Character Generation Presentation

[JamesonCourage]

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.

I thought it was a term that meant that you gained no abilities outside of skills / HP / base attack / saves. I mean, at 5th level, as a Fighter, I gain nothing, and people call it a "dead level". They don't do the same for Druid, who gets Wild Shape 1/day, or for the Wizard, who gets 3rd level spells*.

At any rate, I'm a fan of stuff every level. My RPG (a non-classed, but still level-based point-buy system) gives you something every hit die (free feat, +1 character points, or +1 to any attribute). And that's not counting what people spend their points on that level, of course. I'd like to see people get something similar in 5e, if possible. As always, play what you like

(*Actually, I'm kind of iffy on spells; I think the term is undefined enough that some people might say it's a dead level even with an entirely new spell level, while others might reserve that for "more level X's, but no new tier, and still others would count any spell level increase as "not a dead level".)

 

[Dice4Hire]

I prefer to ahve abilities listed in the order you getthem, but with upgrades and such in the original text block, and not essentials style, which really annoyed me.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I thought it was a term that meant that you gained no abilities outside of skills / HP / base attack / saves. I mean, at 5th level, as a Fighter, I gain nothing, and people call it a "dead level". They don't do the same for Druid, who gets Wild Shape 1/day, or for the Wizard, who gets 3rd level spells*.

I'd agree with that, too, since I've used the term that way before. So a dead is a "numbers go up" level, with no decision point and no new abilities.

At any rate, I'm a fan of stuff every level. [...] I'd like to see people get something similar in 5e, if possible. As always, play what you like

Huzzah!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Both. Where's my third option? Essentially, this:

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.*

 

[KidSnide]

I liked a lot of things about Essentials (low complexity class options, magic item rarity, better monster designs), but the unnecessarily verbose level-by-level advancement description was not one of them.

Maybe WotC had some research that showed this method was easier for new players? If that's really true -- shrug -- I guess I'm willing to compromise my use of the material to make it easier for new players. But otherwise, it's a PITA. As a DM, most of my use of the PH is to create NPCs or one-shot PCs that are created fresh at a given level. Even as a PC, the number of first level characters I've created are vastly outnumbered by characters at a higher level.

In short, any character creation system that assumes I will create a first level character and then advance that character one level at a time is completely contrary to my experience with the game. Yes, that's a common play mode and it's vitally important that creating (and advancing) a first level character is easy and intuitive. But that's not the only way the game is played, and it's really inconvenient if chargen is overly optimized for that scenario.

-KS

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

In 4e there was a single advancement table for all PCs. You gained feats, powers, ability bumps, and so forth as you leveled. Your class gave you features at first level (you didn't have to wait to "grow into" your class) and it determined what powers you could choose from.

It was straightforward, very consistent, avoided 'dead levels,' and made balancing the classes a lot more practical.

 

[GreyICE]

Throwing my chips into 'mechanical bonuses aren't an actual feature' pot.

1d20+6 and 1d20+7 are the same mechanic. In fact people often complained about this with 3E/4E - and it appears gone in next - that numbers would senselessly increase. For instance, you got +1 hit per level... but monster AC tracked with your level. So you were essentially getting nothing at all.

A live level is a level where your experience of playing the class changes in some way. It doesn't have to involve player choice (although it's nice if it does), but it should CHANGE.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I liked a lot of things about Essentials (low complexity class options, magic item rarity, better monster designs), but the unnecessarily verbose level-by-level advancement description was not one of them.

Maybe WotC had some research that showed this method was easier for new players? If that's really true -- shrug -- I guess I'm willing to compromise my use of the material to make it easier for new players. But otherwise, it's a PITA.

While there was some noise about Essentials being for new players, I don't see how it could have helped them much. My experience with genuinely-new-to-gaming players is that they don't expect to see a class/level table for every class, so they're not taken aback by the lack of one. Consistency is what helps them out. If everyone levels up to 2nd at the same time, they want to know what they get and you can prettymuch answer the question collectively, everyone gets to pick a 2nd level utility, and it's not hard, because there aren't that many of them in the PH (about 4-6 for each class), and they're short and clearly-written using the terminology you get familiar with as you play the game.

I introduced a lot of new players using both 4e and Essentials, and the differences were minimal. OTOH, I also introduced lapsed players who had last played AD&D using both, and Essentials was much easier for them to take.

 

[Cadfan]

1. I generally consider a level to be a "dead level" if it neither presents me with a choice nor changes anything about any of the decisions I make in game. Getting to do [X] +1 times per day isn't a dead level- I can now be slightly more free with my decisions to [X]. Getting +1 to attack rolls when I [X] is probably not going to change anything. That being said, an inability to define a term with absolute precision doesn't render that term useless.

2. For a 3e style setup, I want both versions. It doesn't take up too much space to give me narrative form AND a quick reference summary. I'm not so sure I'm going to be happy with the idea of returning to 3e style straightjacket classes, but if I'm going to have them, I want both versions. What's the worst possible downside? The nonmagical classes take up 6% of the book instead of 5%, knocking out vital space we needed for spells?