Will Levels be taken out and shot?

[Frostmarrow]

The DMG contains useful guidelines for equipment that an average character is likely to have at each level. The DM should be able to compare the equipment the characters actually have to these guidelines to work out if they are under or over this baseline power level.

Are you saying that you would like equipment to be bought with points, like Hero?

Sort of. If you find a vorpal sword and equip it your point worth goes up. This makes your challenges harder (but you earned it).

What do you mean by stack, in this context?

1 CR4 moster is EL4. 2 CR4 monsters is what? EL5?

1 23 point monster is 23 points. 2 23 point monsters is 46 points.

2 23 point monsters with 4 points of magic items is 50 points.

 

[Frostmarrow]

No, your idea of points has them as more exact and stacking. I don't think that's true in reality.

A +5 vorpal sword (200 pts) in the hands of a Human Commoner (1 pt) would give a 201 point character. However, that human commoner wouldn't survive a round against any PC of above 4th level... and I don't think that 4th level PC is 200 points.

Meanwhile, a +5 vorpal sword in the hands of a 20th level human fighter in the current system is *scary*.

The level system *does* take equipment into account. It assumes the PCs have a certain level of wealth.

Cheers!

Agreed, point cost is a funky best. But so is CR and EL. Any point cost system must be controlled by a "market". In the old days I used to play Warhammer 40,000. Some of the stuff you could buy for your tanks, such as Ablative Armour made a huge difference for a low cost. However, a market would would demand whatever the player is prepared to pay for the ability to live twice. -You would need to update point costs on a regular basis. -Via an electronic initiative for example.

 

[nerfherder]

Sort of. If you find a vorpal sword and equip it your point worth goes up. This makes your challenges harder (but you earned it).



1 CR4 moster is EL4. 2 CR4 monsters is what? EL5?

1 23 point monster is 23 points. 2 23 point monsters is 46 points.

2 23 point monsters with 4 points of magic items is 50 points.

Ah right, I think I understand - thanks.

So, equipment point value is added to a characters points to give an overall point rating that reflects the character's total "power"?

Yes, you could do something like this, but I think it would require too much book-keeping.

Also, as Merric has pointed out, the way things currently work in D&D, points wouldn't stack linearly.

 

[Arkhandus]

*snip*

I find your argument fallacious, self-contradictory, and generally pointless.

Among other things, problems include
1) you're really just substituting levels for points, which is purely a personal preference standpoint of yours and has nothing to do with it being D&D or being balanced/challenging, and you're removing some of the inherant balance of D&D (levels give HP and BAB and such, which help even physically-meek PCs survive against tougher foes for at least a bit, and freeform point-based systems are often more prone to munchkining or newbie-confusion/intimidation),

2) you're ignoring the logical inconsistencies of your idea and oversimplifying it, such as ignoring the fact that your change would basically eliminate prestige classes, and mess up the use of any critter beyond humanoids and animals (and similarly small-scale/weak critters) for example,

3) your idea basically means eliminating the use of any spells or skills or other abilities that would be beyond a 1st-level-equivalent character's capacity (like anything more than 1st-level spells), because you intend for all modules to avoid having any challenges or quests or the like that might actually require a utility spell or special ability to overcome, and you want all modules to be useable with all PCs of any experience (really, if you look over your own argument, that is exactly what you convey) so really every adventure will be homogenous and generally within the capacity of a handful of 1st-level-equivalent Commoners to handle if they just felt like getting off the farm for a brief adventure (because who needs skilled adventurers anyway?) :\ (and yes I'm stretching this part a bit but for good reason, to make you better understand the problems with your own argument),

4) you're saying that no DM should ever have to put in any work for modules they run, to replace the critters/NPCs of a module with weaker or stronger ones to suit the needs of his party's current level, or to adapt the few specific flavor details to fit his campaign,
5) you're assuming that many adventuring parties never advance beyond the first few levels and will never have a use for any module above that point, and

6) you're assuming a DM will never spend money on a module he'll use later or just buy it a few months or years after it's released when his group has finally reached an appropriate level to tackle it without modification.

That's all I care to analyze or comment on right now.

