Do players need something cool every level?

[Crysmalon]

True20 does the whole "feat every level" thing well. However, in D&D I've never really seen it as a gamebreaker. I think if you keep interesting scenarios, rewards, etc. coming then it doesn't so much matter

 

[Greg K]

I thought that article was worth its virtual weight in gold. Here you add some very flavorful class abilities so that players get something every level, but at the same time the bonuses are minor enough that balance is preserved. It's a near-perfect blend of fluff and crunch, and the game is better for it. This is the sort of thing that'd make me pay for the whole "D&D Insider" package, if it has more of that (though I'd still prefer to get it free).

With the exception of the bards abililites and the rogue's improvised tools, I dislilked the new abilities offered in the article. And, of those abilities I did like, I would prefer to see them as either feats or one or many choices from which to choose.

 

[Melan]

Player characters already get more hit points, bonuses to hit and save, not to mention skill points and the occasional feat. If that isn't enough, I have no idea what would be.

 

[pawsplay]

It creates clutter, and hence, hurts the game. I don't want "flavor," I want to write only things on my character sheet that are useful and/or interesting.

 

[Nyeshet]

Player characters already get more hit points, bonuses to hit and save, not to mention skill points and the occasional feat. If that isn't enough, I have no idea what would be.

The issue is that some levels are truly 'dead levels'. You gain nothing except skill points on those levels, and by the time you reach the second or third dead level magic items have as much if not more importance to skill checks than skill ranks.

For a medium bab class, levels 5, 13, and 17 are dead. You gain neither BAB, nor an increase to either poor or good save. Only in skill points do you experience increase.

For a poor bab class (such as the sorcerer) levels 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, and 19 are 'dead levels'. Note that sorcerers only gain new levels of spells on even levels, so they truly gain nothing other than skill points and an additional usage of a spell or two on those levels - nothing new at all. Actually, if you count the levels were only one thing other than skill pionts are gained, then all odd levels (excluding first) are dead levels (or nearly dead levels) for a poor bab class. The Wizard is not hurt too badly by this, for they gain new spell levels on odd levels, and of their bonus feats two of them occur on odd levels.

Levels 5, 13, and 17 are dead or nearly dead levels for all classes. Even those with good bab only gain +1 bab (and skill points) on those levels. Most classes grant something at those levels, but Fighters gain their feats on even levels, so those levels (5, 13, 17) hurt especially. I've known some that refuse to go beyond level 4 in fighter, and I've never seen anyone go beyond level 12 in fighter - as nothing is gained the next level and by then most interesting feats can be taken for whatever archtype they are building towards. There are a few new feats in PHB2 that encourage going beyond that level, but I've yet to see anyone actually do so. The penalty for taking level 13 outweighs the benefit of instead taking level 1 in a combative PrC or even level 1 in another class such as Barbarian, Knight, or Ranger.

 

[Crothian]

For a poor bab class (such as the sorcerer) levels 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, and 19 are 'dead levels'. Note that sorcerers only gain new levels of spells on even levels, so they truly gain nothing other than skill points and an additional usage of a spell or two on those levels - nothing new at all.

So, learning new spells don't count as something new? Sorcerers gain at least one new spell each level. I think that should be good enough.

Another thing this whole dead level doesn't take into account is class balance. Does the cleric really need more thiongs compaired to say the monk? Even if the addition is not that great it is still something more and makes the cleric that much better.

Also, as people have pointed out many of the abiliteis seem pretty crappy. Are players realy that amazed to get a new thing each level that they won't notice that it actually not that good?

If Wizards went and redid all the PHB classes, made them balanced with no dead levels that would be fine with me. But this is not a solution to the problem as they define it.

 

[Nyeshet]

So, learning new spells don't count as something new? Sorcerers gain at least one new spell each level. I think that should be good enough.

For some it is, for others it isn't. Really, for situations such as the Sorcerer, I think the main issue is not so much the lack of filled levels, but the fact that they can 'safely' join any PrC that has full progression (as most caster PrCs due, and most of those that don't only lose a single level or two at most, usually). Unlike the Wizard, who loses bonus feats to gain all those PrC goodies, the Sorcerer loses nothing. In most respects, the PrCs are all but a requirement for a Sorcerer, as for many of them it is little more than 'tac these on as if they were already listed special abilities' since they are not, in fact, replacing anything.

Another thing this whole dead level doesn't take into account is class balance. Does the cleric really need more thiongs compaired to say the monk? Even if the addition is not that great it is still something more and makes the cleric that much better.

No offence intended, but the Cleric is not balanced. Those that created the class were trying to lump two archtypes together - the miraculously powerful priest and the divine warrior. I think the Cloistered Cleric (poor bab, light armor only, no shields, etc) should be used instead of the typical cleric, and I think the 'holy warrior' should be represented by taking a normal cleric and reducing casting to something akin to the bard (ie: only six levels worth) and have spontaneous curing / inflicting removed. Then I think the archtypes would be 'balanced'. The cleric as is is broken and should be always replaced with the Cloistered Cleric. But that is for another thread, one that has been argued ad nausium several times before.

Also, as people have pointed out many of the abiliteis seem pretty crappy. Are players realy that amazed to get a new thing each level that they won't notice that it actually not that good?

It depends on the ability. Gaining Turning Undead at third level (as with a Paladin) may seem quite useful and interesting, but before divine feats came out that made use of Turning attempts for uses other than holding back Undead this was actually a rather minor ability unless the campaign was undead-centric. The fact that the Paladin, due to being treated as a cleric two levels lower, rarely succeeded except against minor undead (for the Pal's level) made it even less of a useful ability. But it was still oo'd and ah'd over due to the fact that it was a new ability that was thematically interesting and potentially useful - even if only as a back-up cleric for such situations. Later, when divine feats came out that made further uses of Turn Undead, it became even more interesting, but that doesn't mean it wasn't seen as interesting before.

A ranger gaining a special that allows them to track at normal speed without penalty (rather than half speed) will rarely see usage outside of a wilderness-centric campaign, but that doesn't mean the player won't like it. So long as every few sessions they get a chance to use it - or the lack of penalty it grants in that situation makes the difference - then the player won't mind at all (that they gained a rather minor 'fill in the blank' special).

If Wizards went and redid all the PHB classes, made them balanced with no dead levels that would be fine with me. But this is not a solution to the problem as they define it.

Actually, I hadn't even read the article until after reading this post of yours. I was just working under the assumption of identifying 'dead levels' based on when or when not anything other than skill points was gained. Personally, I would love it if WotC redid all the classes to better balance them - and left no blank spaces. But I see that as utterly unlikely until 4e comes out in a few years time (at least, I hope it doesn't come out for a few years! ).

 

[Gez]

A qualified yes, it could be every two levels instead.

But yeah, gaining cool stuff often is necessary to prevent the temptation of multiclassing or prestigeclassing.

Spellcasting levels are dead because they're not specific class features that you obligatorily lose if you take a prestige class.

 

[Justin Bacon]

Here it talks about dead levels and filling them in so players get something cool each level. Now ignoring the fact that new spells every level is ignored here (spells aren't cool enough anymore? I don't understand why they don't consider getting spells a non dead level): Do you feel that players need something cool every level?

The article does note one of the biggest design flaws WotC propagated: The PrCs that gain +1 llevel of spellcasting every level while combining that with powerful abilities that the core classes don't get.

Of course, their solution is to pump up the power of the core classes.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

They don't need something cool every level. But it is nice and it should be considered when disigning a class.
IMO new spell levels or extra high level slots do count as something cool.