D&D 4E 4ed leveling on gameplay

[simply not edible]

So what does this mean gameplay wise, if it is not reflected by tactical choices?

Again different monsters as of their name, or as of the tactics epmloyed?


But I see the difference. How about just keeping the rules of class powers and tiers and link them together? Aren't they just enough instead of also keeping track of various garbage such as BABs and ACs which scale in a linear way?

These questions have been answered by others after this post in better ways than I could express myself, so you'll have to excuse me from pointing to, amongst others, recent responses by Cadfan and Magus Coeruleus.

However:

I did not say that powers will not be tied to class levels. What I said is that it makes no sense that they are tied to class levels which seem to be a mechanism that just keeps track of garbage. Why not just tie powers to experience points directly and furthermore to campaign progress in a way that seems natural to pass from one tier to the next?

All I see you doing here is keep the leveling mechanic, and remove the word "level" from it.

 

[xechnao]

Please consider the possibility that people have read your OP but either do not understand your argument as stated or are not convinced of its premise.

No, not in a totally general way. IMO, people should point directly on the argument they do doupt and also explain why, so we can try and build on this.

I, too, don't see where you are coming from since if nothing else, levels are important for comparing your ability to others stronger/weaker than you. Even if you have about the same DCs or other stats as others of your level at any given time, you still want to have a way of distinguishing yourself from those 1, 2, 3, etc. levels above or below. Sure you, could make PCs the center of the mathematical universe, having them stay the same and having all monsters be expressed as +/- x levels relative to that, but given that there are usually only as many PCs as can be counted on one hand in a game/campaign and hundreds or thousands of monsters, it makes more sense to keep the monster stats static and have the PCs change (i.e. level) over time.

I am coming from the differences of how 4ed seems to be designed in the face of 3rd edition. Keep monsters tied to tiers and give them tier specific powers. Seems reasonable enough.

 

[Jack99]

Yes. Doing damage and disabling are the exact same thing and are tactically indistinguishable.

Really, Fireball should just be a bigger Grease spell.

Funny.

Replace fireball with slow (which is the spell i would pick), and my argument stands.

Besides, arguing that 5th level plays drastically different than 4th level because of a spell that only 2 of the 11 core classes can pick, and that (hopefully) very few of those pick as their first choice, strikes me as a lose-lose situation, if you catch my meaning.

Anyway, if someone could come up with a better example, I would be much obliged.

 

[xechnao]

So if your reasoning leads to the conclusion that any game with this trait can't possibly be any good, you might want to reexamine your premises.

I am all for it. My questions are about gameplay variability along the campaign (regarding video games, IMO, levels have to play a bit differently and not just more of the same) and ultimately about why having to keep the level mechanism of 3rd ed while the same can be achieved with the new design rules of 4th ed -so it seems kind of moot to keep 3Ed's leveling mechanism.

 

[Incenjucar]

Funny.

Replace fireball with slow (which is the spell i would pick), and my argument stands.

Besides, arguing that 5th level plays drastically different than 4th level because of a spell that only 2 of the 11 core classes can pick, and that (hopefully) very few of those pick as their first choice, strikes me as a lose-lose situation, if you catch my meaning.

Anyway, if someone could come up with a better example, I would be much obliged.

Slow works on flying opponents, hits a different save (which is vital against dodge-happy classes), and can hit a wide spread of opponents.

It may be in the same CATEGORY of tactic, but it is distinctly different.

Spells are pretty much the definitive "gain a level, everything changes" area.

Rogues and monks had plenty of this stuff too. A lot changes when you can ignore fireballs.

In 4E, each class is expected to get powers about as good as they gain levels.

 

[Oldtimer]

...ultimately about why having to keep the level mechanism of 3rd ed while the same can be achieved with the new design rules of 4th ed -so it seems kind of moot to keep 3Ed's leveling mechanism.

Can you please explain what you mean by this? I've read the whole thread and I still can't understand what you're trying to argue here. Which new design rules of 4e? How can the same (as the level mechanism of 3e?) be achieved with them?

And by "the level mechanism of 3e" I assume you mean the process "accumulate x number of experience points -> advance one level -> receive new cool powers and abilities".

 

[pemerton]

The fact is that in previous editions leveling seems that it was something more than an aesthetic aspect. It could change combat gameplay from one level to the next in a drastic way regarding not only PCs but also monsters.

Two responses:

1) I think it is also true that tactical options will change (and probably become more complex) over time in 4e as well. It's just that this complexity won't be represented in the BAB vs AC mathematics; rather, it will be in the distribution of different abilities over different sorts of action types and recovery conditions. In saying all this, I think I am agreeing with Cadfan above.

2) To relegate campaign flavour to (mere?) aesthetics, when talking about a fantasy RPG, seems to miss the point of play for a lot of players. With levelling, the ingame adventure environment will change considerably, and the metagame thematic content will develop as well I imagine. Which, therefore leads to a third point:

the difference will lie in the monsters you can deal with. Running into creature X at level 3 would be near fatal, while meeting him attlevel 9, you could finally emerge victorious.

I think this is right. As Magus Coeruleus said above, it is easiest to keep any given monster's stats constant - which thus allows us to compare the strength of monsters by comparing their stats - and then represent the PCs increased ability to deal with different monsters by having their BAB, AC, saves, etc grow over time.

And to finish with a slightly tangential point:

IMO, it would be more intuitive in terms of game design to link players' power level directly to the campaign's progress.

I think that the opposite will be true: that the campaign's progress (eg the passage of time) will have to be adapted to the growth in PC power level. If this is not done, and if the old simulationist methods are retained, then the game will produce absurdities such as PCs levelling from 1 to 30 in a year of gametime. The references in W&M to the use of the points of light in the PoL setting as safe havens suggests to me that the designers are aware of the need for a metagame-driven treatment of the ingame passage of time.

 

[infax]

I am coming from the differences of how 4ed seems to be designed in the face of 3rd edition. Keep monsters tied to tiers and give them tier specific powers. Seems reasonable enough.

I guess your suggestion would reduce the game to 3 "levels" (heroic, paragon and epic) with all powers and challenges (monsters, traps and simple social and geographic barriers) distributed among only those.

A good supposition is that while that seems ok for you, some people may prefer some extra granularity. And while you have repeatedly stated BAB and defenses attached to those seem useless to you, those can be rather useful for people looking for that extra granularity.

 

[xechnao]

Can you please explain what you mean by this? I've read the whole thread and I still can't understand what you're trying to argue here. Which new design rules of 4e? How can the same (as the level mechanism of 3e?) be achieved with them?

And by "the level mechanism of 3e" I assume you mean the process "accumulate x number of experience points -> advance one level -> receive new cool powers and abilities".

I am talking about the mechanism that produces PC development. As pemerton said:

It's just that this complexity won't be represented in the BAB vs AC mathematics; rather, it will be in the distribution of different abilities over different sorts of action types and recovery conditions.

In the BAB vs AC mathematics add in Saves and perhaps everything else found in the standard tables.

Instead 4E produces PC development and variation through a mechanism of special powers, a mechanism of exceptions.

So why does it need to keep tracking of the 3e standard terms all along?

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Can you please explain what you mean by this? I've read the whole thread and I still can't understand what you're trying to argue here..."

Amen. I give up since he appears unwilling to accept that his way of expressing himself is not clear to everyone, but I'm glad to see that it's not just me being too mentally challenged to get some clear and obvious point.