New "Dead Levels"

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Well, crap, I guess the solution is to make the game play exciting enough that people do not have to whinge about KEWL powers at every level.

The is essentially the same argument they use for Turning. A cleric cannot use it all the time, so you must spice it up.

Lame.

Yeah, lame for players to be allowed to spend one of their precious feats on something that lets them use a situational ability with a set number of uses a day in a different situational fashion a set number of times a day!

 

[Belen]

Yeah, lame for players to be allowed to spend one of their precious feats on something that lets them use a situational ability with a set number of uses a day in a different situational fashion a set number of times a day!

Nice to see that we agree here, WD.

 

[DungeonMaester]

Personally, I prefer Sub levels to ether re-writing classes for new abilities/flavor or 'Dead Levels' Its led to many interesting characters in my worlds.

---Rusty

 

[Reynard]

I propose we start a new project in House Rules: the Dead Level Free Core Class List.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I propose we start a new project in House Rules: the Dead Level Free Core Class List.

That would actually be great.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

The author's view that gaining new spell levels is not significant is, in my opinion, flawed and represents a level of power gaming I do not agree with in the least.

Well, speaking as the author, my view is most emphatically *not* that gaining new spell levels is insignificant. This is evidenced by the fact that the "least significant" dead level abilities (abilities that were already more flavorful than powerful to begin with) were granted to any dedicated spellcasting class that gains new spells slots or spells known every level.

I'm not sure, but is there a Cole's Notes version of my article circulating the internet? Damn that was fast.

Kolja

 

[sjmiller]

Well, speaking as the author, my view is most emphatically *not* that gaining new spell levels is insignificant. This is evidenced by the fact that the "least significant" dead level abilities (abilities that were already more flavorful than powerful to begin with) were granted to any dedicated spellcasting class that gains new spells slots or spells known every level.

I must be confused then. In the first "dead levels" article you state the following:

While base attack bonuses and saving throws typically increase every level, there's no harm in admitting that such benefits don't inspire the same enthusiasm as a new special ability.

Just because there's not a new, shiny, sparkly listing in the Special column of the class table every level does not mean the levels are "dead." I don't understand how gains in HP, BAB, skill levels, and saves are not a reason to rejoice. Those gains, and gains in spell levels, are all good things and make a level "alive and well" in my book.

I honestly think that the problem lies not in the so-called "dead levels," but in prestige classes and non-core classes that give a new "toy" every level. A level can be beneficial and "alive" and not have a new special ability. Your articles seem to be saying that any level without a special ability is not a good or fun level. Now, I may be misinterpreting your message, but if I am then I am not the only one.

Finally, as a side note, if these special abilities are designed to have "an imperceptible impact on game balance while remaining thematically consistent to the flavor of each character class," then why bother to bring them up? Until this article came to light I never knew there were "dead levels" in D&D. In my 27 years of gaming experience the only time I encountered a "dead level" was when my character died. It's almost like you are trying to present a solution to a problem that didn't exist before you presented the solution.

It's late, and I am probably not making sense. Maybe I am just not the target audience for this sort of stuff, I don't know.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

sjmiller.

In the first article I state ... "there's no harm in admitting that such benefits don't inspire the same enthusiasm as a new special ability". That's all. There's no harm in admitting that you want a special ability "cookie" at every level. There's also no harm in not wanting that cookie. What you infer, however, is that I consider gaining new spell levels to be "insignificant". That's a huge assumptive leap on your part and an incorrect one. It erroneously puts a word into my mouth that was neither said nor implied.

Just because there's not a new, shiny, sparkly listing in the Special column of the class table every level does not mean the levels are "dead." I don't understand how gains in HP, BAB, skill levels, and saves are not a reason to rejoice.

If that's all you need to enjoy each new level, more power to you. But what you want and what the guy next to you wants (to enjoy the game) are two completely different universes, as already expressed by several people on this thread alone.

Your articles seem to be saying that any level without a special ability is not a good or fun level.

At no point did I say that a level without a special ability is not a "good" or "fun" level. I have said that a character class with special abilities during 18 or 19 out of 20 levels causes those levels in which no abilities are gained to stand out like a beacon, but that is not the same thing at all.

Now, I may be misinterpreting your message, but if I am then I am not the only one.

Actually, several people on this thread have already "gotten" it just fine.

Dead level abilities are meant to encourage role-playing, to thematically differentiate the character classes more, and to offer an imperceptibly powerful, non-combat oriented special ability "cookie" for those who crave one at every level. If you are not one of those people, then by all means, ignore the cookie jar. It shouldn't even be a temptation to you. As per your post, calculating bab, hp, saves, and skill ranks is reward enough.

Finally, as a side note, if these special abilities are designed to have "an imperceptible impact on game balance while remaining thematically consistent to the flavor of each character class," then why bother to bring them up?

That's an easy one. Even though dead level abilities have an imperceptible impact on game balance, for some people (quite a lot actually) enjoying Dungeons & Dragons has nothing to do with "game balance". That's not to say they don't appreciate and follow the rules, but that they enjoy different aspects of the game more than tracking numbers. This could be a stretch, but I think they might even enjoy "role-playing". Sorry, I'm being cheeky now.

Until this article came to light I never knew there were "dead levels" in D&D.

Well I can't take credit for coining the term. It existed long before these articles were a twinkle in my eye.

It's late, and I am probably not making sense. Maybe I am just not the target audience for this sort of stuff, I don't know.

Not at all, you are making perfect sense, for yourself ... which is all that matters here. Dead level abilities are optional. You can take them or you can leave them. Simple as that. It's not a debate. It's a preference. I hope that helps.

Kolja

 

[Thunderfoot]

Theres enough crap on the character sheets without remembering that you get a +1 to Gather Information checks about frogs while the moon is waxing.

<SNIP>

BWAHAHAHAHA!

That has got to be one of the best posts I've seen in a while.

 

[sjmiller]

What you infer, however, is that I consider gaining new spell levels to be "insignificant". That's a huge assumptive leap on your part and an incorrect one. It erroneously puts a word into my mouth that was neither said nor implied.

I stand corrected on this subject. To me, at least, the impression that was left was what I had stated. I will take note of the fact that the impression was not correct and go on from there. There are several comments I was going to make on points you brought up in your reply, but I think I will just drop them and chalk them up to differences in concept and play style.

Dead level abilities are meant to encourage role-playing, to thematically differentiate the character classes more, and to offer an imperceptibly powerful, non-combat oriented special ability "cookie" for those who crave one at every level.

I am going to have to read the articles again, because that was definitely not the impression I got on the first read through. It looked to me like the article was meant to address the issue of players complaining about not getting a new special ability on every level of every class. It struck me as someone coming to the DM and whining that they should get something every level because the Barbarian is. They didn't seem to encourage role-playing at all, but encouraged players to whine about not being "special" every level. Like I said, I need to read it again with a different eye towards the content.

Well I can't take credit for coining the term. It existed long before these articles were a twinkle in my eye.

Wow, really? Huh. Like I said, I hadn't heard it before your article.

Thank you again for taking the time to respond to the comments here. Hearing from the author has allowed me to see that the intent of the articles and my first impressions were two different things. With that in mind, I think I will go read them again.