New "Dead Levels"

[Sound of Azure]

There are tons of "dead levels" in OD&D and OAD&D, no doubt. But that gives a player the freedom to define his character by something other than his abilities and skills. For example, when one reaches name level (after which "dead levels" are pretty common, especially for fighters), one can establish a stronghold, raise an army, etc.

JMHO.

Having never even seen OD&D, I'll take your word for it. I wouldn't even doubt that it is true. What also is true is that any player has the freedom to define his character by something other than his abilities and skills, regardless of what mechanics are in place.

The only thing restricting you.... is imagination (either you, your DM, or both).

 

[mhacdebhandia]

And yet, DCAS, absolutely nothing about having skills and feats mandates that a character be defined solely by those attributes.

I'm actually pretty sick of the underhanded implication from too many people around here that Third Edition forces, encourages, or assumes this. It's a baseless assertion - the player habits you claim to have seen aren't a consequence of the system.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Is there some point at which players will say "HD, skill points, saving throw bonuses, an ability point, and another feat are a dead level"?

Quite possibly. Now, I agree that levels where you get an ability score boost or a standard feat choice (talking about every 3rd level - not fighter bonus feats or similar) aren't really "dead levels".

The problem is that it doesn't matter what class level you take; you'll be getting those. Why take that fighter level that doesn't give you the bonus feat when a level of this class over here gives a shiney new ability while you still get that feat choice.

Same with spellcasters. Why take that sorcerer level which will give you next to nothing besides the spell level where if you take this PrC level you still gain that spell level AND gain some new spiff ability.

The problem with the argument in these areas (spell levels, 3rd level feats, ability boosts) isn't so much that these are dead levels - I'll be the first to agree that they aren't - but that most of these bonuses come from character levels and not class levels. The issue here is the question:

[Morden] What do you want? [/Morden]

Do you want the ability point boost or do you want the ability point AND a spiffy new trick?
Do you want the new spell level or do you want the new spell level AND something else fun?
Do you want A or do you want A AND B?

Similar situation with HD, skill points and and saving throw bonuses, while the exact numbers may differ I think the point still stands fairly well. Every level you gain hit points and skill points and you get saving throw boosts most levels. If you switch from a rogue level you might lose some skill points - but no matter what you take your level in you still get some. You might drop some hp if you move away from a barbarian level, but you still get some hp no matter where you go. Saving Throws? Well, you might not be getting any bonuses from your regular class. Even if you are if you take a first level in a PrC you'll likely get more of a boost - since similar type characters have similar saving throw progressions you could easily get you saving throw boost (say... FORT +1) and get a better boost (FORT +2).

I don't see the "dead level fixes" as filling an empty gap so much as making it worthwhile to not take a new class for that level. Here's an example: most wizards and sorcerers that I have seen don't bother with a familier (too risky). If a sorcerer doesn't bother with a fmailier why would they stay as a sorcerer past 5th or 6th level? These "dead level" cookies may not be much, but maybe they fit a character concept and will keep them from having 18 different classes by the end of the campaign. And heck, if they stay in the class they may actually use the familier. Why not get use out a free ability, no matter how weak it is? At least with these dead level fixes you get a weak ability to use.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

There are tons of "dead levels" in OD&D and OAD&D, no doubt. But that gives a player the freedom to define his character by something other than his abilities and skills. For example, when one reaches name level (after which "dead levels" are pretty common, especially for fighters), one can establish a stronghold, raise an army, etc.

My current 3rd edition character has a stronghold and is raising an army. He definatly has a personality and reputation that isn't based on his character sheet... well... let me rephrase that: isn't based ONLY on his character sheet. I think his insanely high charisma score (he's a bard) has helped out his rep as the ladies man that has a harem in every port - but I don't think that is really what what being talked about. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Thunderfoot]

I guess that the "problem" is just perception. An earlier poster said there is no reason to take levels after 5th in any base class, why, because you don't get phenomenal cosmic power? That's powergaming in my book. I personally hated the entire idea of prestige classes (and still do to some point) to begin with. I had the same problem with 'kits' in 2e and 2e, 2.0s Options just made me think of accounting. I understand that some people want that cookie every level, but it isn't required.

I like to play, I like to challenge my players and they like being challenged, for us there is only one person in the group (of 11) that has a PrC and that after a lot of debate over was it necessary? I like 3e, I really do, but often times I am struck by what it killed and left by the roadside, most notably the sense that it was a game to played, not won. The rapid leveling, the suggested treasure tables, the combat only XP tables, they all were created to help move away from certain less desirable attributes of gaming. (Four years at 9th level, Monty Haul and I only need 1 more XP so I go find a peasant and kill them.) But what about the opposite side of the coin where you can level to fifth in only a few days time in game, low power magic and treasure campaigns designed to keep the economy of the game world in check and more RP based campaigns? Yeah there are suggestions to offset these things in the rules, but they really don't work. I can see the influence of video game RPGs on my beloved D&D and frankly it stinks.

All that being said, if this is what it takes to make the game fun for others, then I'm for it. No it won't be at my table, but that doesn't mean it’s derived by Satan in the very bowels of Hell either. There is a definite rift developing between older players and younger players; I see it in local games, cons and even here on the boards. I can usually tell a persons age on these boards just from their general comments, just as you can. This is what's sad; that the children of the first generation of gamers are being separated by a generation gap created by the very thing that we used to say would bring us closer together with our kids than we were with our own families. They didn't understand our hobby, know our kids are saying the same thing, and yet, we created the hobby. I'm not saying the old way is right or better, just that it stinks that there is a new way that keeps us from being united.

