nobody uses the word level in character when talking about someone else or themselves.
Maybe it's just me, but I've never heard levels (character or spell) discussed in-game at all. If it's even acknowledged, pretty much any meta, level-up progression at my tables tends to be along the lines of, "Hey, look what I figured out/can do!" or "Holy crap, did you see how cool that was?" We usually don't even refer to spells by name, though exceptions are made if it's a Forgotten Realms campaign and the spell is named after someone.
On a related note about odd rules: my DM does not allow us to prepare the generic versions of spells. If you have Private Sanctum on your character sheet, he'll tell you to swap it with Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum. He owns all content and shares it with his players, so it's not an imposition. He just really likes having those lore references in his games.
Plus, in a world where such clean power delineations actually do exist, why wouldn't people talk of them? Certainly spell casters have measurable levels. People do not talk that way most of the time in real life because reality is mostly skill based, not level based, but even there, there are disciplines where there are rankings the equivalent of levels.
We do talk about them -- using the mastery thing -- in-game, all the time. I have simple crafting rules, and those impact quality of goods (price and durability), when doing a "tell me about that guy" kind of ability the PC gets info that includes the Mastery (but not the exact level), and even the CR system ties into the stuff:
"Hey, I heard Bob and his crew went out to tackle the Owlbears up around the western woods."
"What are they, nuts? They're what, yeoman? They don't even have an Adept among them! Should we tell Captain Mufasa?"
"I dunno, they went by ol' Fergus' Shop and stocked up."
"Oh, well, that's some good work. A grandmaster like him is sue to have good stuff. That will help. Still..."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
My brain is suddenly trying to spin out a homebrew world where casters are ranked like chess masters... which means they would need to battle each other constantly to maintain/improve their rating
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
My brain is suddenly trying to spin out a homebrew world where casters are ranked like chess masters... which means they would need to battle each other constantly to maintain/improve their rating
nobody uses the word level in character when talking about someone else or themselves.
Maybe it's just me, but I've never heard levels (character or spell) discussed in-game at all. If it's even acknowledged, pretty much any meta, level-up progression at my tables tends to be along the lines of, "Hey, look what I figured out/can do!" or "Holy crap, did you see how cool that was?" We usually don't even refer to spells by name, though exceptions are made if it's a Forgotten Realms campaign and the spell is named after someone.
On a related note about odd rules: my DM does not allow us to prepare the generic versions of spells. If you have Private Sanctum on your character sheet, he'll tell you to swap it with Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum. He owns all content and shares it with his players, so it's not an imposition. He just really likes having those lore references in his games.
Plus, in a world where such clean power delineations actually do exist, why wouldn't people talk of them? Certainly spell casters have measurable levels. People do not talk that way most of the time in real life because reality is mostly skill based, not level based, but even there, there are disciplines where there are rankings the equivalent of levels.
I think the way my tables play is that there really aren't clear power delineations. You just have some casters who are more experienced, skilled, talented, equipped, or versatile than others. Less categorical demarcations of power, more of a qualitative power continuum. Again, this is just how my tables handle it. Other tables might very well have clear-cut ranks and levels; I simply haven't experienced that kind of worldbuilding, personally.
Plus, in a world where such clean power delineations actually do exist, why wouldn't people talk of them? Certainly spell casters have measurable levels. People do not talk that way most of the time in real life because reality is mostly skill based, not level based, but even there, there are disciplines where there are rankings the equivalent of levels.
Unions most assuredly have "levels" as do many skilled trades IRL. Apprentice, Journeyman, Master.
They will not hesitate to remind you and stop you from doing work above or below your level.
Plus, in a world where such clean power delineations actually do exist, why wouldn't people talk of them? Certainly spell casters have measurable levels. People do not talk that way most of the time in real life because reality is mostly skill based, not level based, but even there, there are disciplines where there are rankings the equivalent of levels.
I think the way my tables play is that there really aren't clear power delineations. You just have some casters who are more experienced, skilled, talented, equipped, or versatile than others. Less categorical demarcations of power, more of a qualitative power continuum. Again, this is just how my tables handle it. Other tables might very well have clear-cut ranks and levels; I simply haven't experienced that kind of worldbuilding, personally.
I think most people who think about it at all treat it as an artificial abstraction for game purposes, which is valid.
So is "embrace the weird, and treat it as a real thing".
"Accept that it's a real thing, but try not to think about it too much" may be a cowardly choice, but it takes a lot less worldbuilding. :)
If that's the opinion of the group, why bother to ever level? Just create level 10 characters and enjoy "the best D&D"! That would also count as a "strange DM rule".
There is plenty of space & time to level between level 5-10. I'm currently DMing a game that started at 3rd level and now 6 months later they just reached level 8, while narratively they have progressed from clearing out some ice mephits from the basement of a warehouse to having just fought off a small platoon of soldiers that tried to confiscate one of their family farms.
nobody uses the word level in character when talking about someone else or themselves. They use on of the terms for Mastery. There are five degrees of Mastery: Novice (1-4), Yeoman / Doyen (4-8), Adept (9-12), Master (13-16), and Grand Master (17-20). This applies across the board, so is applicable to anything that is a “job”.
When going up in a degree of Mastery (say, 4th to 5th level), you have to go through a ritual under the eye of a teacher, sometimes the one who taught you, who is of a higher degree of Mastery than you. For this ritual, you need a set of six carved polyhedral items, usually ivory or jade, that vanish after you complete the Grand Master ritual. This is usually role played out as part of a downtime “montage” — and you can’t move up in levels until you do it.
That sounds complicated. It's true that levels aren't mentioned in game though...but characters might know general power level (there is no way he can cast fireball)...without the #s.
No Halfling Divination Wizard. You could be a Halfling. You could be a Divination Wizard. You just couldn’t be a Halfling Divination Wizard.
Great Weapon Master feat not allowed. Sharpshooter was allowed.
Wow. That reminds me, and this happened with 2 DMs: It was ok to use custom stats (from Tasha's) to change the WIS bonus on a race to INT or CHA (i.e. for a Loxodon)...but they had to approve each time though because they didn't believe in something like...a very smart orc wizard. They were holding on to the racial stereotypes from 2E....something D&D is trying to get away from.
Oh, I've seen that with feats. Like...pole arm master is not allowed but everything else is.
Ummm..yeah...each species having specific natural advantages is exactly how the PHB is laid out, Tasha's is explicitly said to be OPTIONAL rules. Many tables I play at and ALL that I DM ignore all things Tasha. I am betting you also find it to be a strange table rule when a DM only allows some subset of the species in the game. And banning many of the OP feats (once again, having feats allowed at all is another rule that is explicitly OPTIONAL) is simply something many an experienced DM does to maintain balance at a table.
It's all about consistency, explanation and if it''s homebrew. They aren't just saying no to optional rules, they are saying yes but not consistently.
If the feat being banned is just as powerful and/or really similar to feats that are not being banned, I think it's weird. I've seen classes banned without explanation and these aren't even heavy homebrews.
As far as subsets of species, if it's a homebrew and there are no drow or deep gnomes on your world, sure. There are no orcs in Dragonlance...so no half orcs and that is consistent.
I had a DM tell me no critical role subclasses as a rule and then another player was allowed a critical role subclass (with no explanation). Not consistent. Maybe the DM only allows sorc CR and not wizard CR (weird but ok), but at least let me know why. I was already set with my character by then (and didn't want to mess the other player up in case it was an error on the DM's part) so didn't mention it.
It's all about consistency, explanation and if it''s homebrew. They aren't just saying no to optional rules, they are saying yes but not consistently.
If the feat being banned is just as powerful and/or really similar to feats that are not being banned, I think it's weird. I've seen classes banned without explanation and these aren't even heavy homebrews.
As far as subsets of species, if it's a homebrew and there are no drow or deep gnomes on your world, sure. There are no orcs in Dragonlance...so no half orcs and that is consistent.
I had a DM tell me no critical role subclasses as a rule and then another player was allowed a critical role subclass (with no explanation). Not consistent. Maybe the DM only allows sorc CR and not wizard CR (weird but ok), but at least let me know why. I was already set with my character by then (and didn't want to mess the other player up in case it was an error on the DM's part) so didn't mention it.
What I'm seeing is less about consistency and more about unclear communication. Because if they said, "Critical Role content and optional rules content is case-by-case," would you still have the same reaction?
In general, I don't think a DM owes a player reasons why they allow or disallow anything. A DM shouldn't have to justify their worldbuilding or preferences. However, I think it's helpful to give insight to players, especially if their character concepts seem to be at odds with what the DM is imagining for their campaign. And of course, it all goes back to clear communication.
A DM doesn't have to justify the why something is.
it can help, sometimes (like when you are doing something highly customized, or limiting races or classes) and a perfectly good answer is "those things don't exist here", but I do think that consistency is important and clear communication is key.
