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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Akunin" data-source="post: 104969" data-attributes="member: 15">I fail to see how it could be any other way.  First level characters have much lower Hit Points, Armor Classes, Attack Bonuses, wealth, and magic than higher-level characters.  It's been that way from the very start of D&D, and that's the way that most RPGs work.  Relatively speaking, if you compare a first level fighter to a 20th-level fighter, of course the first level character will look crappy.  He's not going to have as many attacks, or Hit Points, or cool abilities granted by Feats and magic items.  He's not going to have the enchanted armor and weaponry, either.  That's the difference between a first-level and a 20th-level PC.  The level 1 character is a novice who's decided to take up the life of an adventurer, and the level 20 PC is the famous hero who has survived dozens of adventures and has become more powerful with the experience and treasure gained.I fail to see what is wrong with this power progression.If you want a flatter distribution of power, or a system where inexperienced and experienced characters have roughly the same amount of power, I'd look into a few point-based character-construction games, like Gurps or the Hero system.The extra powers granted at low levels were the racial abilities inherent in demihumans, and the ability to multiclass, and even then you had limited options.  The multiclassing rules have been made much more player-friendly and racial abilities are now better balanced.  The old 2e limits never made sense, anyway.But those game design issues are not similar to your wanting to swap around Feats and re-building your character from the gorund up every time he advances in level.  In the 2e case, I think it was an attempt at making Humans a desirable character choice, a way of encouraging more human PCs (they are supposed to be the most populous of the races), and an over-estimation of the value of demihuman's racial abilities.  In your rules suggestion, you're trying to reward players who make poor decisions, and negate the consequences of such decisions.  If I'm playing a Wizard, and I keep failing Fortitude Saves at low levels, I'll probably take the Fortitude-save-increasing Feat.  But if I later decide to multiclass into Fighter, and notice later that my Fortitude save is now at a reasonable level, should I be able to go back and swap out that old Feat for something "better" simply because I made a choice that was a good idea at third level, but not at fifteenth?  Nope.  I knew that if I multiclassed into Fighter, my Fortitude save would increase.  Out of dozens of Feats available, I chose the one that I needed at the time.  Why should I be able to "take back" that decision once I hit level 15, just because it's no longer an "optimal choice"?I think you're misunderstanding the "character balance" intent.  It sounds to me like you're saying that a "strong character" (high-level) needs to be balanced against a "weak character" (low level).  This is how I'm understanding your take on character balance:  The stats and abilities of a fifth-level Cleric should be balanced compared to his stats and abilities at twelfth level.  Is this what you're saying?If so, it's an incorrect take on the "balance in 3e".  What the game is designed to do is promote balance between characters of equal levels.  Now, not all characters are going to have the same strengths, but the benefits they gain from their classes should be comparable.  My 10th-level Wizard will have a better spell selection than your 10th-level Sorcerer, but you can cast more spells.My 20th-level Fighter can deal a lot more damage in Melee, and has a bunch of extra Feats that let him dominate the battlefield, but he doesn't have the spells, Domain powers, or Saves of your 20th-level Cleric.This doesn't mean that there should be any attempt to balance the 10th-level Sorcerer against the 20th-level fighter, or even a 10th-level Sorcerer against a 2nd-level Sorcerer.That said, there are plenty of ways to make a character that looks very powerful in one way, but whose weaknesses are even more visible.   For example:  multiclass into several classes with good Fort saves and watch it go through the roof!  Of course, your Reflex and / or Will saves will most often be very feeble if you go this route. Another example:  multiclass into several spellcasting Prestige Classes and pick up the special abilities from their first few levels.  You get lots of useful powers, yes, and you can easily do it without losing spellcaster progression.  However, take a look at what's happened to your BAB (and, usually, your Ref and Fort saves).So in this case, you've gotten a big advantage, but you've picked up a disadvantage to compensate.  In the end, it pretty much evens out.  That's what the goal in 3e balance is about - to promote fun by having characters of the same level have the smae amount of power.  That way, certain character types don't "run the show" while the others are stuck to the sidelines (as with Wizards and Clerics in 2e), and everyone's PC can have a meaningful impact on the scenario.</blockquote>

Verification