3E 'level titles'

[Matthias]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

These tables represent how much experience a character of a given level would be
considered to have, depending on where they travelled. These are quite similar
to the 1st Edition "level titles", but they are universal to all character
classes, and will vary according to the environment a character finds themselves
in.

Whereas an 8th character might be thought of as a "professional" fighter or
wizard in a minor city or a "master" of his craft in a village, the same
character would quickly blend in with all the other "professionals" and
"masters" in a busy metropolis and be treated by the natives there as merely a
"beginner", or even a lowly "amateur" in a city of the realms. It is all a
matter of perspective.

The levels for each title were assigned with epic-level campaigning in mind,
where the character level tops out at 60th; this maximum level is mostly
arbitrary. (The theory is that since 12th level is your first "sweet spot" level
with a character feat and an ability increase, the maximum mortal level should
top out at a multiple of 12. Five "phases" of 12 levels each is more than enough
to represent just about any mortal that hasn't yet achieved demigod status.) If
you prefer to maximize character level at 30th or 20th for your campaign, simply
reduce the level ranges for each title by one-half or one-third as appropriate
(rounded down).

Each city category has a maximum level and level-title associated with it. This
is the theroetical maximum level a native character could possibly reach in that
area without travelling to "the city" or a more cosmopolitan region.

There is no guarantee that any characters of the highest categories available
for any given area will be present. It is not uncommon for the highest-level
native character of a village to be only 4th or 5th level rather than 8th,
depending on how large the village is or how rural it is.

These tables do not deal with how natives of a given area would regard a
character who visited them who were far beyond their own local "heroes" in skill
and experience. The ultra-high-level character (relatively speaking) simply
doesn't fit into any native's frame of reference. Nevertheless, if the outsider
demonstrated his abilities to the natives there, he or she would definitely put
awe and fear into their hearts.

Hamlet (maximum 3rd)
1st-2nd professional
3rd expert (maximum)

Village (maximum 8th)
1st-2nd journeyman
3rd-4th professional
5th-7th expert
8th master

Minor City (maximum 15th)
1st-2nd apprentice
3rd-5th journeyman
6th-8th professional
9th-11th expert
12th-14th master
15th high master

Major City (maximum 24th)
1st-3rd beginner
4th-6th apprentice
7th-9th journeyman
10th-12th professional
13th-15th expert
16th-19th master
20th-23rd high master
24th grandmaster

Metropolis (maximum 35th)
1st-6th amateur
7th-9th beginner
10th-12th apprentice
13th-15th journeyman
16th-18th professional
19th-22nd expert
23rd-26th master
27th-30th high master
31st-34th grandmaster
35th great master

City of the Realms (maximum 48th)
1st-12th amateur
13th-15th beginner
16th-19th apprentice
20th-23rd journeyman
24th-27th professional
28th-31st expert
32nd-35th master
36th-39th high master
40th-43rd grandmaster
44th-47th great master
48th sage

City of the Planes (maximum 60th)
1st-24th amateur
25th-27th beginner
28th-30th apprentice
31st-33rd journeyman
34th-36th professional
37th-40th expert
41st-44th master
45th-48th high master
49th-52nd grandmaster
53rd-56th great master
57th-60th sage
61st demigod

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:

> This is silly. Why on earth would someone capable of making MW gear
> (assuming an assistant and MW tools) reliably be called a
> 'journeyman'. Also, why would living with a few hundred people demote
> you so? Especially considering that the vast majority of commoners,
> even in small communities, are 1st level.

Well, I don't see a problem with that. If a 1st level commoner or
expert is an apprentice (because you don't have levels below that) then
2-3 is fine for a journeyman.

Fact is almost anyone can reliably make masterwork items. It's just
that a master smith can always make them at his option and people are
aware of this.

I'd say 2-3 is a fine time to make a journeyman's piece and that you're
a master smith when you can reliably make a masterwork item with normal
tools and without an assistant.

Personal preferance.

Though i agree that this list is sort of ass ended and totally
meaningless. We already have this exact list in hte DMG and there's a
reason that it doesn't go past 20 levels. Epic levels are not just
slightly better characters. They're a whole other level of play. Think
of going epic as starting over in a whole different division. Not as
being slightly better at wizarding or fighting.

 

[Matthias]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:53:29 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote:

>If you prefer to maximize character level at 30th or 20th for your campaign, simply
>reduce the level ranges for each title by one-half or one-third as appropriate
>(rounded down).

Correction, that should be "two-thirds". My bad.

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Well, I think an 18th level Badgermancer, no matter where he lived,
would be a "Badgermaster"

etc

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:53:29 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Hamlet (maximum 3rd)
> 1st-2nd professional
> 3rd expert (maximum)
>
> Village (maximum 8th)
> 1st-2nd journeyman
> 3rd-4th professional
> 5th-7th expert
> 8th master

This is silly. Why on earth would someone capable of making MW gear
(assuming an assistant and MW tools) reliably be called a
'journeyman'. Also, why would living with a few hundred people demote
you so? Especially considering that the vast majority of commoners,
even in small communities, are 1st level.