That's why I always say to write down your homebrew. Players don't have a magical ability to read minds, so writing it all out not only helps to set expectations on their part, it also helps to keep everyone honest and reduce conflict.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
i am of the opinion that if a player can not do it then NPC's can not do it either. That way if I do not allow lets just say a Monk class for the players they can expect to never run into one either.
The same with normal magic items.
Now if you build a world with specific classes or species in specific areas then that is part of the world.
We had a world once that on the continent you started on you were limited in many areas and lots of specific magic items could never be found. But if you went to other continents in the world what you left behind would be rare or impossible to find but you would run into whole new magic items. You would not find a magic broom in a desert area but you would find a magic carpet instead. Spells and material components were also regional. Specific feats might only be available in specific cities and only if your accepted to the school.
I think that limiting things in the game is what makes a long term campaign more enjoyable. The more you travel the more you find and learn.
It's all about consistency, explanation and if it''s homebrew. They aren't just saying no to optional rules, they are saying yes but not consistently.
If the feat being banned is just as powerful and/or really similar to feats that are not being banned, I think it's weird. I've seen classes banned without explanation and these aren't even heavy homebrews.
As far as subsets of species, if it's a homebrew and there are no drow or deep gnomes on your world, sure. There are no orcs in Dragonlance...so no half orcs and that is consistent.
I had a DM tell me no critical role subclasses as a rule and then another player was allowed a critical role subclass (with no explanation). Not consistent. Maybe the DM only allows sorc CR and not wizard CR (weird but ok), but at least let me know why. I was already set with my character by then (and didn't want to mess the other player up in case it was an error on the DM's part) so didn't mention it.
What I'm seeing is less about consistency and more about unclear communication. Because if they said, "Critical Role content and optional rules content is case-by-case," would you still have the same reaction?
In general, I don't think a DM owes a player reasons why they allow or disallow anything. A DM shouldn't have to justify their worldbuilding or preferences. However, I think it's helpful to give insight to players, especially if their character concepts seem to be at odds with what the DM is imagining for their campaign. And of course, it all goes back to clear communication.
Much of it is communication but some of it is just arbitrary. Depends on the DM. If I was told case by case basis (which could be code for I decide on the spot and am not consistent), I would ask about multiple cases and then decide whether to join the one shot or campaign. Good DMs can describe their homebrew world, so you know what to expect. If the rules are not consistent and the DM is not explaining why, that would be a red flag to me (and I would join a different campaign instead). I'm the OP, and when I created this thread, I definitely was thinking that inconsistent is weird. :)
i am of the opinion that if a player can not do it then NPC's can not do it either. That way if I do not allow lets just say a Monk class for the players they can expect to never run into one either.
The same with normal magic items.
Now if you build a world with specific classes or species in specific areas then that is part of the world.
We had a world once that on the continent you started on you were limited in many areas and lots of specific magic items could never be found. But if you went to other continents in the world what you left behind would be rare or impossible to find but you would run into whole new magic items. You would not find a magic broom in a desert area but you would find a magic carpet instead. Spells and material components were also regional. Specific feats might only be available in specific cities and only if your accepted to the school.
I think that limiting things in the game is what makes a long term campaign more enjoyable. The more you travel the more you find and learn.
Sure, as long as it is consistent. Different continents have different X, is consistent. Bottom line is the game has to be fun for the players.
Much of it is communication but some of it is just arbitrary. Depends on the DM. If I was told case by case basis (which could be code for I decide on the spot and am not consistent), I would ask about multiple cases and then decide whether to join the one shot or campaign. Good DMs can describe their homebrew world, so you know what to expect. If the rules are not consistent and the DM is not explaining why, that would be a red flag to me (and I would join a different campaign instead). I'm the OP, and when I created this thread, I definitely was thinking that inconsistent is weird. :)
I'm a big fan of matching playstyles before the campaign starts, and character creation can be a fantastic stage for determining fit. When I get min/maxed concepts with Tasha's feats, or people asking about homebrew, or six paragraphs of backstory, that paints a pretty decent sketch of the sort of game they're looking for. Further conversation may or may not be needed to solidify whether my table is going to suit their style.
