You are the Royal Wizard in charge of security. How do you prevent scry & die?

[Thistledown Thurbertaut]

Doesn't bother me.  I grew up playing Rifts. 

[JaronK]

Interestingly enough, I just looked up the rules for this (Kaelik sadly could not be bothered to do so and just worked off assumptions).  There is a special clause on page 181 of the PHB which states that "the word "level" in the spell lists that follow always refers to caster level."  This is a special rule which applies only to spell lists... outside of spell lists, "level" by itself is indeed always synonymous with "effective character level" which is easily demonstrable with a quick search through the books.  But this does mean that forbiddence's reference is indeed to caster level.

Kaelik, perhaps if you were less insulting and actually bothered to look up rules, this would have been easier.  There IS a general usage that "level" means character level, there's just also a specific rule for this situation that I (and evidently you, since you would have quoted it otherwise) was unaware of.  But since I bothered to look it up and check my work instead of working off base assumptions and imagination as you do, now we're both more informed.  You can thank me when you grow up.

JaronK

[Kaelik]

Interestingly enough, I just looked up the rules for this (Kaelik sadly could not be bothered to do so and just worked off assumptions).  There is a special clause on page 181 of the PHB which states that "the word "level" in the spell lists that follow always refers to caster level."  This is a special rule which applies only to spell lists... outside of spell lists, "level" by itself is indeed always synonymous with "effective character level" which is easily demonstrable with a quick search through the books.  But this does mean that forbiddence's reference is indeed to caster level.

Kaelik, perhaps if you were less insulting and actually bothered to look up rules, this would have been easier.  There IS a general usage that "level" means character level, there's just also a specific rule for this situation that I (and evidently you, since you would have quoted it otherwise) was unaware of.  But since I bothered to look it up and check my work instead of working off base assumptions and imagination as you do, now we're both more informed.  You can thank me when you grow up.

I don't suppose you have any rules quote to back up your continued generalized assertion that level means character level?

Of course not, because you just said to look at the examples, and just assume since all the examples make the most sense as one thing to you, that's automatically the default thing that is meant by the rules.

[Sinfire Titan]

I don't suppose you have any rules quote to back up your continued generalized assertion that level means character level?

PHB 181:

[JaronK]

I don't suppose you have any rules quote to back up your continued generalized assertion that level means character level?

Of course.  One of us actually uses rules quotes to back up his claims, remember?

Of course not, because you just said to look at the examples, and just assume since all the examples make the most sense as one thing to you, that's automatically the default thing that is meant by the rules.

My assertion was "There IS a general usage that "level" means character level."  In other words, that's how the word "level" by itself is used in all cases outside of spell lists.  I actually was compiling a list of examples for you when I came across the quote on page 181, and realized that there was a relevant special rule in this case.  But when I was putting together examples, it became clear that my claim is correct: you will never find "level" by itself meaning anything other than "effective character level" except in spell lists (technically by RAW, only the PHB spell list, but we'll let that one slide).

PHB 58 "Advancing a Level," "goes up a level," "2nd level," "3rd level," Going up a level" and "A character can advance only one level at a time" would all be examples, all from the "Experience and Levels" section.  Furthermore, on page 171 when have reference to "level loss" which of course does mean loss of a character level.  

The DMG continues this usage, for example on page 134 where it talks about "The Transition from Low to High Level."  At no point does it specify that it's talking about character levels here as it never says "character level" or "class level" or "spell level"... but that's obviously what it's talking about.  "Level" without a modifier clearly means "character level" in the DMG as well.

By comparison, the PHB page 171 "Caster Level" section at no point uses "level" by itself, except when it says "7th level cleric with the Good domain casts spells with the good descriptor as if he were 8th level." and "had been cast by an 8th-level spellcaster."  Both of these are referring to the character level of the character in question.  The rest of the time, it uses "caster level."

So yes, in the standard usage of the books, "level" does indeed mean "character level" unless otherwise modified (to spell level, caster level, or class level), with the exception of spell lists due to the special rule on page 181.  This usage holds across all books, and if you'd like to challenge this find a counter example (you won't).  You got the answer right this time only because you didn't know the general usage or the special rule that violated that usage... but hey, a stopped watch is right twice a day, right?  Don't push your luck.

If you want to continue your claim, instead of making stuff up and pretending things say what you want, go find example (outside of spell lists) of "level" by itself being used to mean caster level.  If your claims are correct, surely you can find one.  

JaronK

[SorO_Lost]

I for one think JaronK have been reading to many of my posts, he is starting to sound like me.