 

[jasin]

So I wonder: In 4th edition will levels be removed?

I'd bet on "no".

-Frankly, what is the importance of levels? If there were no levels every module would fit every group. Every monster would fit every group

A giant, immensely old dragon who slaughters armies doesn't fit a group of farmboys who are fed up with country life and decided to try their hand at adventure. A pair of goblin raiders doesn't fit the most renowned swordsman in the world.

This has little to do with levels. This is simply the consequence of the conceit that some people (or monsters) are more powerful and competent than others, which is a pretty central conceit of D&D. You could do away with levels, but unless you do away with the very concept of "levelling" in a wider sense, the sense of gaining power as you play, you'll still have monsters and adventure which fit one group but not the other due to power level.

Of course, I do enjoy levels in play but not enough to justify their existance since they are an obstacle when it comes to buying products.

I'd argue that enjoyment in play is the best kind of justification a game element could ever have.

 

[meomwt]

Levels are the best method of controlling access to high powers. And high-level characters with high-levels of power are what seems to float the boat, these days (no doubt driven by World of Warcraft with 60th Level Munchkins, or whatever).

Point-buy (a la Champions) is good, but there's a stack of maths involved. I always liked the Shadowrun system of trading in Karma Points for Skills and Abilities (i.e. to raise a skill from 3 to 4 you needed to trade in 4 Karma), and a similar system might work for D&D. Casting types might need Spellcraft at a certain level to gain access to more powerful spells, for example, and martial sorts could buy BAB gains with their points, too.

Another option is the RuneQuest/ CoC skill base, where using an ability gives a chance to improve it. But that doesn't give uber-characters quickly enough for todays video-gamers

I think levels will be around for a while in D&D, given the tie-in to so many other formats and games right now.

 

[delericho]

So I wonder: In 4th edition will levels be removed?

Highly unlikely. Classes and levels are two of the greatest strengths of D&D. Removing either would be an absolute disaster.

Levels provide a nice easy way to motivate players - "I want to get to 20th level!"

Classes provide a really easy way to explain the types of characters that are out there - "Gandalf's the Wizard, Aragorn's the Ranger..."

Of course, neither is the only way to do these things, and neither is for everyone... but if you remove them (from the core RAW), I'm not sure it's still D&D.

If there were no levels every module would fit every group.

Interesting assertion. So, you could have two modules, one featuring blind kobolds and the other featuring a Balor, both for the same party?

No, you would need some measure of group power level, and then you haven't gotten rid of the niches, you've just changed the scale.

 

[Doug McCrae]

But that doesn't give uber-characters quickly enough for todays video-gamers

One of the most prominent features of WoW is the length of time it takes to increase a character's power. Players use terms such as 'farming' and 'grinding'. Increasing reputation with a faction can require the killing of hundreds of not thousands of monsters. Does that sound like instant gratification to you?

 

[phindar]

As a general rule I like level-less systems. Shadowrun is a prime example, the White Wolf systems weren't bad with the right GM (but I guess that's true of anything). Karma in SR is a bit more fluid than a points-based xp system. You might get 2-3 points for a normal session, 5 or more when wrapping a 'run up. It's pretty subjective. The GM might give a point for role-playing, a point for cleverness, a point for humor, and a few points based on overall complexity and difficulty. And those points are used to by up abilities or skills directly. (White Wolf worked pretty much the same way, but I played it a lot less, so there may be subtleties I am missing.)

But, that's not really D&D. Most Shadowrun modules were based around a "generic" group. There were a few super-modules, and a later optional rule for points-based character design, but I largely missed those trains. But SR was a very different game. Theoretically any character could be killed in one attack, regardless of experience. Aside from a few key pieces of cyber/bioware, or magical protections, a fall from a 5-story building would drop just about anybody.

But, that's not really D&D, either. I suppose they could make a 4e without levels, or without AC, or Saves, or they could set the whole game on Mars as a part of Victorian Era Space Exploration (Space 1889, mad props). But, not to belabor the point, that's not really D&D.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, but it doesn't take equipment into account, so it's next to useless as a power level indicator.

Points are more exact - and points stack.

This is just wrong. As has been pointed out, equipment is factored into the assumptions