Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7477416" data-attributes="member: 6775031">(Not targeting you specifically, but you give the most relevant quote.)I've always found that there was more of an issue with the perception of dead levels, rather than the dead levels themselves. I played a lot of fighters, back in 2E, and I certainly never felt like I was missing out by not getting something new every level. After all, nobody else was getting anything new, either. Even the wizard was stuck with the spells they started with, unless they somehow acquired new spell scrolls during gameplay, and I was as likely to find a new sword as they were to find a useful spell scroll. The few times I played something like a paladin, it was always weird to think that there were abilities that my class actually had, but somehow I couldn't use them yet.With third edition, most classes were put into a situation where they gained something later on, and of course spellcasters gained new spells at every level. It changed the expectation for what advancement was supposed to look like, such that anyone who didn't get something every level was seen as missing out. This culminated in classes having their dead levels filled with pointless bookkeeping abilities, like the Pathfinder fighter gaining a +1 bonus to Will saves against fear effects.Looking at a rogue in 3E or 5E (or especially Pathfinder), and comparing against a thief in 2E, I just see needless complexity. If ninety percent of the class abilities were removed from every class, it would mean less homework to do before playing the game, and the actual gameplay wouldn't suffer at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 7477416, member: 6775031"] (Not targeting you specifically, but you give the most relevant quote.) I've always found that there was more of an issue with the perception of dead levels, rather than the dead levels themselves. I played a lot of fighters, back in 2E, and I certainly never felt like I was missing out by not getting something new every level. After all, nobody else was getting anything new, either. Even the wizard was stuck with the spells they started with, unless they somehow acquired new spell scrolls during gameplay, and I was as likely to find a new sword as they were to find a useful spell scroll. The few times I played something like a paladin, it was always weird to think that there were abilities that my class actually had, but somehow I couldn't use them yet. With third edition, most classes were put into a situation where they gained something later on, and of course spellcasters gained new spells at every level. It changed the expectation for what advancement was supposed to look like, such that anyone who didn't get something every level was seen as missing out. This culminated in classes having their dead levels filled with pointless bookkeeping abilities, like the Pathfinder fighter gaining a +1 bonus to Will saves against fear effects. Looking at a rogue in 3E or 5E (or especially Pathfinder), and comparing against a thief in 2E, I just see needless complexity. If ninety percent of the class abilities were removed from every class, it would mean less homework to do before playing the game, and the actual gameplay wouldn't suffer at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification