Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5871260" data-attributes="member: 54877">You could still do 19th level dungeon-crawls if you wanted.  You'd simply ignore any tiers that didn't fit that pattern.  The inherent tension in traditional D&D class/level design is that the classes and levels are trying to convey both breadth and depth (from a power perspective, not characterization, naturally)--which means that you lock in a given breadth for a given depth of play.  If it were mapped out on a two-dimensional grid, with depth on the vertical axis and breadth on the horizontal axis, then the line might be any angle or curve (depending on how much breadth and depth you assign to each level gained), but it would be a fixed curve for a given implementation of the system. If I read KM's proposal correctly, what he is saying is that you get some rather narrow, fixed breadth by having a class--a little is inherent in the concept.  As you gain levels, you don't gain much more.  You do gain depth (i.e. power within your current breadth).  So the line is running practically straight up the vertical axis.  When you add a tier, you gain breadth--regardless of where you are on that vertical line.  Why you gain it and when would be left up to the DM and the group. My suggested refinement was that this essential nature of the proposal be accepted more aggressively--thus having tiers that "progress" completely independent of the levels.  You might not want to start with a bunch of tiers at low levels, on grounds of it didn't fit your campaign style, but nothing in the system would stop you mechanically, if you wanted to. Of course, given such a system, a lot of people are going to replicate something similar to AD&D, so that the effect is that the line is about a 45 degree angle--tiers being added as levels are gained.</blockquote>

Verification