This has been bugging me for a while, but now that I'm getting a game world ready for play it's really weighing on my brain.
How the hell do you discuss Character/Class/Caster Level, in-character??
"Hi, I'm Bob the 3rd Level Barbarian!" Kinda breaks my sense of belief.
Casters are some what easier to "translate"
"Hi, I'm Tim, Sorcerer of the 3rd Circle!"
...or 3rd Degree Wizard, or 3rd Tier Oracle, or 3rd Grove Druid, etc.
BUT, does that really work for "Bob the Barbarian of the 3rd Circle"... Or Pat the 3rd Degree Thief, or Sam the 3rd Tier Fighter, etc. ??
generally if anything, talk about years of training, with a monk could use belt.
generally thief/barbarian gets translated, too. Fighter is alright usually.
generally if anything, talk about years of training, with a monk could use belt.
generally thief/barbarian gets translated, too. Fighter is alright usually.
How does your group handle this? "Years of training" talk, or something else?
|
I believe it's somewhat possible to talk about "circles" of spells. CLW is a spell of the first circle; any spellcasting cleric can cast it. Clerics that can cast spells of the third circle like Remove Disease can also cast Dispel Magic (also third circle).
Clerics and druids, which get all spells from their list based on level, are easiest to classify. Now this only tells you someone's minimum level (maybe he can also cast fourth-circle spells...), but that's at least something.
Certain class features are also distinctive; a bard mastering Dirge of Doom is someone to watch out for, for example. Likewise a druid that attains an elemental shape. Note that this isn't foolproof; Shaman archetype druids get their wild-shape at different levels.
Other classes are difficult: distinguishing a 4d6 SA rogue from a 5d6 SA rogue isn't practical. Not every class is easy to peg at a certain level.
But the general method: note which class features have been demonstrated.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you talk about character level in character?
|
1st edition used to have a tier system for this, maybe reincorporate that?!?
We generally don't use class level in our descriptions, or classes always. If you're a wizard, then it fits to be 'wizards apprentice' or graduate of the acadamae etc. Barbarians, ranger, rogue etc... Maybe use something that is appropriate for the individual - the rogue could be a scout?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I've ever actually had the issue come up. If hard pressed though, I'd probably go with benchmarks:
"A servant of Sarenrae so powerful she can restore the dead to life."
"A wizard so powerful that with a mere gesture she can reduce her enemies to dust."
"A warrior so mighty she once felled a troll in a single swing."
"A champion of Iomedae who has been blessed with a heavenly stallion to carry her into battle."
It's trickier to pin down a rogue than most other classes this way, but if you're super great at sneaking around, people shouldn't be able to accurately assess you anyway.
"Hi I'm Bob the Barbarian".
That's it. You don't need to know what his level is. Hell, you don't even need to know what his class is IC. He probably introduces himself as "Bob the Adventurer" or "Bob the Wanderer" or just "Bob".
It works for spellcasters because spell levels, as far as I know, are extant in-universe. Not the same universe per se, but I know the Drizzt novels had references to spells being prepared and I BELIEVE outright references to spells being of X level of difficulty to cast and such-like, so the precedent is kind of there.
In general I have a tendency to play "procurers of ancient antiquities" some less ancient than others...
Rarely does a persons "Class" come into discussion, I can't remember ever mentioning a level.
I suppose you could discuss the relative ability of a given character while in character in several ways.
1) Discuss the feats you've accomplished. "Yeah, my friends and I fought that dragon that lived in the hills. Yup, the one that's been there for three hundred years. Took him down no problem." You can then use the relative difficulty of a given foe as your gauge.
2) You could go the 1E route and use titles for various ranks.
3) Certain class abilities are hallmarks of a class. Mention those. "Why yes, I can kill a person with a touch," said the monk.
|
|
We tend to play in the low- to mid-level spectrum (1-9ish); we based the estimation of how powerful someone is off the cleric spell list.
Commune, Atonement, Hallow: these spells are needed by the head of a church. The "pope" of any religion should be level 9+.
Remove Curse, Disease: this marks someone as competent to head the regional part of a church; bishop level is therefore 5+.
We used those as benchmarks to identify the meaning of level in-game.
I'd say this depends entirely on the setting you're playing in. In your usual Golarion, this is gonna be an issue for anyone not a spellcaster. Any spellcasters, it's easy - "I can use spells of the fifth circle" and you know you've got at least a ninth level wizard on your hands. Martial characters, though...things be weird. Some of the folks above had the right idea with talking about the deeds you've performed, or bragging about the feats of strength you can achieve. Or there's the title system, like somebody else said. Super easy, if for some reason you feel the need to quantify everyone in the game.
