Character Generation Presentation

[hbarsquared]

I noticed this is Essentials, and it stuck out to me with the leveling up in the Next Playtest Packet: the presentation of class features and other character generation aspects.

I always liked the character advancement table with paragraphs explaining the features. Something like:

Feats: Choose two feats at level 1, and one feat every other level at levels 3, 5, 7, etc.

Fighter's Surge: You gain Fighter's Surge at Level 2. You can take two actions on your turn, twice per day. You get one more use per day every five levels at levels 5, 10, 15, etc.

Barbarian Rage: Once per day, you can enter into a rage. <explanation here> You get one more use per day every four levels at levels 4, 8, 12, etc.

I noticed in Essentials, and I got this sense from the Next Playtest Packet, that they're presenting character advancement and abilities on a by-level basis, instead of by-feature basis.

Level 3: You gain a feat.
Level 4: You rage twice per day.
Level 5: You gain a feat. You can take two actions on your turn three times per day.
Etc...

I wanted to put my two cents in for the first method of presentation. The second method I find hard to understand. Why am I getting another use now? Is this from my class, from general advancement, or what? What's rage do again?

The first method has all the information for each feature in one place, and it's easier to understand how that feature develops over time when it's advancement is described with the feature itself.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Essentials also had the awkwardness of small pages and big type, which made the problem worse (a 10 page class became a 20 page class).

I like the 3.x method: Explain it in paragraphs, and have a big table for reference. Don't make me flip through an entire step-by-step guide that lists "generate your ability scores" and "choose skills" for every freaking class.*

The important thing is the table: that's what everyone is going to look at. If the table has everything on it, and everything is explained below in paragraph or stat block form, it'll be all chizzle.

*But please DO have a step-by-step procedure at the beginning of the book, with steps like generate ability scores, choose class, choose race, etc. Have a big advancement table too. 4eC forgot this.

 

[BobTheNob]

I do prefer what you suggested. When character definition is organised by capabilities, its clearer to see what the class does. Once you present in the "advancing table" format, you have to scan the whole table to get the complete picture.

That said, the advancing table is better from a design perspective as it very clearly helps spot "dead" levels. But for the player : organised by capability gets my vote.

 

[jadrax]

Oh, interesting observation and question.

I have no idea which I prefer.

 

[Stormonu]

Dead levels. A term I hate with a purple passion because it's generally misleading.

The 1st version makes more sense if you're going to allow 3E-like multiclassing. If you can't multiclass, the 2nd version sounds fine to me. Who cares what the source of an ability is? If you hit the right level, you gain the ability.

 

[YRUSirius]

I vote for the 3.5 way: Give us an advancement table where we can see the class advancement and descriptions in paragraphs in the class description.

You could put the theme feats into this table too, something like this:



The Fighter (Level 1-20)
Level XP Needed Class feature
1st - weapon focus, weapon damage +1, theme feat

2nd 2.000 weapon damage +1, fighter's surge

3rd 6.000 weapon damage +1, theme feat

4th 12.000 weapon damage +1, fighter's surge, +1 ability

etc...

One neat table. You could also put the XP and +1 ability stuff on a seperate table for easy reference for multiclassing (might be better).



-YRUSirius

(My formatting was deleted, but you'll get the gist...)

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't know what was done in 4e, but a class advancement table like in 3e is IMHO absolutely necessary!!

Then what to put on that table needs to be carefully decided. A special ability gained at level 1 which you can use 1/day/level would be nice to show up in the table at every level but is not strictly needed (especially if the advancement in it is very regular), and if you do this for every level-based ability you get an unreadable table.

There is a trade-off between a table with too little and a table with too much.

Put too little, and the main downside is that you may forget a benefit or boost (this happened to us in 3.0 e.g. with the Ranger). Another downside is mostly psychological, the "blank levels" don't really exist but can deliver a sense of frustration and lower the appeal of the class).

Put too much, and again you may overlook some important benefit because it's buried under useless reminders, and of course you just need too much space to print the table.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Dead levels. A term I hate with a purple passion because it's generally misleading.

How so?

 

[Stormonu]

How so?

It's generally used to say that no ability is gained for a given level. But for example, the 3.5 fighter has no dead levels. He gets a +1 bonus to hit every level, +1d10 hit points, 2 skill points, and a possible bonus to saves. To me, that is far from being "dead". It may not be the most interesting benefit in the world, but its far from "nothing".

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It's generally used to say that no ability is gained for a given level. But for example, the 3.5 fighter has no dead levels. He gets a +1 bonus to hit every level, +1d10 hit points, 2 skill points, and a possible bonus to saves. To me, that is far from being "dead". It may not be the most interesting benefit in the world, but its far from "nothing".

No, that's definitely a dead level, because there's no choice.

"Numbers go up" is not an interesting decision point.

That's what a dead-level represents - a level where nothing from the player is required.