[snip]

And it gets worse, I see.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:53:29 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com>
> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>
>>Hamlet (maximum 3rd)
>>1st-2nd professional
>>3rd expert (maximum)
>>
>>Village (maximum 8th)
>>1st-2nd journeyman
>>3rd-4th professional
>>5th-7th expert
>>8th master
>
>
> This is silly. Why on earth would someone capable of making MW gear
> (assuming an assistant and MW tools) reliably be called a
> 'journeyman'. Also, why would living with a few hundred people demote
> you so? Especially considering that the vast majority of commoners,
> even in small communities, are 1st level.
>
> [snip]
>
> And it gets worse, I see.
>
>

Simply because you can produce masterwork material doesn't make you a
master. Your guild must also give you the title, which was often a
problem in the middle ages. Many journeymen were capable of being
masters, but if you didn't have the right connections, you couldn't be a
master.

As for level titles, I'm glad they are gone.

CH

 

[Dan]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:31:30 -0500, Clawhound <none@nowhere.com>
gibbered into the void:

>Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:53:29 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com>
>> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>>
>>
>>>Hamlet (maximum 3rd)
>>>1st-2nd professional
>>>3rd expert (maximum)
>>>
>>>Village (maximum 8th)
>>>1st-2nd journeyman
>>>3rd-4th professional
>>>5th-7th expert
>>>8th master
>>
>>
>> This is silly. Why on earth would someone capable of making MW gear
>> (assuming an assistant and MW tools) reliably be called a
>> 'journeyman'. Also, why would living with a few hundred people demote
>> you so? Especially considering that the vast majority of commoners,
>> even in small communities, are 1st level.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> And it gets worse, I see.
>>
>>
>
>Simply because you can produce masterwork material doesn't make you a
>master. Your guild must also give you the title, which was often a
>problem in the middle ages. Many journeymen were capable of being
>masters, but if you didn't have the right connections, you couldn't be a
>master.
>
>As for level titles, I'm glad they are gone.
>
>CH


Perhaps but it's way wacked in the City of the Planes. A 24th level
AMATEUR?

If we're really talking about guild connections here, it makes sense.
But calling an epic-level anything an "amateur" is silly - they could
have been plane-hopping quite successfully and consistently well
before then.

Perhaps if they're joining some uber-Epic guild, sure, but then
1st-20th level characters wouldn't even be on the radar, and would be
equally well-ranked for their own guilds. Even in the Planes.

Perhaps Epic-Amateur, etc.? Still sounds silly, but less so than
amateur.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Dan wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:31:30 -0500, Clawhound <none@nowhere.com>
> gibbered into the void:
>
>
>>Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:53:29 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com>
>>>carved upon a tablet of ether:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hamlet (maximum 3rd)
>>>>1st-2nd professional
>>>>3rd expert (maximum)
>>>>
>>>>Village (maximum 8th)
>>>>1st-2nd journeyman
>>>>3rd-4th professional
>>>>5th-7th expert
>>>>8th master
>>>
>>>
>>>This is silly. Why on earth would someone capable of making MW gear
>>>(assuming an assistant and MW tools) reliably be called a
>>>'journeyman'. Also, why would living with a few hundred people demote
>>>you so? Especially considering that the vast majority of commoners,
>>>even in small communities, are 1st level.
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>And it gets worse, I see.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Simply because you can produce masterwork material doesn't make you a
>>master. Your guild must also give you the title, which was often a
>>problem in the middle ages. Many journeymen were capable of being
>>masters, but if you didn't have the right connections, you couldn't be a
>>master.
>>
>>As for level titles, I'm glad they are gone.
>>
>>CH
>
>
>
> Perhaps but it's way wacked in the City of the Planes. A 24th level
> AMATEUR?
>
> If we're really talking about guild connections here, it makes sense.
> But calling an epic-level anything an "amateur" is silly - they could
> have been plane-hopping quite successfully and consistently well
> before then.
>
> Perhaps if they're joining some uber-Epic guild, sure, but then
> 1st-20th level characters wouldn't even be on the radar, and would be
> equally well-ranked for their own guilds. Even in the Planes.
>
> Perhaps Epic-Amateur, etc.? Still sounds silly, but less so than
> amateur.

Technically, all Olympic athelets are amateurs. A professional is one
who makes a living from a skill. An amaateur is everyone else. By that
definition, a fighter with 20 ranks as a smith is an amateur. Thus, you
have people saying, "You could become a professional if you wanted to."
Amateurs can and do have the skills of professionals.

That much said, yeah, a 20th level amateur is silly.

CH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Clawhound hastily scrawled:
>
>Technically, all Olympic athelets are amateurs.

Not true for quite some time now.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:

> Mere moments before death, Clawhound hastily scrawled:
>
>>Technically, all Olympic athelets are amateurs.
>
>
> Not true for quite some time now.
>
>
>
> Ed Chauvin IV
>

Doh! My head gets stuck in the 70's sometimes.

CH

 

[Matthias]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:11:29 -0500, Clawhound <none@nowhere.com> wrote:

>That much said, yeah, a 20th level amateur is silly.

