Incremental Levels

[Malacoda]

It sounds like a good idea. I wouldn't like to give different amounts of action points per class, so I would rather choose a fixed amount (e.g. 1/level), and then proceed in either the following ways:

- divide the xp needed for next level by the number of features (instead of always 10, it can be sometimes less for some classes): it's one more calculation but not a big deal

- just buy features with your rules, and when you have them all then get all the remaining xp normally for next level (which means that if you have a few features only this level, you'll get them all quicker but then you'll have a small time to wait without getting anything)

Those would essentially work, but if you still planned on using action points, I would stick with the 10 advancements per level, and break up the fixed action points per advancement. So, if you planned on giving 1/2 level + 5 (the default for d20 Modern style APs, I believe), and a character was advancing to 4th level, they would get 7 action points. If they had 5 advances not being used for class or level features, they would get 1 per advance, plus 1 more on two of them.

With Incremental Levels, it is possible to advance really slow, like one advancement per session, as in my example I posted above, and so if you remove APs as an advancement, some classes simply don't get something every session. If that is not a problem for someone, then altering the system to reflect this should work.

 

[Malacoda]

So, given that this is 8, and that every level proceeds in increments of 1000 xp, these will cost 125 x level instead of 100 x level, which is a little goofier, but it can be done.

And, instead of buying these things, you could just write an expanded xp table that lists how many xp you need for each advancement (a pain, to be sure, but easy enough to do with a spreadsheet).

This is actually similar to the first iteration of Incremental Levels. I had a big XP chart in Excel that broke it down from 1 to 20 without the extras of action points. But when it was all done, it was more complication than I wanted to deal with. It didn't feel as "smooth" I guess.

 

[Li Shenron]

Those would essentially work, but if you still planned on using action points, I would stick with the 10 advancements per level, and break up the fixed action points per advancement. So, if you planned on giving 1/2 level + 5 (the default for d20 Modern style APs, I believe), and a character was advancing to 4th level, they would get 7 action points. If they had 5 advances not being used for class or level features, they would get 1 per advance, plus 1 more on two of them.

The fact is, different amount of AP per class is ok to you because you feel that classes aren't equal, and that you balance them out this way, which assumes that those who get "less features" at a certain level they are getting something less worth than other classes.

But not all features are equal... A wizard's access to a new level of spells is worth a lot. Indeed, it's worth so much that the wizard gets it every two levels. That doesn't mean TO ME that she's getting something less in her even levels, but rather that she's getting something more than a level worth in her odd levels.

With Incremental Levels, it is possible to advance really slow, like one advancement per session, as in my example I posted above, and so if you remove APs as an advancement, some classes simply don't get something every session. If that is not a problem for someone, then altering the system to reflect this should work.

The advancement in power depends on the xp you give, which is itself indipendent from using your system or the normal advancement by level. So if you keep xp per CR as in the core rules, your characters actually advance somewhat faster than normal characters: when reaching the real "next level" they are exactly on par, but between levels your characters get the next level's benefits in advance, gradually.

Furthermore normally on the average the PCs level up every 3-4 sessions, which makes me think that with your gradual 10% increments you are more likely to end up with 1-3 increments per characters per session! That is in any way much more often than a standard 3ed character, so I don't think they would complain if 1 session in a while some PC gets nothing.

 

[Malacoda]

The fact is, different amount of AP per class is ok to you because you feel that classes aren't equal, and that you balance them out this way, which assumes that those who get "less features" at a certain level they are getting something less worth than other classes.

But not all features are equal... A wizard's access to a new level of spells is worth a lot. Indeed, it's worth so much that the wizard gets it every two levels. That doesn't mean TO ME that she's getting something less in her even levels, but rather that she's getting something more than a level worth in her odd levels.

While I do understand your point, your focus is on a per-level balance, while I see the number of action points as more of an overall, average balance. Some will get more at one level, some will get more at another, but in the end it all mostly washes out, just like with normal abilities; a 5th level fighter gets squat, a 5th level wizard gets quite a bit, for example.

Also, the difference between the classes is not that big, really. Below is a list of the average number of advances each class gets over 19 levels (rounded up to one decimal place):

Barbarian 5.3
Bard 6.5
Cleric 7
Druid 7
Fighter 4.8
Monk 4.9
Paladin 6.4
Ranger 6.2
Rogue 4.9
Sorcerer 6.3
Wizard 6.4

The low end is the fighter, who gets 4.8 advances on the average, and the high end is the cleric and druid, who get 7. That’s a difference of 2.2 action points on the average.

The advancement in power depends on the xp you give, which is itself independent from using your system or the normal advancement by level. So if you keep xp per CR as in the core rules, your characters actually advance somewhat faster than normal characters: when reaching the real "next level" they are exactly on par, but between levels your characters get the next level's benefits in advance, gradually.

This is an excellent point, and am glad you bring it up. I agree with it completely, and I guess it does help illustrate that the Incremental Level system, as written, is going to have difficulty when used with the D&D RAW XP system, despite what I state in the intro about not increasing power level.

This can be ameliorated to a degree by a few basic guidelines, such as requiring action points first, or by requiring action points every other advancement whenever possible.

The flip side, though, is that I really do not intend the system to be used with the RAW XP rules. The whole point is to slow things down by a noticeable amount. I do talk about using it with the RAW XP system, but perhaps I need to reanalyze those guidelines.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Campaign Example
A Dungeon Master and his players discuss their preferences for D&D, and find the following:

They all like to start at 1st level, but like to advance up to about 3rd level fairly fast. Low levels are fun and have a certain thrill to them, but constantly being in danger of getting one-shotted grows old.

The maximum level they really enjoy is about 10th. At that level you can start to dabble in some serious magic, such as raise dead, a few save-or-die spells, plus spells like teleport. They feel these kinds of magics and the challenges they are suited for overcoming are best faced after much work and adventure. These are capstones to a long career, not stepping stones. They want to use them for a while, then retire.

The “sweet spot” for the group is really 5th through 8th. Over those four levels, the players feel they are in their prime, with plenty of cool abilities and good staying power, but not over the top or hard to manage.

The group really values a decent array of abilities over seriously powered abilities. Feats are great, and they would rather have more feats than more powerful, higher-level abilities.​

As far as I am concerned, you just defined the ideal 4th edition design parameters.

 

[Li Shenron]

Barbarian 5.3
Bard 6.5
Cleric 7
Druid 7
Fighter 4.8
Monk 4.9
Paladin 6.4
Ranger 6.2
Rogue 4.9
Sorcerer 6.3
Wizard 6.4

Ah! I was expecting a much wider gap (I had in mind that spellcasters would have got much more because of their "dead levels"). But if these are the averages then the difference is not that outrageous: 5 AP/level to the Fighter and Rogue, 3 AP/level to the Cleric and Druid, basically 4 AP/level for everybody else. I agree that this is not that bad after all...

 

[sirwmholder]

Only one question about this system... would Class level based abilities need to be bought each level? For example Cleric's Turn Undead is granted at 1st level but would have you to keep track of it's improvement by buying it each level after the first? or Do all abilities advance naturally so after you buy a complete Cleric level... Turn Undead grows in power one notch?

Just curious,
William Holder

 

[TwoSix]

As far as I am concerned, you just defined the ideal 4th edition design parameters.

The man speaks truth.