gained a magical tower.
But they had gained the emnetiy of the local king, and more importantly his powerful council of Wizards and Priests. It is hard to remain unnoticed when you are wearing the kings boots.
The campaign was supposed to go on but I had burned out.

The highest tier of NPCs was about 15th in that world and there were a few in each large country. I actually made a list of all NPCs that were at least 18th and possibly up to Epic.
There were 5, and one was a dwarven Expert. Only one ever got stats, although various groups met 3 of them. There was a 6th but he had 15ish class levels and the epic Psudonatural template. His existance was only hinted at. If I actually needed him I would prolly put in a request to Blackdridge.

 

[S'mon]

The highest tier of NPCs was about 15th in that world and there were a few in each large country. I actually made a list of all NPCs that were at least 18th and possibly up to Epic.
There were 5, and one was a dwarven Expert.

This is pretty similar to my campaign - the great powers of the world tend to be around 15th level or so (NPCs Overking Tarkane the Usurper Ftr-16th, Empress Zalindra Inv-14th, High King Marowa BBn-16th, PCs High King Sigurd 18th, the Archmage Elaith Wiz-17th), there's maybe half a dozen 20th level NPCs on the planet, while the number of mortal Epic NPCs is in the low single figures, maybe just one right now (the Mongali Great Khan Kadai, FTR-21). There are around 20 9th level+ Clerics on the planet, ie about 1 per country.

 

[saethone]

i like to keep NPCs lower level...

The PCs are the heros, who will be traveling to other dimensional planes (how many npcs do you know that have wandered around the negative energy plane looking for something they need to stop a demon from unleashing hell on earth?)