Will Levels be taken out and shot?

[Victim]

Levels will be taken out and shot. But they'll survive because of their HP increases from levels, then launch an unholy spree of carnage and looting until they take over WotC.

Levels are probably the single most iconic DnD element, love them or hate them. Moreover, pretty much all of WotC's recent experimental mechanics also use levels. I don't think they're going away. The "dead levels are bad" line of thought suggests that wimpy CRPG/MMO style levels aren't going to show up either, because 50+ level systems are generally loaded with dead levels.

 

[Mokona]

What do you think, will levels be the next sacred cow to get taken out and shot?

Lots of sacred cows could be taken out of Dungeons & Dragons. Some even should be (like d4 hit points per level for Wizards).

Levels aren't likely to be removed and frankly they should not be removed. Levels keep D&D simple which is critical for keeping the game accessible to a large audience and fun without being too much work.

Class levels should be more linear in power growth and less exponential (which is a change I doubt will happen) but I don't think they'll go away entirely.

 

[Delta]

Class levels should be more linear in power growth and less exponential (which is a change I doubt will happen) but I don't think they'll go away entirely.

Class level adjustments (hit dice, attack bonuses, saves, etc.) are definitely linear and not exponential. You can certainly suggest that the line is too steep for your liking, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Heres a better question...

Will levels continue to be 1-20?

Currently, the game has a scaling that makes level 1 puny, 5 survivable, 10 strong, 15 powerful, and 20 uber-deity. "Epic" level seem an afterthought and don't do anything more than "like level 20, but more". It also makes advancing a level a big occasion.

However, FF, WoW, and Everquest never stopped at 20. They stopped much higher, like level 50, 70 or 99. Perhaps D&D should do that as well...

Imagine a D&D that granted (1) bonus every time you leveled, but you leveled x5 as often. When you leveled, you could add a spell level, saving throw bonus, attack bonus, skill bonus, hp, feat, class ability etc. There would have to be limits to it, but it would work something between WoW and DDO (which has "levels within levels" to make advancement smoother) rather than BOOM instant improvement in all things.

It seems like a nice compromise between point-bought improvment and leveling...

I've been in favor of this pretty much since the first time I played a console RPG. A 99 level system (in which only the first 5-55 are used in a typical campaign, to be fair) gives you the metagame reward of leveling more often, but slows down the progression of campaign types that inevitably have many DMs (at least around here) dramatically slowing XP gain.

 

[Hussar]

Although, a potential problem that I can see with such a fine grained system is on the DM's side of the screen. It's hard, right now, to stat out a 15th level wizard. Imagine how hard it would be to stat out a 73rd level wizard. You'd have to keep track of five different elements (hp, saves, BAB, skills/feats, spells), each of which advances at a different rate, rather than in a course grained system which we currently have where each thing advances every level.

I can see that being much easier to forget. Never mind that you would need really big bottomed tables to cover all the classes and that just looks ugly.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Although, a potential problem that I can see with such a fine grained system is on the DM's side of the screen. It's hard, right now, to stat out a 15th level wizard. Imagine how hard it would be to stat out a 73rd level wizard. You'd have to keep track of five different elements (hp, saves, BAB, skills/feats, spells), each of which advances at a different rate, rather than in a course grained system which we currently have where each thing advances every level.

I can see that being much easier to forget. Never mind that you would need really big bottomed tables to cover all the classes and that just looks ugly.

Presumably, the Digital Initiative would make it both easier and more attractive.

Seriously, though, I probably see this set up more like BECMI D&D than AD&D or 3e; every 20 levels or so would have their own core book, complete with the appropriate spells, items, classes and monsters for those levels. That business model also strikes me as much more sensible and lucrative.

I'd also consider capping 'class levels' (or, to borrow another FF term, 'job levels') at 20. So Apprentice>Magician>Mage>Wizard>Archmage would be the basic caster progression - five 20 level classes, one per core book. Specialized classes like the current Prestige Classes would appear primarily at higher character levels.

 

[Mokona]

Class level adjustments (hit dice, attack bonuses, saves, etc.) are definitely linear and not exponential. You can certainly suggest that the line is too steep for your liking, of course.

The combined benefits of a class levels progress in a power curve that is not linear. A 10th level Wizard is more powerful as a party member than a Wiz5/Rog5 (which shows a non-linear relationship between power and level).

If level power were linear then the same ratio would exist between the number of 1 HD monsters a 1st level party, a 5th level party, a 10th level party, and 15th level party could defeat. For example if the linear slope for levels were 1 then fifteen 1 HD monsters would the same difficulty of challenge to a 15th level party as 1 such monster is to a 1st level party. The experience award and CR tables in the Dungeon Master's Guide also aren't linear.

 

[Hussar]

Presumably, the Digital Initiative would make it both easier and more attractive.

Seriously, though, I probably see this set up more like BECMI D&D than AD&D or 3e; every 20 levels or so would have their own core book, complete with the appropriate spells, items, classes and monsters for those levels. That business model also strikes me as much more sensible and lucrative.

I'd also consider capping 'class levels' (or, to borrow another FF term, 'job levels') at 20. So Apprentice>Magician>Mage>Wizard>Archmage would be the basic caster progression - five 20 level classes, one per core book. Specialized classes like the current Prestige Classes would appear primarily at higher character levels.

I know what you mean, but, I dunno. The multibook thing would annoy the heck out of me. It would also cause some pretty serious fractures in the userbase as well. When you hit the top end of each grouping, the DM would have to have the next book ready since he would be pulling material from the higher end stuff even though you haven't leveled that far. We saw this in the old Basic/Expert modules, with Expert level NPC's appearing in 1-3rd level modules.

 

[The Human Target]

I agree that the only thin they really have to do is mess with the curve of power and then pretty much all published adventures could be easily altered at any level.

A published adventure designed for 1st level characters and one designed for 18th are going to be very different since by level 18 the characters can do vastly different things, especially with all the magic items they could have.

For a 1st level party, a door with a quality lock or a treasure chest resting on a smooth 40 foot pillar can be big obstacles.

At 18th, even the party fighter should be able to hack down the door with ease, or fly up the pillar, and hell just use his cloak of etherealness to avoid both.

I'd like to see, and hope to see, things get smoothed out a good bit. And hopefully the smoothing makes 18th level characters look a lot more like 1st level characters than the other way around.

 

[Sejs]

Back on topic: Levels - worth keeping?

Yes.


Most (almost all, really) games have some sort of power-level tracking mechanic, be they levels, character points, karma, exp, etc.

Ditching one for another is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Removing them all together would require a massive, conceptual restructuring of the game as a whole.


They should stay, in one form or another.