Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D+1" data-source="post: 2099212" data-attributes="member: 13654">From a RAW perspective the question is irrelevant.  "Name" level, or "Title" level was wildly variable from class to class in the actual level, the XP needed to reach it, the benefits conferred beyond calling followers, etc.  Most of those things are now structured directly into both the individual class and the skill system with the remainder having been simply dropped (such as the "right" to build a stronghold or temple, start a thieves guild, etc.)The fact that level advancement is now much faster is particularly meaningless because even in AD&D it had nothing to do with taking a given amount of play time to reach "Name" level.  It was a mechanic that simply tied an arbitrarily set character level to be "meaningful" in a campaign.  But that level could be set anywhere the DM wants it in d20 simply to once again impart significance to reaching that point.  But all the old rewards that went with it are now gone, disbursed to other parts of the system unrelated to some "special", arbitrarily set level, so it really is irrelevant WHERE you set it now.As far as power level goes you simply cannot compare 3E> characters with 2E< because they are functionally unrelated.  Their character levels are NOT compatible with each other.  The characters have differing capabilities within their individual systems at a given level.  The XP totals they have are earned at different rates, for different things, and have VASTLY different values within their system.Still, if you want to reinstitute "title" level for classes there's no good reason whatever that it should be higher.  2E rules went up to 20th level and above just as 3E rules do.  3E assumes to a certain degree that demographics are pyramidal, with 20th level being the capstone, but it doesn't BREAK the 3E system in any way to assume that the pyramid caps out at a level similar to what was often assumed in 2E campaigns.  Just because the rules include spell descriptions for spells up to 9th level doesn't mean that there MUST be someone in every campaign that actually can cast them.  Why isn't it assumed that when a PC reaches 15th level or learns to cast 6th level spells that he might be BREAKING NEW GROUND as far as the NPC's in the campaign are concerned?  Nothing prevents such an assumption and the rules do not collapse in any way if you do.  There's no reason to assume that just because the rules describe a True Resurrection spell that there HAS to be at least 1 NPC capable of casting it.Therefore, I say if you want to have "Title" levels again in your campaign, 9th level works just as well as any other.</blockquote>

Verification