Character Equality

I've started this new discussion so as not to derail the topic found here: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=140322&page=1&pp=50

LightPhoenix said:

The biggest problem with ECL, IMO, is that it assumes levels are generally linear. In fact, it assumes the game as a whole is linear. We all know that not to be true. A 20th level character most certainly does not equal two 10th level ones. Furthermore, spellcasting is very much non-linear, which creates more of a curve for any spellcasting class, which is half of the classes in the game. If the level curve is not linear, then ECL is simply not going to work as it was intended. The idea wasn't bad at all, it just doesn't work with the non-linear nature of levels in D&D.

Click to expand...

D&D needs to be more linear. One of the design concepts that I enjoy about 3rd edition is that the system is very flexible regarding how you build your character. Everyone is allowed to multiclass (or dual class as it used to be called). Every race has the same level limits (ie none). A great way to use the flexibility of the system (without adding tons of rules) to design any concept you can dream up is multiclassing.

Want a swashbuckler? Play a fighter/rogue. Want a holy warrior? Play a cleric/fighter. Want an ascetic mystic? Play a monk/wizard. Want a ninja? Play a monk/rogue. Prestige classes and new base classes are presented all the time to fill out these roles but one of the reasons those classes are needed is that multiclassing often doesn't work. Because character classes are not linear it is very difficult to build a Ftr 10/Wiz 10 that belongs in the same party as a Clr 20. It is very easy to build a multiclass character that just drags the party down with it.

We would need a lot fewer base classes and fewer prestige classes if class level progression was nearly linear. It would also help if different classes were more compatible/flexible. Wizards don't have many hit points and don't have any armor proficiency so why exactly is it necessary for arcane spellcasting to have a chance to fail in armor?

Do you agree? Disagree?

Mokona said:

Disagree?

Click to expand...

Yep. D&D isn't D&D if the 5th level character is only 5 times better than the 1st level character. No way do 9th level spells exist if 17 1st level guys are the same as 1 17th level mage. D&D assumes a far more exaggerated scale in order to accomodate high level play.

Disagree. Its linear enough. Not everythign is created equalk and the system does it well enough for me. Instead of the game being more bal;anced, the game should teach the DM and players what balance is. This would allow them to be able to create their own things and use their own creativity.

In order to accomodate this you really would have to rewrite the entire game, imho. Easier to find another system that does what you want- perhaps one without levels at all?

In other words, I disagree.

I disagree, I think it works as it is, and I'm not sure that the pursuit of balance or linear progression really adds that much to the game.

Yes, I would much prefer a system where 2 Ftr-10s roughly equalled 1 Ftr 20, and each level gave a linear rather than geometric power boost. It would be far easier to run long-term campaigns without the PCs "outgrowing" the campaign setting, which seems to be a common problem in 3e.

A more linear system is one reason I prefer Grim Tales to D&D for my home-brew type games. Same with d20 Modern.

--fje

I would prefer it to be more linear, as I don't care for high-level play, and epic just disgusts me. But it wouldn't be D&D if it were.

jmucchiello said:

Yep. D&D isn't D&D if the 5th level character is only 5 times better than the 1st level character.

Click to expand...

Well, in the original D&D rules, a Hero (a 4th-level fighter) was assumed to be equal to 4 men-at-arms, and a SuperHero (an 8th-level fighter) was assumed to be equal to 8 men-at-arms. That, however, was a very long time ago and D&D has changed significantly since.

Personally, I would much prefer a more linear progressioni - the 3E rules increased the speed at which characters gain levels, so slowing the acquisition of power in those levels makes sense to me.

Agree without a hint of reservation or hesitation!

Linear levels would improve my D&D experience literally on every, well, level!

I cannot imagine any reason other than misguided adherence, not to the original vision of the game but to its subsequent incarnations, not to pursue this path.

What's more, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that MOST (though by no means all) of the players who THINK they wouldn't like it... would. 5th through 7th levels are the last hint of linear progression, and they happen to be the most popular, both around here and in every gaming group I've played with. If you could extend what makes those levels so much fun for another five, or ten, or fifty levels, characters could improve and grow and still be just as much fun to play.