New "Dead Levels"

[Slaved]

Of course. But a PC has little conception of that, and so it really isn't that important.

I would imagine that the character has little concept of levels or using experience to get a level either. Those are purely player constructs.

You can choose not to gain a level even if you have enough experience so from their perspective nothing has changed, they still have the same abilities but are waiting for a little "something" from beyond to help them make the next important step.

Metagaming the metagame in order to make incharacter developements based on incharacter rationalizations makes me happy

 

[Brother MacLaren]

You can choose not to gain a level even if you have enough experience so from their perspective nothing has changed, they still have the same abilities but are waiting for a little "something" from beyond to help them make the next important step.

Sure, I get that. I'm just trying to show how a character can in fact feel much more accomplished just from getting BAB and HD, particularly in a game with some "status quo" challenges. It seems that being able to easily stomp the things that used to be a real threat to you should give a sense of accomplishment to a fighter.

A big part of this is incumbent upon the DM, to throw lower-CR foes at the PCs to let them show off how much better they've gotten.

 

[sjmiller]

You can choose not to gain a level even if you have enough experience so from their perspective nothing has changed, they still have the same abilities but are waiting for a little "something" from beyond to help them make the next important step.

Wait a minute, you would rather have the character not gain a level than gain a level? So you would want to, for example, skip fifth level because it is "boring" and wait for sixth level? That makes no sense to me.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Wait a minute, you would rather have the character not gain a level than gain a level? So you would want to, for example, skip fifth level because it is "boring" and wait for sixth level? That makes no sense to me.

He wants to min max his experience pickup rate by skipping levels that don't offer enough combat "oomph" to offset possibly more powerful foes, and getting less XP for fighting the same foes that he is now one level up on.

 

[Kapture]

I love the idea of adding little abilities to kill dead levels.

However, the way they are done in this article really make them feel superfluous. Sure, you get extra bonuses... but do you really care?

This is something that needs to be considered during the creation of the entire class, not done as an afterthought.

Cheers!

Ah, see there's my ditto.

New class abilities are great, but the ones they offered seemed kinda pointless.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

This is true in a world where the monster abilities always just happen to line up with the level of the PCs. Such a world would really hurts suspension of disbelief for me. I'm a BIG fan of "status quo" worldbuilding. Level 9 characters should have the same random encounters in the woods around the City of Threshold that level 4 characters would have.

OK, the Dead Levels article isn't aimed at your group in particular, it's aimed at the standard style of play, wherein your characters face threats of about this level. Every edition of D&D has done this, with the suggested levels written right on the front of modules.

So, in those cases -- the majority of cases -- status quo isn't particularly exciting.

Other folks' style of play not being your cup of tea is a different thread.

 

[DungeonMaester]

I still disagree with their definition of a "dead level," so I can't say that I find this article too terribly useful. 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.

Same here.

I third that.

"Zomg moar powars!!!111oneoneone"

---Rusty

 

[Brother MacLaren]

OK, the Dead Levels article isn't aimed at your group in particular, it's aimed at the standard style of play, wherein your characters face threats of about this level. Every edition of D&D has done this, with the suggested levels written right on the front of modules.

Yes, but everything does not become more dangerous. The random encounter table for the Rockhome Mountains doesn't change. The actual level of Baron Norlan of Qeodhar doesn't change. Prince Jaggar von Drachenfels is level 30 no matter what level you are when you encounter him.

Look at some of those old modules. X4, Master of the Desert Nomads, has SOME tougher foes, true, but also hordes of 1-HD orcs, 2-HD gnolls, 3-HD bugbears, 1-HD bandits, and so on. M2, Vengeance of Alphaks, includes a fire giants (Expert-level threats), level-10 magic-users, spectres (easily destroyed by a cleric of Master level), manscorpions (8-HD), and so on. Isle of Dread has plenty of low-level challenges.

Going through one of these modules, the PCs would think "Ogres! I used to be scared of them but they're no problem now." Before they run into, say, the stone juggernaut.

On the other hand, it sounds like you and some others describe a game world with encounters tailored so closely to the party's abilities that ALL foes have better AC, damage, DCs, and so on every level, so there is absolutely NO perceptible benefit from gaining HD, BAB, and saving throw bonuses. They never get a chance to shine by showing off how much better than their old foes they have become. Understandably this would produce a great feeling of frustration at this lack of progress, and so I would view it as sub-standard DM'ing.

 

[Belen]

If you cut off the feat part, I would yes, and that is right now. As people said before, more HD, skill points, saving throw bonuses and BAB aren't that exciting at a level when monster attacks will be doing more damage with higher DCs, and skill DCs (especially for the rogues) will be getting harder. Ability points fall under the same umbrella. Increasing your dex by 1 isn't that exciting if the REF saves and monster attacks are going up too.

\

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.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yes, but everything does not become more dangerous. The random encounter table for the Rockhome Mountains doesn't change. The actual level of Baron Norlan of Qeodhar doesn't change. Prince Jaggar von Drachenfels is level 30 no matter what level you are when you encounter him.

Look at some of those old modules. X4, Master of the Desert Nomads, has SOME tougher foes, true, but also hordes of 1-HD orcs, 2-HD gnolls, 3-HD bugbears, 1-HD bandits, and so on. M2, Vengeance of Alphaks, includes a fire giants (Expert-level threats), level-10 magic-users, spectres (easily destroyed by a cleric of Master level), manscorpions (8-HD), and so on. Isle of Dread has plenty of low-level challenges.

Going through one of these modules, the PCs would think "Ogres! I used to be scared of them but they're no problem now." Before they run into, say, the stone juggernaut.

Yes, they can mow down level 1 mooks marginally faster and last a round longer against the level 30 uber-baddy. (And I don't think most groups are taking on political leaders in Mystara, for a variety of reasons, anyway.)

Compared to now being able to teleport or being able to animate a tree, or what have you, that's a pretty small reward for leveling up.