I feel like a lot of games, especially online games, would have longer staying power and better satisfaction if players and DMs were, 1) more selective with each other, and 2) more aware of their red flags, or what Tom Haverford in Parks and Rec called his "Oh no-nos." I also think some red flags are universal, but others are very personal. To me, inconsistency might be a red flag if I ask why my build was rejected and I get no feedback at all. But if it was down to, "I don't like X, but Y is fine," that'd be good enough for me. Conversely, a huge red flag for me is when a DM is Rule of Cool. It's a valid, fun playstyle that just really doesn't mesh well with mine. I like when rules are predictable and fair and I have to be creative or clever within those boundaries. I don't really get that experience when I play at Rule of Cool tables, so I prefer to stick with my fuddy-duddy RAW/RAI folks. In the end, though, if a DM or potential player can't communicate their ideas well, that derails everything. This entire game is predicated on articulating ideas in your head so that other people can understand them and react to them. If someone can't do that, it's usually not going to be a good time...
Much of it is communication but some of it is just arbitrary. Depends on the DM. If I was told case by case basis (which could be code for I decide on the spot and am not consistent), I would ask about multiple cases and then decide whether to join the one shot or campaign. Good DMs can describe their homebrew world, so you know what to expect. If the rules are not consistent and the DM is not explaining why, that would be a red flag to me (and I would join a different campaign instead). I'm the OP, and when I created this thread, I definitely was thinking that inconsistent is weird. :)
I'm a big fan of matching playstyles before the campaign starts, and character creation can be a fantastic stage for determining fit. When I get min/maxed concepts with Tasha's feats, or people asking about homebrew, or six paragraphs of backstory, that paints a pretty decent sketch of the sort of game they're looking for. Further conversation may or may not be needed to solidify whether my table is going to suit their style.
I feel like a lot of games, especially online games, would have longer staying power and better satisfaction if players and DMs were, 1) more selective with each other, and 2) more aware of their red flags, or what Tom Haverford in Parks and Rec called his "Oh no-nos." I also think some red flags are universal, but others are very personal. To me, inconsistency might be a red flag if I ask why my build was rejected and I get no feedback at all. But if it was down to, "I don't like X, but Y is fine," that'd be good enough for me. Conversely, a huge red flag for me is when a DM is Rule of Cool. It's a valid, fun playstyle that just really doesn't mesh well with mine. I like when rules are predictable and fair and I have to be creative or clever within those boundaries. I don't really get that experience when I play at Rule of Cool tables, so I prefer to stick with my fuddy-duddy RAW/RAI folks. In the end, though, if a DM or potential player can't communicate their ideas well, that derails everything. This entire game is predicated on articulating ideas in your head so that other people can understand them and react to them. If someone can't do that, it's usually not going to be a good time...
I absolutely agree. There are so many ways to find DMs nowadays (DNDB, Roll20, Start playing games, Discord, meetup, etc.) that you can pick DMs that are a better fit for you. And huge green flags for me are a DM that REALLY wants you to have fun, can communicate clearly, and works with you. I've decided not to join several games and also joined games when I already was quite busy...based on the DMs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E and OSR geek.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We do talk about them -- using the mastery thing -- in-game, all the time. I have simple crafting rules, and those impact quality of goods (price and durability), when doing a "tell me about that guy" kind of ability the PC gets info that includes the Mastery (but not the exact level), and even the CR system ties into the stuff:
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
My brain is suddenly trying to spin out a homebrew world where casters are ranked like chess masters... which means they would need to battle each other constantly to maintain/improve their rating
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
...using PCs as the pieces.
I think the way my tables play is that there really aren't clear power delineations. You just have some casters who are more experienced, skilled, talented, equipped, or versatile than others. Less categorical demarcations of power, more of a qualitative power continuum. Again, this is just how my tables handle it. Other tables might very well have clear-cut ranks and levels; I simply haven't experienced that kind of worldbuilding, personally.
Unions most assuredly have "levels" as do many skilled trades IRL. Apprentice, Journeyman, Master.
They will not hesitate to remind you and stop you from doing work above or below your level.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I think most people who think about it at all treat it as an artificial abstraction for game purposes, which is valid.
So is "embrace the weird, and treat it as a real thing".
"Accept that it's a real thing, but try not to think about it too much" may be a cowardly choice, but it takes a lot less worldbuilding. :)
There is plenty of space & time to level between level 5-10. I'm currently DMing a game that started at 3rd level and now 6 months later they just reached level 8, while narratively they have progressed from clearing out some ice mephits from the basement of a warehouse to having just fought off a small platoon of soldiers that tried to confiscate one of their family farms.
That sounds complicated. It's true that levels aren't mentioned in game though...but characters might know general power level (there is no way he can cast fireball)...without the #s.
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E and OSR geek.
It's all about consistency, explanation and if it''s homebrew. They aren't just saying no to optional rules, they are saying yes but not consistently.