On the other hand, I've played in plenty of settings where characters were a little more aware of what was going on in the world around them, and would refer to the tier of power or understanding their soul had reached or what-have-you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course characters talk about it in character. Any measure of a person is the same thing. You may not use the numbers or class names, but somewhere you have a way to articulate the difference between the fighting ability of Rocky and Pee Wee Herman. Or the abilities of Merlin vs. Harry Potter in year one.
In a world where conflict (not war) is so much more common than our own, I can assure you that the ability to understand the "power" of your opponent would be paramount.
It is likely to be a scale of comparisons rather than numbers. For instance, "Timmy is a much better fighter than Rocky." Or, "Everyone knows ole man Timmy can take a dragon with just two spells."
In a more RP central group, a class and number will never get mentioned. Those that RP less won't mind converting it to game mechanics to speed along the understanding of the information.
Each gaming group will have to decide what level of immersion works for them. The mechanics of the game are the physics of the world. Some mechanics will have to come through to the table for full understanding. That should not be seen as poor roleplaying.
Trying to directly talk about a level (by number) always ends up sounding terrible. In WoW all the RPers use "seasons" and it's like, ok, I made a new character and leveled up to 10 today, so I guess two and a half years went by? What?
I would talk about relative strength, or what spells you can cast (for spellcasters).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll agree with Googleshng above; fantasy characters would likely describe one another in terms of relative deeds. They get their news from bards, after all, and we all know how bards can be trusted with the truth.
In my recent Five Kings Mountains campaign, the players heard of the orc invaders in terms of "orc troops", "orc-of-the-line", "orc champions", "orc commanders" and "orc warlords". As for what exact level those orcs were, I left to their imaginations.
Letting players' imaginations run wild using ambiguity is part of the fun (and if I do say so) a bit historically accurate in terms of how people back then viewed the world around them. Is that orc over there (the one wearing decent chain mail and carrying a maul)just a CR 1/3? Or is he closer to our level? It teaches the players to observe their opponents carefully before going toe-to-toe.
You could could use the number of feats a fighter has learned:
Master of 6 arts: level 5 fighter.
Answer: You don't.
Why would you have to, anyway?
If some of you don't like talking about character levels, what do you say for damage in-combat? Or, for a more gray-area example, +X magic weapons?
If we talk about class/levels, it's usually out of character. Though I play PFS so role-playing in general is usually on/off.
|
We definitely don't talk about class levels in character. We often don't even use class names. (A "warrior," for instance, is anybody who primarily relies on arms and armor.)
what do you say for damage in-combat?
Damage in combat is so abstract anyway that it's nearly impossible to talk about in-character. As a GM, I've adopted the 4Eism "bloodied" as shorthand, but I have a never of stock phrases that indicate how bad off an opponent is. "Goes to one knee but pulls himself back up" is one that I use too much, for instance, but I generally have at least two or three for each "quarter of HP" or thereabouts.
Or, for a more gray-area example, +X magic weapons?
Well, PFRPG made that significantly easier by giving enhancement bonuses the ability to bypass DR. "This blade of my grandfather's is so heavily enchanted that it will open a werewolf's hide with ease." Given the existence of -- is it Mohs scale -- in the real world, and the increase to hardness granted by enhancement bonuses, I could see characters in the game world finding a way to discuss enhancement bonuses pretty precisely.
If we talk about class/levels, it's usually out of character.
Us, too, except "pretty much always." Even if we say, e.g., "sorcerer" in character, we don't necessarily mean the sorcerer class (depending on the level of knowledge of the speaker).
|
In character: I don't discuss level at all.
Class can get hazy. My wizard may well refer to himself as a wizard. My magus might also refer to himself as a wizard, he just has more martial training.
How my characters would refer to themselves is about self identity. Some classes have very strong ties to a specific profession, others, not so much.
If playing a paladin or samurai, I would almost certainly refer to myself as such. A fighter or a barbarian could identify themselves as a warrior.
Archetypes and specializations can strongly affect this sense of self identity. My earth wizard refers to himself as a geomancer. You can try to figure that out in-game.
Just introduced my fifth level PC, Mobile fighter 4 / freebooter ranger 1. He basically just said...
"Hi, I'm [name]. I'm pretty handy with these. "*gestures to weapons strapped to him*
This comes up for me most often for a PC asking OOC if he "knows" from his knowledge roll that the monster has a low enough HD to be affected by X spell, say color spray. Usually it is worded something like "Do I know if X monster is too powerful to affect by this spell" Obviously, knowing if Daze Monster will not work b/c it has to many HD is very abstract, but a Wizard with max ranks in KN(arcana) and Spellcraft should be able to express these game mechanics in character, and understand that the spell will work on the Yeti, but not on an adult red dragon.