[BeholderSlayer]

I for one think JaronK have been reading to many of my posts, he is starting to sound like me.

Needs moar cursing.

[SorO_Lost]

I for one think JaronK have been reading to many of my posts, he is starting to sound like me.

Needs moar cursing.

I said starting to not is like.

Still got a ways to go yet.

A. Moar list style.
This is an example.

B. Moar Consistency.
The in game uses of "level" is his point that "level" means character level most of the time. A month ago he was arguing the exact opposite with spellcasting being explicitly excluded as a special ability doesn't mean anything.

C. Moar quotes highlighting the guy arguing against him self.
Like the above.

D. Moar threads devolving into a pissing contest after you post in them.
Can't be trolling either. The other guy has to do it. Also this one has to reach a level to which saying that a spell that creates ice and cold damage is cold attracts a troll convinced fire & melting at the same thing and ice is generally more expensive than god plated salt. See also saying Karn isn't a planeswaker but has infinite mana despite books and printed cards saying otherwise.

E. Don't forget to occasional expand other's views.
Like screw initiative, win before it's rolled. Also am I joking with this or is it just a huge BS centered around calling JaronK out on his new argument?

And F-inally. Poke fun at everything.
*poke*+2^256.

[Kaelik]

You got the answer right this time only because you didn't know the general usage or the special rule that violated that usage... but hey, a stopped watch is right twice a day, right?  Don't push your luck.

If you want to continue your claim, instead of making stuff up and pretending things say what you want, go find example (outside of spell lists) of "level" by itself being used to mean caster level.  If your claims are correct, surely you can find one.

Learn to read JaronK. I did not say that level used alone does not often, or even most of the time make the most sense as, and therefore most likely intend to mean, character level.

I said, that you are extrapolating from a list of examples which you feel should mean character level, to a generalization, "always means character level" even though there is no actual rule that says what you claim the rule is.

By that logic, I can point to two counter examples. The Permanceny and Contingency spell descriptions (which are not part of spell lists).

The only way you have of asserting that these uses mean Character Level, not Caster level, is that you have decided already that all uses must mean character level. And yet, the way you determined that all other uses mean character level is by going by what obviously must have been intended. So your attempt to declare counter examples null and void in advance based on the fact that their are no counterexamples is circular.

And of course, since your attempt to establish a general rule is based on reading the intent of other uses, and the intent of these usages is so obvious, you have resorted to capitulating based on a rule that actually has nothing to do with the examples at hand, because spell descriptions are not spell lists.

TL;DR: You still have not presented a rule stating that "level" means "character level" when used outside spell lists. Merely asserted that it seems to mean that most of the time, so you think it means that all the time, and you think that what you think it should mean is a rule.

[TheEndIsNear]

You got the answer right this time only because you didn't know the general usage or the special rule that violated that usage... but hey, a stopped watch is right twice a day, right?  Don't push your luck.

If you want to continue your claim, instead of making stuff up and pretending things say what you want, go find example (outside of spell lists) of "level" by itself being used to mean caster level.  If your claims are correct, surely you can find one.

Learn to read JaronK. I did not say that level used alone does not often, or even most of the time make the most sense as, and therefore most likely intend to mean, character level.

I said, that you are extrapolating from a list of examples which you feel should mean character level, to a generalization, "always means character level" even though there is no actual rule that says what you claim the rule is.

By that logic, I can point to two counter examples. The Permanceny and Contingency spell descriptions (which are not part of spell lists).

The only way you have of asserting that these uses mean Character Level, not Caster level, is that you have decided already that all uses must mean character level. And yet, the way you determined that all other uses mean character level is by going by what obviously must have been intended. So your attempt to declare counter examples null and void in advance based on the fact that their are no counterexamples is circular.

And of course, since your attempt to establish a general rule is based on reading the intent of other uses, and the intent of these usages is so obvious, you have resorted to capitulating based on a rule that actually has nothing to do with the examples at hand, because spell descriptions are not spell lists.

TL;DR: You still have not presented a rule stating that "level" means "character level" when used outside spell lists. Merely asserted that it seems to mean that most of the time, so you think it means that all the time, and you think that what you think it should mean is a rule.

Hey, didn't you leave the forum cause we proved you were worthless? Whats the deal, why come back?

[SorO_Lost]

K, I did a quick read on the rules.