Sorry, I'll come off my soapbox now.

 

[Bacris]

I guess that the "problem" is just perception. An earlier poster said there is no reason to take levels after 5th in any base class, why, because you don't get phenomenal cosmic power? That's powergaming in my book.

Except that it isn't. It's poor game design, period.

If you have 2 classes and both are perfectly viable options and both fit your character concept, but one is flat-out-mechanically better, do you really think it's power-gaming to pick the better class?

In my opinion, that's called being intelligent.

If I can choose to take another level in Wizard that nets me a few extra spell slots, maybe an increase in BAB / saves, and 2 + Int skill points, or I can take a level in another class that gives me all those things AND something else, is it powergaming to take that better class, or simply an intelligent, informed decision?

Now, for clarification, my favorite character of all time was a straight psion 20. No prestige classes, no dipping, nothing. So this in no way means that you HAVE to resolve dead levels to have fun, but simply dismissing the concept of fixing dead levels as powergaming or munchkinny is very patronizing and condescending.

Just my opinion, ymmv.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Here's an example: most wizards and sorcerers that I have seen don't bother with a familier (too risky). If a sorcerer doesn't bother with a fmailier why would they stay as a sorcerer past 5th or 6th level?

What PrCs do sorcerers typically take?

Core-only, there are no pure-sorcerer PrC's, since they typically won't have the Knowledge skills for Loremaster. In Complete Arcane, most PrCs give partial caster progression. Of those with full progression, some require relatively useless feats (Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil and Wild Mage) or drive you insane (Alienist). Most PrCs in Complete Arcane cost you caster levels.

The worst offenders would be the classes that grant up-front full-caster progression for 4 levels or so and require useful feats or none at all (Elemental Savant, Fatespinner). Are these classes the problem? They're a good reason for the house rule that once you start down a PrC, you cannot take another PrC until you've finished the first one.

 

[Reynard]

I think reworking all the classes so that there are no "deadlevels" at all would be the best solution. Levelling up is, for many, a key component to the fun of D&D. Making every level count and provide new, shiny fun can only help.

 

[Schmoe]

I read some of the reactions in this thread before reading the article on the WotC site, and I was prepared to be very critical. I hate power-creep. Having said that, after I read the article, I really liked the ideas!

The article addresses a problem of perception, not of power. A player will generally be more satisfied gaining 7th level with his Fighter 5/Prestige 2 that gains shiny new ability X, than he will be with his Fighter 7. Whether the prestige character is actually more powerful in game than the core fighter is irrelevant, it's simply the fact that he gained shiny new ability X. Dead level abilities simply give out shiny new abilities without perceptibly affecting power.

More toys = more variety = more fun

All without affecting balance! Cool.

However, I'm definitely of the belief that caster progression is the equivalent of a shiny new ability. Even without gaining a new level of spells, simply being able to cast more per day opens up entirely new strategies.

 

[WhatGravitas]

2.0s Options just made me think of accounting. I understand that some people want that cookie every level, but it isn't required.

Hmm... this gets me thinking... the Options introduced massive power creep - is this perhaps the reason why some older players are so wary of everything new, that may cry "power-creep"?

The rapid leveling, the suggested treasure tables, the combat only XP tables, they all were created to help move away from certain less desirable attributes of gaming.

I still think that the DMG makes very clear that you get XP for "Challenges", and most published adventures give XP for storylines, including official ones. It is very clear, that combat is a) not the only XP-source, and that b) XP for combat is a well-balanced way for new DMs, who cannot really adjust the XP for RP. Later, after seeing how XP works, they can move further from the combat-XP and read more into the term "challenge".

I can see the influence of video game RPGs on my beloved D&D and frankly it stinks.

That's one of my beefs: What do you mean by "video game RPG-influence"? No offense, I'm curious, honestly.

I can usually tell a persons age on these boards just from their general comments, just as you can.

Really? Or can you rather tell about their maturity, which is sometimes correlated to age... but more than often not?

As a side-note: I also enjoy slower than suggested XP, because I like - if I have time - long-term campaigns with more stuff, however, this means that one fun aspect of the game - level advancement - suffers.
Don't get me wrong, RP, story and so on are what draws me to RPGs, but levelling is part of the fun, otherwise I won't play D&D, but Storyteller or Shadowrun, where there is no "levelling".
However, this clashes with "slower advancement": I get more fun and enjoyment from RP, stories, long-term investment - on the other hand, I get a new level less often, and if I get a fighter level without bonus feat, it is less fun than one with, right?
The same with spellcasters: A new spell level gives me (just like feats) a big list of new, previously not accessible goodies. A level with "just more spells" is less "shiny" - a wand can get me the same.
And that's my definition of "Dead Level" - no shiny stuff.

However, if these "dead levels" get stuffed - even with a flavour ability, like from the article - each level has more "shiny" to it - it is more unique and fun, even if it is not very powerful.

And now, you'll see my reasoning: Classes without dead levels actively promote what many story/RP-focused DMs and players like: Slower levelling - because if each level gives "cookies", then you don't want to level that often, because each level is novel and fun.

Dead levels, however, propagate your disliked "rapid levelling" attitude: Only some levels (like levels with new feats or new spell level) really "feel" like a good new level, hence you want to get them, and want to level faster.

@Thunderfoot: Sorry, that I've picked your post apart, but it got me to that line of thinking, because of your complaint about "rapid levelling", and then I've got the idea of my line of argumentation.