Fifth Element
Legend
Levels in which the character received nothing new (other than hit points, skill points, that sort of thing). No new class abilities or spells or feats or anything.
What did you never like in 3e?
- Thread starter Andor
- Start date
Fallen Seraph
First Post
Essentially they are where you go up a level and you don't get anything for it. So no new Class Features, no Feats, no New Spells, etc. All you get is say a increase in HP or what not.
Fifth Element
Legend
Getting ninja'd is awesome!
I don't see the problem there, but thanks for answering.
I tend to see "dead levels" more as a let down than a big negative - but occasionally they stand out (the monk, for example, gets abilities at almost every level except something like 17 - just seems odd).
My big 3E peeves are turning and grapple mechanics. I just can't remember them, even if I use them repeated in the same session. I like the idea of channeling positive/negative energy, but the mechanics blew.
Hussar
Legend
Well, friend, let me enlighten you:
A Silent Wail
A dead level is a 3e term for when you advance a character level and get nothing beyond hit points and maybe BAB and save advances. No class abilities. Think 5th level for fighters. They gain a level and get... nothing. Then at 6th they gain an extra attack per round and two feats. Makes the distance between 4th and 6th very long.
One of my biggest complaints with the Binder is the dead levels. From 5th to 8th, you get nothing. I believe the only class abiliity you get is fear immunity. Wow, three levels to give me an autosave. Note, this was also something of a product of the feat that allows you to bind higher level bindings. But, it still meant that I went three levels and the only thing that changed on my character sheet was the hit points.
Remathilis
Legend
Dead levels encourage multi-class and Prestige class cherry picking.
For example, there is no reason to go rogue 20th level; the last level gives you nothing. 8 skill points, 1d6 hp, and +1 bab. You could easily get something better by having taken a level of fighter (1d10 hp, +2 fort, +1 bab, bonus feat) or shadowdancer (hide in plain sight) for just two examples.
Dead levels in caster-classes is doubly worse; unless you care deeply about turn undead or your familiar, there is little to keep you out a full caster-level progression PrC if your a cleric or a sorcerer.
One thing Pathfinder tried to get right was the idea of capstone abilities: things you got at 20th level that were awesome. Unfortunately, I find most of them too awesome (overpowered) but their heart was in the right place.
Thasmodious
First Post
My major issues:
caster/non-caster disparity
magic item superstores and the economy
the craft skills/system
npc/monster item dependency
multiclassing losing its meaning amongst 1 level dips and multiple prestige classes, not being able to fit it all under the "class" line on a character sheet
the barbarian 1-level dip
grappling
encouragement of gaming the system through system mastery
caster/non-caster disparity
magic item superstores and the economy
the craft skills/system
npc/monster item dependency
multiclassing losing its meaning amongst 1 level dips and multiple prestige classes, not being able to fit it all under the "class" line on a character sheet
the barbarian 1-level dip
grappling
encouragement of gaming the system through system mastery
delericho
Legend
They're levels at which a character gets nothing significant, except perhaps a +1 increase to BAB, saves, or what have you. The Fighter has a dead level at 5th level, for example.
On the one hand, dead levels were something of an anti-climax. On the other, if your game isn't all about getting the new kewl powerz and the like, this may well not matter to you.
Personally, my big objection to the handling of dead level was that WotC decided that the Wizard and Cleric progressions had dead levels at every level above 1st, even those levels where they got access to a whole new level of spells. Given that those levels marked an expansion of available power an available options that was unrivalled by any other non-caster class, that seemed absurd to me.
delericho
Legend
I would argue that this was a problem with the full progression PrCs, rather than the dead levels themselves. The Cleric and Wizard (and especially Druid) are already among the most powerful base classes in the game. Add a full caster prestige class that also gives any sort of class ability at each level, and you add yet more power on top of an already highly powered class.
Personally, I would have argued that every caster PrC should have omitted the "+1 caster level" advance in the first level of the progression at least, and maybe at some higher levels as well, depending on the other class features. This would make the choice to follow such a PrC or not actually meaningful.
The other change that I think needed applied to the big three caster classes was a sharp reduction in the range of spells that were available, whether by simply reducing the number and range of spells, or by forcing such characters to select only a small subset (through a Cleric spheres system or similar), or whatever.
Similar Threads
