Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 3355039" data-attributes="member: 15538">1) I used to play Basic D&amp;D, where virtually every level was a &quot;dead level.&quot; The whole concept is basically bankrupt. Yes, you should get something for your level. No, that does not mean you should include &quot;+2 to identifying cheeses by smell&quot; so a level won't be &quot;dead.&quot; Simplicity is a virtue. In addition, staggered progressions, like a fighter's feats or a caster's spell levels, encourage commitment to a core class. That said, things could use a little tuning up. Not every progression has to be exactly the same. For instance, shifting the Fighter's Reflex save up two levels would start them at +1, and would cause 7th level to no longer be &quot;dead.&quot; Some progressions could use a little jazzing up; one take on the Fighter would be to simply award another feat at 7th, 13th, and 19th levels. There are no &quot;dead&quot; levels for pure casters; every one gains either a new spell level or a new slot at each level. 2) I don't like it. There are formats where they kind of thing works well, but D&amp;D isn't it. A more mechanically simple game, with more anchors in a game reality and less in &quot;balance&quot; or tactics, could justify &quot;per encounter.&quot; But basically, per encounter is just like using time, only instead of having the option to fudge one minute or five as &quot;close enough,&quot; you instead don't have the option of falling back on how often you can do something in absolute terms. In my view, it only hampers the game. Three sentences could summarize the whole &quot;per encounter&quot; approach without touching times for those who want them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pawsplay, post: 3355039, member: 15538"] 1) I used to play Basic D&D, where virtually every level was a "dead level." The whole concept is basically bankrupt. Yes, you should get something for your level. No, that does not mean you should include "+2 to identifying cheeses by smell" so a level won't be "dead." Simplicity is a virtue. In addition, staggered progressions, like a fighter's feats or a caster's spell levels, encourage commitment to a core class. That said, things could use a little tuning up. Not every progression has to be exactly the same. For instance, shifting the Fighter's Reflex save up two levels would start them at +1, and would cause 7th level to no longer be "dead." Some progressions could use a little jazzing up; one take on the Fighter would be to simply award another feat at 7th, 13th, and 19th levels. There are no "dead" levels for pure casters; every one gains either a new spell level or a new slot at each level. 2) I don't like it. There are formats where they kind of thing works well, but D&D isn't it. A more mechanically simple game, with more anchors in a game reality and less in "balance" or tactics, could justify "per encounter." But basically, per encounter is just like using time, only instead of having the option to fudge one minute or five as "close enough," you instead don't have the option of falling back on how often you can do something in absolute terms. In my view, it only hampers the game. Three sentences could summarize the whole "per encounter" approach without touching times for those who want them. [/QUOTE]

Verification