How many levels does D&D need?

[Raven Crowking]

I understand your point, but I remain unconvinced. That is okay, though....your experience with 4e is much greater than mine.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

The first few levels for the Fighter in 2e were all HUGE increases in power, based on survivability alone. Yes, that petered out somewhat later... but that only proves that the power curve (while not perfectly linear) is certainly more linear in 4e (and starts much further from the origin, but that's a separate issue).

Of course, you can't generalize to the magic user, who has an very non-linear power curve in early editions. Again, 4e's curve is much more linear.

You can debate the linear slope of the curve somewhat, but it's sort of a fool's errand given how incredibly non-linear they tended to be and how survivability and destructive potential were completely different curves early on that only sort of matched up with each other at the lowest levels.

Of course, some of that is driven by different assumptions of what you're going to be fighting across editions, as well.... which shows once more that the abstraction of level isn't really something easily nailed down.

 

[Garthanos]

My emotional translation has a level 1 4e character starting equivalent of level 5 in feel (it takes both 4 or 5 levels to double there hit points). and advancing half as fast... except at level 11 and 21 where the advancement rate is the same as in AD&D ;-)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Oh, I agree that the power curve in 4e is more linear overall. I simply don't agree that the steps on that line produce, overall, a smaller impact than on TSR-D&D editions.

And you can't take a single level comparison, or a single monster comparison, and demonstrate that there is less impact. The more bennies you get per level, the more impact levelling will have. The 1e fighter gets hit points, save increases (but not at every level), and attack roll increases, plus some bennies at higher levels. There are no feats, no stat increases, etc. He gets no cool new powers, and he is not guaranteed the magic items he wants from treasure parcels.

Likewise, the 1e fighter fighting hill giants has no healing surges to fall back upon......the damage he takes is damage taken.

Claiming that the levelling for the 1e fighter has "greater impact" than for the 4e fighter seems.....very, very wrong. IMHO. YMMV.

Mind you, levelling has more impact in my game than in 1e, too. The ability to "shake off" some amount of damage, as well as the inclusion of Combat Style Bonuses, creates a bigger impact. How can it not? If you get more, there is more impact.


RC

 

[dogoftheunderworld]

How many levels does D&D need?

I don't know... how many levels are there? </Larry the Cucumber>

For traditional D&D, 10-30 seems to fit most expectations, and this gives you a moderate advancement curve to spread out powers.

Most people will only play characters within ~75% of the maximum levels, but the extra high levels are needed for Epic campaigns, epic villians, etc.

It could be done with a single "level" (i.e. "Hero" vs. common man) and just add level-less abilities with experience gained. But this starts to become "not D&D" for most people.

E6 is a good compromise. But again, this essentially took the levels a campaign wanted to play within and made it worked. D&D needs to contain enough levels (various power levels) to work for all campaigns everywhere.

 

[Garthanos]

Oh, I agree that the power curve in 4e is more linear overall. I simply don't agree that the steps on that line produce, overall, a smaller impact than on TSR-D&D editions.

Recognise all power is relative... and that a 4e character you are starting out at something I identify as closer to a AD&D 5th level... every gain is less significant its one of the impacts of having a linear curve.... not just because of what it does... but because you are comparing it to your current state.

AD&D level 2 wizard casts twice as many spells and can survive twice as long in battle... that is 4x as powerful.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

And you can't take a single level comparison, or a single monster comparison, and demonstrate that there is less impact. The more bennies you get per level, the more impact levelling will have. The 1e fighter gets hit points, save increases (but not at every level), and attack roll increases, plus some bennies at higher levels. There are no feats, no stat increases, etc. He gets no cool new powers, and he is not guaranteed the magic items he wants from treasure parcels.

Likewise, the 1e fighter fighting hill giants has no healing surges to fall back upon......the damage he takes is damage taken.

The player gets more options. That does not mean the character gets more power. The character gets healing surges.... but also takes more damage. Power is relative, and therefore many design elements play into this.

As such, this whole argument is pretty silly. The NPCs and critters you fight under the different editions are designed very differently. Level is just one factor on one side of the equation. The monster manual on the table is another factor on the opposite side. These two will have a critical reciprocal relationship.

 

[Leatherhead]

It's not so much how many levels, but rather which levels.

 

[Fifth Element]

How can it not? If you get more, there is more impact.

Depends on how you define impact. If you start at 100, going to 105 is a 5% impact. If you start at 20, a smaller 4-point increase is a 20% impact.

5 is greater than 4. But 20% is greater than 5%.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Depends on how you define impact.

Tautologically true.

And, while I understand the arguments levied against my position, I am afraid I don't find them convincing. This might be due to a lack of familiarity with 4e. (Shrug) And it probably matters little to nothing whether I am convinced or not.


RC