If the feat being banned is just as powerful and/or really similar to feats that are not being banned, I think it's weird. I've seen classes banned without explanation and these aren't even heavy homebrews.
As far as subsets of species, if it's a homebrew and there are no drow or deep gnomes on your world, sure. There are no orcs in Dragonlance...so no half orcs and that is consistent.
I had a DM tell me no critical role subclasses as a rule and then another player was allowed a critical role subclass (with no explanation). Not consistent. Maybe the DM only allows sorc CR and not wizard CR (weird but ok), but at least let me know why. I was already set with my character by then (and didn't want to mess the other player up in case it was an error on the DM's part) so didn't mention it.
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E and OSR geek.
What I'm seeing is less about consistency and more about unclear communication. Because if they said, "Critical Role content and optional rules content is case-by-case," would you still have the same reaction?
In general, I don't think a DM owes a player reasons why they allow or disallow anything. A DM shouldn't have to justify their worldbuilding or preferences. However, I think it's helpful to give insight to players, especially if their character concepts seem to be at odds with what the DM is imagining for their campaign. And of course, it all goes back to clear communication.
A DM doesn't have to justify the why something is.
it can help, sometimes (like when you are doing something highly customized, or limiting races or classes) and a perfectly good answer is "those things don't exist here", but I do think that consistency is important and clear communication is key.
That's why I always say to write down your homebrew. Players don't have a magical ability to read minds, so writing it all out not only helps to set expectations on their part, it also helps to keep everyone honest and reduce conflict.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
i am of the opinion that if a player can not do it then NPC's can not do it either. That way if I do not allow lets just say a Monk class for the players they can expect to never run into one either.
The same with normal magic items.
Now if you build a world with specific classes or species in specific areas then that is part of the world.
We had a world once that on the continent you started on you were limited in many areas and lots of specific magic items could never be found. But if you went to other continents in the world what you left behind would be rare or impossible to find but you would run into whole new magic items.
You would not find a magic broom in a desert area but you would find a magic carpet instead. Spells and material components were also regional. Specific feats might only be available in specific cities and only if your accepted to the school.
I think that limiting things in the game is what makes a long term campaign more enjoyable. The more you travel the more you find and learn.
Much of it is communication but some of it is just arbitrary. Depends on the DM. If I was told case by case basis (which could be code for I decide on the spot and am not consistent), I would ask about multiple cases and then decide whether to join the one shot or campaign. Good DMs can describe their homebrew world, so you know what to expect. If the rules are not consistent and the DM is not explaining why, that would be a red flag to me (and I would join a different campaign instead). I'm the OP, and when I created this thread, I definitely was thinking that inconsistent is weird. :)
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E and OSR geek.
Sure, as long as it is consistent. Different continents have different X, is consistent. Bottom line is the game has to be fun for the players.
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E and OSR geek.
I'm a big fan of matching playstyles before the campaign starts, and character creation can be a fantastic stage for determining fit. When I get min/maxed concepts with Tasha's feats, or people asking about homebrew, or six paragraphs of backstory, that paints a pretty decent sketch of the sort of game they're looking for. Further conversation may or may not be needed to solidify whether my table is going to suit their style.
I feel like a lot of games, especially online games, would have longer staying power and better satisfaction if players and DMs were, 1) more selective with each other, and 2) more aware of their red flags, or what Tom Haverford in Parks and Rec called his "Oh no-nos." I also think some red flags are universal, but others are very personal. To me, inconsistency might be a red flag if I ask why my build was rejected and I get no feedback at all. But if it was down to, "I don't like X, but Y is fine," that'd be good enough for me. Conversely, a huge red flag for me is when a DM is Rule of Cool. It's a valid, fun playstyle that just really doesn't mesh well with mine. I like when rules are predictable and fair and I have to be creative or clever within those boundaries. I don't really get that experience when I play at Rule of Cool tables, so I prefer to stick with my fuddy-duddy RAW/RAI folks. In the end, though, if a DM or potential player can't communicate their ideas well, that derails everything. This entire game is predicated on articulating ideas in your head so that other people can understand them and react to them. If someone can't do that, it's usually not going to be a good time...
I absolutely agree. There are so many ways to find DMs nowadays (DNDB, Roll20, Start playing games, Discord, meetup, etc.) that you can pick DMs that are a better fit for you. And huge green flags for me are a DM that REALLY wants you to have fun, can communicate clearly, and works with you. I've decided not to join several games and also joined games when I already was quite busy...based on the DMs.
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E and OSR geek.