Level in spell lists and spell stat blocks means caster level.
Backed by
Page 181:
Page 193: Phantom Steed: Magic horse appears for 1 hour/level.
Page 260: Duration: 1 hour/level (D)

Spell descriptions however do not use "level" exclusively meaning "caster level" as "caster level" takes predominance.
Backed by
Page 207: Any creature in the area of the flames takes 1d4 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 5d4). + numerous examples.

Likewise, the use of "level" more commonly denotes "character level".
Backed by
Page 226:
Page 272: This spell functions like lesser restoration, except that it also dispels negative levels and restores one experience level to a creature who has had a level drained. The drained level is restored only if the time since the creature lost the level is equal to or less than one day per caster level.

When Forbiddance says:
Examples of intent favors character level not caster level.

Kaelik called Contingency and Permanency as proof other wise.

You can place another spell upon your person so that it comes into effect under some condition you dictate when casting contingency. The contingency spell and the companion spell are cast at the same time. The 10-minute casting time is the minimum total for both castings; if the companion spell has a casting time longer than 10 minutes, use that instead. The spell to be brought into effect by the contingency must be one that affects your person (feather fall, levitate, fly, teleport, and so forth) and be of a spell level no higher than one-third your caster level (rounded down, maximum 6th level

&

This spell makes certain other spells permanent. Depending on the spell, you must be of a minimum caster level and must expend a number of XP. You can make the following spells permanent in regard to yourself <snip> You cast the desired spell and then follow it with the permanency spell. You cannot cast these spells on other creatures. This application of permanency can be dispelled only by a caster of higher level

Only thing supporting him is in parenthesis which is an notation of spell level cap (clearly level in that instance meant spell level).

Feel free to find additional sources proving otherwise if you like. I'm going with "level" defaults to character level in spell descriptions and nothing says otherwise and use suggests exactly so thus making it intent.

[JaronK]

By that logic, I can point to two counter examples. The Permanceny and Contingency spell descriptions (which are not part of spell lists).

Yes they are.  The spell list section includes the section that lists all the spells with their descriptions.  Try again. 

The only way you have of asserting that these uses mean Character Level, not Caster level, is that you have decided already that all uses must mean character level.

Also I showed examples and you just failed to do so.  Again. 

So, once again, if you're right a single counter example should exist somewhere OUTSIDE OF SPELL LISTS.  The list of spells with their description?  Yeah, that's a spell list.  If you can't find any, concede the point and give up.

Once again, here's how it's used: "Level" by itself, when not specifically part of a phrase like "spell level" or "caster level" or some such, in all cases means "effective character level."  The one exception to this as pointed out by page 181 is spell lists (which is to say, a list of spells including the list of spell description), in which "level" defaults to "caster level" by virtue of the special case rule.    The proof of this assertion?  Every single quote in the PHB, DMG, and SRD that uses the word "level" by itself.  The possible counter example that would disprove the point?  Level being used to mean something else OUTSIDE OF A SPELL LIST.  If this counter example cannot be found, the point is proved true.

The in game uses of "level" is his point that "level" means character level most of the time. A month ago he was arguing the exact opposite with spellcasting being explicitly excluded as a special ability doesn't mean anything.

"Spells" is explicitly INCLUDED as a Special Ability in the SRD and Monster Manual, as well as every single book that has any of the older Monster entries.  That's consistency.  It is not explicitly excluded anywhere.  Failure to include is not the same as explicit exclusion... explicit inclusion would say something like "Spells are not a Special Ability."  It simply isn't included in the DMG list of Special Abilities... but the DMG never did include all Special Abilities anyway, nor is it the primary source on Spells (PHB) or Special Abilities (Monster Manual).  Please see the dictionary definition of "explicit."

JaronK

[Suzerain]

I don't care whether this thread is "over" or not, just leave this thread alone and create a new one. The CL thing may have been relevant, but if you're arguing the general case now, get out of this thread.

Suggestion for a thread title "[RQ] What does 'level' mean, and in which context?"

RQ = Rules Question.

also possible would've been [PC] or [IAR] or [FUG]. (Pissing Contest, I Am Right and Fuck You Guys respectively)


And this is not necessarily or exclusively against the specific posters working hard to derail this thread here; this is in response to a lot of people's tendencies to do this to other threads. Create your own sandbox and play. But don't throw sand around in the Help Desk. Got it?

And if you have to reply to this post, do it a) in the new thread b) via PM. I solemny swear I'll read it if it's on page 1 of the new thread.

This post will be a template I will post into any thread I'm reading that's being derailed. Good day.

[Kaelik]

Kaelik called Contingency and Permanency as proof other wise.