How else would 40th-50th level characters rate a 20th? Meh.

If the scale bothers you, substitute 13th-17th characters rating a 7th.

But talking about "high level amateurs being silly" misses the whole point of
relative skill, guys.

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Clawhound wrote:
> Simply because you can produce masterwork material doesn't make you a
> master ....

On the contrary, that's precisely why it's called "masterwork." If
anything, D&D makes it seem harder than it really was historically,
because it uses the modern meaning of "masterwork," which has inflated
over the ages to mean an item of high quality, rather than an item
merely good enough to sell.

> Your guild must also give you the title, which was often a problem in
> the middle ages.

Cite! This one's new to me.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:53:29 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com>
> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> Hamlet (maximum 3rd)
>> 1st-2nd professional
>> 3rd expert (maximum)
>>
>> Village (maximum 8th)
>> 1st-2nd journeyman
>> 3rd-4th professional
>> 5th-7th expert
>> 8th master

> This is silly.

No kidding. Matthias clearly has no idea what those words mean.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

> Clawhound wrote:
>
>>Simply because you can produce masterwork material doesn't make you a
>>master ....
>
>
> On the contrary, that's precisely why it's called "masterwork." If
> anything, D&D makes it seem harder than it really was historically,
> because it uses the modern meaning of "masterwork," which has inflated
> over the ages to mean an item of high quality, rather than an item
> merely good enough to sell.
>
>
>>Your guild must also give you the title, which was often a problem in
>>the middle ages.
>
>
> Cite! This one's new to me.

Fair request.

Scratching my head, I think that's from an American history class
sometime. It was a reason for craftsmen, unable to advance in rank in
rank at home, to come to the Americas.

I can't cite, so I won't fight. My teacher or my book could easily have
been wrong.

CH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ag4i41d0d3mq1hlimopn1hknjdku1cko6e@4ax.com...
> These tables represent how much experience a character of a given level
would be
> considered to have, depending on where they travelled. These are quite
similar
> to the 1st Edition "level titles"

Please *stop* making these stupid suggestions.

 

[Matthias]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:49:20 +0100, "Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote:

>
>"Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:ag4i41d0d3mq1hlimopn1hknjdku1cko6e@4ax.com...
>> These tables represent how much experience a character of a given level
>would be
>> considered to have, depending on where they travelled. These are quite
>similar
>> to the 1st Edition "level titles"
>
>Please *stop* making these stupid suggestions.

There are so many other uninteresting posts on this newsgroup, it wouldn't make
a difference either way.

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:31:30 -0500, Clawhound <none@nowhere.com>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Simply because you can produce masterwork material doesn't make you a
> master. Your guild must also give you the title, which was often a
> problem in the middle ages. Many journeymen were capable of being
> masters, but if you didn't have the right connections, you couldn't be a
> master.

That has utterly nothing to do with your level once you reach that
standard, though. It's about who your father is, and so on.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 02:33:29 GMT, "Bradd W. Szonye"
<bradd+news@szonye.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> > Your guild must also give you the title, which was often a problem in
> > the middle ages.
>
> Cite! This one's new to me.

I've no sources handy, but in many cities guilds limited their numbers
to keep prices up. However, so far as I'm aware they mainly did so by
requiring a license to open a business, not by limiting the number of
'masters'.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> I've no sources handy, but in many cities guilds limited their numbers
> to keep prices up. However, so far as I'm aware they mainly did so by
> requiring a license to open a business, not by limiting the number of
> 'masters'.

That makes more sense. Guilds made money from apprenticeship dues, so it
seems odd that they'd make apprenticeship pointless -- it'd be like
colleges holding out on degrees.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:35:41 -0500, Clawhound <none@nowhere.com>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Scratching my head, I think that's from an American history class
> sometime. It was a reason for craftsmen, unable to advance in rank in
> rank at home, to come to the Americas.

That's way post-medieval, though. Another reason they'd go to the
America's, IIRC, was to skip out of the indenture that went with the
apprenticeship.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:
> Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>> I've no sources handy, but in many cities guilds limited their numbers
>> to keep prices up. However, so far as I'm aware they mainly did so by
>> requiring a license to open a business, not by limiting the number of
>> 'masters'.
>
> That makes more sense. Guilds made money from apprenticeship dues, so
> it seems odd that they'd make apprenticeship pointless -- it'd be like
> colleges holding out on degrees.

They may have limited the number of apprentices for other reasons. If
modern trades are any indication, you need a certain amount of expertise
available to train the apprentice.

IIRC in cabinetry (in Canada) you need three journeymen working for each
apprentice. ISTR something about my dad's shop only being allowed to
sponsor one apprentice at a time.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uvtj41llke7mjq85prokd0s4uenj7r4gpb@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:11:29 -0500, Clawhound <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>That much said, yeah, a 20th level amateur is silly.
>
> How else would 40th-50th level characters rate a 20th? Meh.
>
> If the scale bothers you, substitute 13th-17th characters rating a 7th.
>
> But talking about "high level amateurs being silly" misses the whole point
> of
> relative skill, guys.

<shakes head in puzzlement>

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley