Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Benimoto" data-source="post: 4003388" data-attributes="member: 40093">I think I see what you're saying, but I don't agree either.&nbsp; I mean it's true that if you always fight enemies appropriate to your level, and that if all the enemies can level up, then from a certain perspective there's no point in keeping track of BAB/AC/whatever, since it'll always just be in proportion to your enemies.&nbsp; It's a good point, and an important one to consider.I also see your point about how the unified advancement system and no dead levels means that characters are different only by the powers they have.&nbsp; Previously, a level 2 fighter/8 wizard would be very different from a 8 fighter/2 wizard, not only in powers they have, but also in BAB/saves/HP, etc.&nbsp; Now it looks like the main difference is the the 2 wizard/8 fighter will have 2 wizard powers and 8 fighter powers, while the other guy will be the reverse.&nbsp; Why not just give powers and skip the levelling?Part of the reason to keep levels is the granularity.&nbsp; I think they'll keep things so that each level you gain makes a difference, and what was a difficult fight last level might become a normal fight at one or two levels higher.&nbsp; Sure, you could keep track of that thing with some sort of 3-4 level system, and just adjust your stats so that if the PCs encounter a monster at an early point in the story, he uses the &quot;difficult&quot; stat block but if they encounter him later he uses the &quot;normal&quot; stat block, but then you effectively have levels anyways.&nbsp; If you use a 5 point scale, such at &quot;very hard&quot;, &quot;hard&quot;, &quot;normal&quot;, &quot;easy&quot;, &quot;very easy&quot; over a campaign system that has 3-4 tiers of play then you already have 15-20 effective levels.&nbsp; Why not just call them what they are?&nbsp; Keeping levels makes things more transparent for your players, keeps it just as easy for the DM to adjust challenges, and allows The other reason to keep levels, rather that just setting a chance of success based on how hard the DM wants the fight to be is that people like to see numbers going up.&nbsp; Levels make it easy to see that you've gained power.&nbsp; You can look at your numbers and see that you used to have a 4 and now you have a 12, and it gives a good sense of character development and advancement.&nbsp; Having those numbers gives the player a sense of power that is in their own hands and not in the DM's hands.&nbsp; It can give the player a real sense that if they were to go fight a monster that was difficult before that it will be easy now because of the numbers, not just because the DM thinks that their character has advanced.&nbsp; I also think that seeing your character develop by numbers can help you develop your character in terms of roleplaying, since you can tell fairly exactly how much better you are now as opposed to earlier in your career.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Benimoto, post: 4003388, member: 40093"] I think I see what you're saying, but I don't agree either. I mean it's true that if you always fight enemies appropriate to your level, and that if all the enemies can level up, then from a certain perspective there's no point in keeping track of BAB/AC/whatever, since it'll always just be in proportion to your enemies. It's a good point, and an important one to consider. I also see your point about how the unified advancement system and no dead levels means that characters are different only by the powers they have. Previously, a level 2 fighter/8 wizard would be very different from a 8 fighter/2 wizard, not only in powers they have, but also in BAB/saves/HP, etc. Now it looks like the main difference is the the 2 wizard/8 fighter will have 2 wizard powers and 8 fighter powers, while the other guy will be the reverse. Why not just give powers and skip the levelling? Part of the reason to keep levels is the granularity. I think they'll keep things so that each level you gain makes a difference, and what was a difficult fight last level might become a normal fight at one or two levels higher. Sure, you could keep track of that thing with some sort of 3-4 level system, and just adjust your stats so that if the PCs encounter a monster at an early point in the story, he uses the "difficult" stat block but if they encounter him later he uses the "normal" stat block, but then you effectively have levels anyways. If you use a 5 point scale, such at "very hard", "hard", "normal", "easy", "very easy" over a campaign system that has 3-4 tiers of play then you already have 15-20 effective levels. Why not just call them what they are? Keeping levels makes things more transparent for your players, keeps it just as easy for the DM to adjust challenges, and allows The other reason to keep levels, rather that just setting a chance of success based on how hard the DM wants the fight to be is that people like to see numbers going up. Levels make it easy to see that you've gained power. You can look at your numbers and see that you used to have a 4 and now you have a 12, and it gives a good sense of character development and advancement. Having those numbers gives the player a sense of power that is in their own hands and not in the DM's hands. It can give the player a real sense that if they were to go fight a monster that was difficult before that it will be easy now because of the numbers, not just because the DM thinks that their character has advanced. I also think that seeing your character develop by numbers can help you develop your character in terms of roleplaying, since you can tell fairly exactly how much better you are now as opposed to earlier in your career. [/QUOTE]

Verification