It was a type, I meant Forbiddance, not Contingency.

Feel free to find additional sources proving otherwise if you like. I'm going with "level" defaults to character level in spell descriptions and nothing says otherwise and use suggests exactly so thus making it intent.

You missed the point. The point was that in all the instances where you decided that level meant character level, you did it be reading the intent. So claiming that the intent in other instances creates a rule that applies to this instance if silly.

@JaronK

1) Obviously, the spell descriptions are not the spell lists. Everyone knows what the spell lists actually are.

2) Even if there weren't any counter examples, I'd still be right, because the entire point is that you are just taking a list of examples, and assuming that because the examples make the most sense as one thing, that therefore it is a rule that level always means X. But there is no such rule. There is only a list of examples. So as soon as an question comes up, like say if Ur Priest said "level" instead of "level in other spellcasting classes" the only argument you have for why that would mean character level is "But it makes the most sense for level alone to mean character level in completely unrelated usages in the PHB, so therefore, it must also mean it here, even if something else makes more sense."

And that's not an argument from a rule. It's an argument from a generalization.

[Gavinfoxx]

*Whimpers* GUYYSSS, MY THREAAADDD...

It's all icky and stuff... please take the off topic stuff elsewhere? Please??

[Prime32]

*Whimpers* GUYYSSS, MY THREAAADDD...

It's all icky and stuff... please take the off topic stuff elsewhere? Please??

Please?

[Lo77o]

*Whimpers* GUYYSSS, MY THREAAADDD...

It's all icky and stuff... please take the off topic stuff elsewhere? Please??

Welcome to the Internet.

I feel for you.

[SorO_Lost]

Suggestion for a thread title "[RQ] What does 'level' mean, and in which context?"
RQ = Rules Question.
also possible would've been [PC] or [IAR] or [FUG]. (Pissing Contest, I Am Right and Fuck You Guys respectively)

We don't need that any more than we need [Peach] tags.

@JaronK, *shrugs* all I'm saying is you had entire sections of posts dedicated to "spells or special abilities" and the SA entry must list special attacks and Spells is always excluded doesn't mean they are not different entities. On Loredrake you see all TD have potential for arcane and many have divine this rule instead provides dragons with X and proclaim dragon means monster type not TD. Now Kaelik calls you out on "level", ignoring book intent creating his own definition for one word and you sit there talking about usage thereof proves your point. I find the situation just another day dealing with you but what makes this hilarious and fun is watching is you getting your panties up in a bunch dealing with what is essentially your self. Shame Prime ended things.

***

Assuming srcying for teleport is finally absolved. What is keeping McRouge Rosycheeks from just sneaking in? Traps? Guards? Popemobile? The castle is floating in a pool of lava? The king is Fine sized and lives in a house made out of swords?

[MalcolmSprye]

Suggestion for a thread title "[RQ] What does 'level' mean, and in which context?"
RQ = Rules Question.
also possible would've been [PC] or [IAR] or [FUG]. (Pissing Contest, I Am Right and Fuck You Guys respectively)

We don't need that any more than we need [Peach] tags.

@JaronK, *shrugs* all I'm saying is you had entire sections of posts dedicated to "spells or special abilities" and the SA entry must list special attacks and Spells is always excluded doesn't mean they are not different entities. On Loredrake you see all TD have potential for arcane and many have divine this rule instead provides dragons with X and proclaim dragon means monster type not TD. Now Kaelik calls you out on "level", ignoring book intent creating his own definition for one word and you sit there talking about usage thereof proves your point. I find the situation just another day dealing with you but what makes this hilarious and fun is watching is you getting your panties up in a bunch dealing with what is essentially your self. Shame Prime ended things.

***

Assuming srcying for teleport is finally absolved. What is keeping McRouge Rosycheeks from just sneaking in? Traps? Guards? Popemobile? The castle is floating in a pool of lava? The king is Fine sized and lives in a house made out of swords?

Good Point.  Most people use Scrye and Die to mean teleport in... but what's keeping people from scrying your guards?  With some foreknowledge provided by divination, a semi-mundane skill monkey could sneak/disguise/bluff himself past your defenses.  We need to remember that this is a functioning castle.  That means that you can't simply have traps all over the place; either they'll kill your own people, or you'll have to let so many people in on the "secret" that it will be a cakewalk to either divine or simply talk it out of people.

[snakeman830]

Lair wards make scrying on the area impossible.  Forbiddance makes teleportation impossible. Now we just have to deal with the mundane methods (and Earth Glide-like abilities).