Why do all classes have to be balanced?

[JamesonCourage]

JamesonCourage - first off, it should have been very obvious in context that I was discussing D&D. Sorry for not being perfectly crystal clear. So, in D&D a 1st level character cannot contribute much of anything to a 15th level party. Which, of course, was in response to the comment that power level is unimportant in D&D for determining whether or not a character can meaningfully contribute.

I think your implied context was clear enough to me, which is why I said this (and quoted it again already once):

I do know that -as I told pemerton- from a game theory perspective, level 1's consistently meaningfully contributing can be true for a level-based system, even with escalating level-dependent skills. Was it historically true in D&D? Probably not as much. Does that need to hold true for 5e? Definitely not. And thus my point.

It may have been more as you've described in the past with D&D. It doesn't need to stay that way for 5e. And I think my point is much more important to the overall discussion of 5e than trying to bicker about how past editions work, which I'm hoping to avoid.

Now, that aside, I have a question. What's the point of having levels in your game? If the 15th level party (presuming a 20 level spread such as in 3e and earlier games) is essentially the same as a 3rd level party, why bother with levels in the first place? What purpose do they serve?

That's a good question. [MENTION=6689033]Steely_Dan[/MENTION] has a chunk of it, in that as you go up, you have higher damage output, better feats, etc. As there are prerequisites for some feats, this plays in. But, hit die plays an important part in just exactly what abilities you can have. Most abilities are capped at hit die +1. Base attack, defense bonus, skill ranks, trait ranks, base save, etc. are all capped at your hit die +1. So, a level 15 can have +16 base attack, while a level 3 can only have +4. Things like spell levels available to you are capped by hit die, too. Level makes a big difference in that regard.

By hit die 15, I can have a character with a much higher bonus to things than a hit die 3. I have a lot more breadth in abilities, if that's what I wanted, too. But, a hit die 3 could still be built in such a way that he could mechanically contribute to a party of hit die 15s, if he picks up skills that they've neglected.

In D&D, levels denote changes in the campaign. A low level party is dealing with very different things than a high level party. It's always been thus. The 1st level party is roaming through the upper levels of the dungeon while the 12th level party is capable of plumbing the depths. The low level party is dealing with the Caves of Chaos while the high level party is invading the Abyss to slay Llolth.

In a game where there are no really signficant differences between levels, why bother having levels at all? If my high level character still dies from the same threats as my low level character and my low level character has enough skills to deal with any issues that my high level character could face, what is the difference between a low and high level character?

Well, I thought from our past discussions about threats against high hit die creatures that it'd be clear that they don't die to the same threats (if they're built for combat). Last Wednesday, the party (four hit die 15s, with one hit die 14) was surprised attacked by a few dozen men. They reacted fast enough (even though surprised) that they were able to teleport a few hundred feet out of the enemies encircling them, and while a couple dozen arrows flew in, only one NPC dropped and one party member hit 0 hit points. They then teleported away altogether. A hit die 3 party wouldn't been cut down. There may have been a survivor or two for possibly up to three rounds depending on build, but it's very unlikely.

While the hit die 15s had to retreat from the (originally six dozen, but by the second round eight dozen) enemies, they were able to escape, plan an ambush themselves, and get the job done that they needed to. A party of hit die 3's would stand little to no chance of succeeding in that same tactic. They might be able to talk them into a trade, but they'd need to be really good at it and roll high (which is possible, but very unlikely without a very devoted build).

So, yes, you can continue to move the threat level up just fine in the system. I wasn't commenting on that when I said how someone can contribute. I mentioned skills. Now, someone could mechanically contribute in combat (giving someone a +6 to a combat roll) at hit die 1, but they'd need to be very, very focused on it, and they're risking making themselves a target, and they're lacking hit die 15 saves, AC, and hit points. But as far as skills go? They can definitely drive the game forward, and a hit die 1 can definitely contribute with them if the PCs are lacking them. And, really, that's why I listed skill uses, and mentioned that it'd be harder to contribute in combat.

That's just what I'm trying to say. In 5e, you can make a game where a level 1 can consistently meaningfully contribute to a level 15 party. It may not be in combat as well, but you can certainly design a system that helps with it. This is especially true in a system that has even flatter math than mine (which caps at about +19 natural bonus to attack rolls at hit die 20, with incredible focus on attacking). So, again, I'm commenting about game theory and how this could end up in 5e. I have little interest in arguing over how badly D&D has done this historically. As always, play what you like

 

[Steely_Dan]

That's a good question. [MENTION=6689033]Steely_Dan[/MENTION] has a chunk of it, in that as you go up, you have higher damage output, better feats, etc. As there are prerequisites for some feats, this plays in. But, hit die plays an important part in just exactly what abilities you can have. Most abilities are capped at hit die +1. Base attack, defense bonus, skill ranks, trait ranks, base save, etc. are all capped at your hit die +1.

I find the 4th Ed system works much better if you take out the unnecessary 1/2 level bonus to all character's and monster's attacks, defences, and skills.

I have applied it now to all editions (taking away THACO/BAB etc), so much better.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I find the 4th Ed system works much better if you take out the unnecessary 1/2 level bonus to all character's and monster's attacks, defences, and skills.

I have applied it now to all editions (taking away THACO/BAB etc), so much better.

That's interesting. Never really tried that before. I like the difference caused by base attack (and similar mechanics), personally, from a certain genre perspective. You have that swordsman who is so much better than the regular soldiers, and it shows from his high attack bonus. If you take away base attack, I imagine that AC is also lower, and so the issue becomes one of ablative HP. That is, the swordsman is "getting hit" more often and losing hit points (even if in the fiction he dodges), and his "stay up" resource dwindles. Then, later that day (if his HP remains low), even a single soldier can drop him, and it doesn't need to be a lucky or surprise hit.

That wouldn't quite fit the feel of what I want as well, but I can see the appeal. A certain type of fiction emerging from game mechanics is important to me, and I have the benefit of being able to design mechanics that help produce that fiction. But, nonetheless, that type of mechanic does have a certain appeal. As always, play what you like

 

[Bluenose]

I thinking more stuff (HP, ability score increases, damage output, feats etc).

The 1st level guy in a 15th level party doesn't have those things.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The 1st level guy in a 15th level party doesn't have those things.

I think that was his point. He said:

What's the point of having levels in your game? If the 15th level party (presuming a 20 level spread such as in 3e and earlier games) is essentially the same as a 3rd level party, why bother with levels in the first place?

I thinking more stuff (HP, ability score increases, damage output, feats etc).

Hussar asked what the point of levels was in my game. Steely_Dan said that a level 15 would have more hit points, ability score increases, damage output, feats, etc. A level 1 wouldn't. So, no, a level 1 doesn't have as much HP, attack bonus, damage, high ability scores, etc. as a level 15. And that's kind of the point of the levels, and Steely_Dan's answer to Hussar's question (I think). As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

So, in your example JC, how would a 1st level character have contributed to that ambush? What could I do with a 1st level character in that scenario?

See, when I say contribute to the game, I'm not talking about once in a while when everything lines up just so. I mean that I can contribute to the game ALL THE TIME. I want everyone at the table contributing as often as humanly possible. I never, ever want to go back to the days of 20 minutes of fun crammed into 4 hours.

My 1st level character in your example has zero things to contribute. He cannot teleport, he cannot fight - he dies pretty much instantly and outside of freeforming with planning (something I can do with any character), my 1st level character is supernumerary.

So, again, what is my 1st level character contributing to your scenario?

 

[JamesonCourage]

So, in your example JC, how would a 1st level character have contributed to that ambush? What could I do with a 1st level character in that scenario?

Best bet is pre-combat. Making Knowledge checks to find out what you can about the foes, the fortress they were in, the magic item you're trying to steal, the mindset and history of the powerful members you're going to have to best, and the like.

If you're asking about in-combat, then he'd probably want to use aid another (with a special ability to improve it to +2) along with a Leadership check (with a special ability to improve it to +3), to give someone a +5 bonus to attacks or AC (or potentially Will saves, Reflex saves, THP, or the like). So, that +5 bonus could go to the hit die 15 bodyguard (who gets +15 to ACvM), giving him quite a significant increase to AC (which could then be applied to protecting the hit die 1, if absolutely necessary). If he tacks on a spell (with another special ability, just about tapping his character points out), he'll add another +2 bonus (or +7 to someone who only gets +15 passively).

See, when I say contribute to the game, I'm not talking about once in a while when everything lines up just so. I mean that I can contribute to the game ALL THE TIME. I want everyone at the table contributing as often as humanly possible. I never, ever want to go back to the days of 20 minutes of fun crammed into 4 hours.

My 1st level character in your example has zero things to contribute. He cannot teleport, he cannot fight - he dies pretty much instantly and outside of freeforming with planning (something I can do with any character), my 1st level character is supernumerary.

/Disagree

So, again, what is my 1st level character contributing to your scenario?

Look up. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

So, precombat I get to make two, maybe three knowledge checks and in combat, I get to add plusses to someone else's attack.

How is this not supernumerary? Presuming your scenario takes an hour from start to finish, I actually get to actively participate maybe 10% of the time. At best. And my active participation comes in the form of giving some plusses to someone else.

Yay, I'm a Bless spell!

Let's turn it around a bit then. What does "contribute meaningfully" mean to you? To me, it means that my character is actively doing something most of the time (particularly in scenarios which involve the entire group) and not just holding someone else's jockstrap.

 

[JamesonCourage]

So, precombat I get to make two, maybe three knowledge checks and in combat, I get to add plusses to someone else's attack.

How is this not supernumerary? Presuming your scenario takes an hour from start to finish, I actually get to actively participate maybe 10% of the time. At best. And my active participation comes in the form of giving some plusses to someone else.

Yay, I'm a Bless spell!

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. You said you can't meaningfully contribute. Did you mean that you can't kick as much ass as a level 15? Because hey, that's true. But, each round, you can give a bonus to whoever needs it, and even do it a second time per round reactively if someone is attacked. Giving everyone +2 to rolls, and two other people (one reactively for maximum effect) a +3 bonus to attacks, AC, Reflex or Will saves, THP, or etc. is pretty significant when we're working with the numbers we are.

So, please, don't go changing this from "you can't meaningfully contribute" to "you can't do so in a way I like!" I have a pretty big problem with that, because I have a player who had a hit die 14 character who was based around that kind of support (Leadership for +5 bonuses to up to 6 people per round, aura of +2 to everything for up to 13 people around him, etc.), and he loved that style of play. He proactively went after that support style of play. You may not like it, but don't call it invalid because of it.

Let's turn it around a bit then. What does "contribute meaningfully" mean to you? To me, it means that my character is actively doing something most of the time (particularly in scenarios which involve the entire group) and not just holding someone else's jockstrap.

It means adding to the group's success in a meaningful way. It means more than carrying goods around (unless that becomes a big issue), or taking a watch (unless the party really sucks at it, and watches are necessary).

To me, giving a +7 bonus to someone who only gets +15 is meaningfully contributing, because you've upped his effectiveness by about 50%.

If your Knowledge checks tell you that the guy you're about to attack doesn't care about his own life and it comes down to honor, you have powerful information on how to plan your attack.

If you can identify what caused someone to die, and that he was left-handed, just shy of six feet tall, and fairly strong (but not exceptionally strong), that's useful when looking for suspects.

If you can gather herbs and food that take up little space or weight so that the party isn't moving at half speed, that means a lot when you're moving about a continent when time matters (like it does now to my PCs).

If you can get rid of status effects or give people rerolls on saves (or a roll if one isn't normally allowed), even mid-combat, I'd say that's meaningfully contributing.

There are plenty of ways to drive the game forward based on nothing but your own skill. In combat, this is harder to do with the number disparity, but you can definitely increase the effectiveness of the party significantly (which is your best bet for helping a higher level party in combat), increasing your odds of success significantly. That's meaningful contribution. You are responsible for driving the story forward at parts of the session (you "shine"), and you are significantly increasing your odds of success (meaningful contribution).

Ask my players if they want a guy who can reactively give someone who needs it a +3 to AC or a Reflex or Will save. You can bet what their answer is going to be. That's not counting any magic, or aid another, or flanking, or giving penalties to creatures for being attacked more than once in a round, or what have you. If that hit die 1 gave someone +2 to attacks with magic, then +3 with Leadership, then aided him for another +2 (with a -1 penalty on the bad guy now), then helped him flank for +1, it'd be a net swing of 9 (+8 good guy, -1 bad guy). When your passive attack bonus at hit die 15 is +15, that 9 swing is significant. To me, at least.

Are you "shining" in combat? Well, you're not the one landing the blow, but you're sure as heck contributing to your group's success. No, you're not as good as the hit die 15. Yes, a hit die 15 with your abilities is better at it. But, as I originally said, a hit die 1 can most certainly meaningfully contribute, if not "shine" himself. He can even do so in-combat, if necessary, but out of combat is where his chances go up.

I feel like you're really against the idea that you can meaningfully contribute as a hit die 1, for some reason. You don't seem to accept that it can be the case, or that if it is the case, that you aren't significantly more powerful at hit die 15. I'm trying to show that you can meaningfully contribute mechanically at hit die 1, not even convince you that it's necessarily better (that's just a matter of taste). Why you still doubt it is beyond me. As always, play what you like

 

[Steely_Dan]

The 1st level guy in a 15th level party doesn't have those things.

A 1st level character has HP, damage output, and a feat.