Levels 1-5: Novice [Role]
Levels 6-10: No title
Levels 11-15: Elite [Role]
Levels 16-20: Master [Role]
Now, when I say "Role", I don't mean "Class". What they do is more important than how they do it. Sometimes, it corresponds to their class, but it's usually more specific. Like a an "Elite Archer" or "Elite War Mage". And, of course, the roles and "level" can change, but this is just a general idea of it.
That way you can give the players both the idea of what the enemy is capable of and how powerful they are.
|
|
I am Harrak, mighty sorcerer. I have felled dragons, delved ancient temples on Mechanus, and turned aside orcish invasions with the might of my arcane prowess. Mere journeymen of the arts such as yourselves would be best off not counting me as a foe.
"Huh huh huh. He said 'mech anus.' Anyway, I rage and kill the hobgoblins, 'cause my mom is calling me for supper."
The only time anything like this sort-of came up was when my players were infiltrating a temple of Hungry Ghost monks. They found early on that they needed to get 10 of these medallions in order to access a secret room, and that everyone there was carrying between 1-3 medallions.
It became clear that the number of medallions was a symbol of rank, though not exact level, so they were able to determine who would be too difficult to take out quietly. Players only need to know how powerful an enemy is insofar as it lets them strategize accordingly, since generally they expect that nothing they come across will be impossible to defeat/get around.
|
One way characters can almost see levels is via alignment detecting spells. However, this only gives a general idea, similar to Alba's ranks for level ranges. A 16th level cleric is going to be detected as an 'overwhelming force' while a 16th level fighter is merely 'moderate'. But neither of them are going to flinch when that daze cantrip hits them.
|
|
As a tangent, I have a house rule for Sense Motive that allows someone to judge the relative power of another creature:
Assess individual DC 20 or opposed by Bluff or Perform (acting)
Assess individual: You can tell whether an individual is more or less powerful than you are, along a scale of much less powerful, less powerful, in the same ballpark, more powerful, or much more powerful. You can make this assessment as to either personal power, situational power, or (with separate checks) both. You can also tell (with a separate Sense Motive check) what the individual's basic skill set is (e.g., warrior, arcanist, thief, brute, and so on) and even if and how it blurs those lines (e.g., both arcanist and warrior). Both of these determinations are at the discretion of the DM. In most cases, the DC will be 20. Sometimes an individual may be purposefully trying to project a facade -- whether of weakness or strength -- and in that case your Sense Motive roll is opposed by the subject's Bluff or Perform (acting) check. If you fail the check, you're unsure of the information. If you fail by 5 or more, the DM will give you false information.
Action: Trying to gain information with Sense Motive generally takes at least 1 minute, and you could spend a whole evening trying to get a sense of the people around you. If you accept a -10 penalty to your check, you can make any of these checks as a full-round action.
Title or rank does not mean actual ability level.
Depending on the player, some powerful ones can be humble, while others can be boastful.
It really depends on the player.
However if you are looking to incorporate potential power level in the your game.
You can always do some sort of skill roll that will simulate reading a person's power level (kind of like Dragonball Z or how the Jedi and Sith sense the potential force on each other)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you talk about what level you are in real life?
Typically, people look at "years of experience."
Unfortunately that doesn't work in the game, because (depending on the adventure and the GM) getting to 15th level might take 15 in-game years or it might take 15 in-game days.
i wouldn't say that i am "Rex the Chaotic Evil Rovagug worshipping Onispawn brawler 3 martial artist of many styles 4 with a 5 charisma"
i would say that "Rex Am Good Dog." or "Rex Am Tear Tiny Man!" or "Rex am Good wif' Rex Hands" in an excited voice trying my best to mimic something akin to a female bloodthirsty berserker.
i wouldn't say that i am "Umbriere Moonwhisper: the 20th level female fetchling bard with a 7 constitution and 7 strength."
i would say that i am "Lady Umbriere Moonwhisper, eccentric niece of the mad count Maximilian Moonwhisper, Highly Anemic Child Prodigy, Puppeteer, and Apprentice Arcanist."
i wouldn't say i am "Lumi the 18th level aasimaar favored soul with minmaxed physical attributes. and a +5 holy keen adamantine hand and a Half Sabre"
i would say that i am "Lumiere Dawnbringer, angel blooded bodyguard and Younger Sister to Umbriere Moonwhisper. prodigal master of the Saint Eclair and my older sisters personal knight of Zero. highest among the 13 knights of the sunset manor."