|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 7:14AM
#281
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
But you do gain something every level - More HP.
/thread
CLEARLY, they are talking about gaining things in ADDITION to hit points. 
Why have a dead level when you could gain a cool new ability that allows you to take advantage of new tactics and whatnot? Simply keeping up with the pace isn't very fun. I think that even casters should have an ability at every level.
Why? It causes power level to rise steeply, making the game harder to balance. I'm not saying levels should be dead, but there shouldn't be a cool new ability every level. Small bonuses to existing abilities are good enough for the level not to be considered dead.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 8:51AM
#282
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2012
|
But you do gain something every level - More HP.
/thread
CLEARLY, they are talking about gaining things in ADDITION to hit points.
Why have a dead level when you could gain a cool new ability that allows you to take advantage of new tactics and whatnot? Simply keeping up with the pace isn't very fun. I think that even casters should have an ability at every level.
Why? It causes power level to rise steeply, making the game harder to balance. I'm not saying levels should be dead, but there shouldn't be a cool new ability every level. Small bonuses to existing abilities are good enough for the level not to be considered dead.
The problem is that some classes such as the fighter, rogue and the cleric do not even get that at some levels. All they gain is HP while the wizard gains a shiny new spell- at least one at every level unless you chose scholar and gain two. Its about fairness and right now its not fair for those classes who have dead levels while others do not. If dead levels should exist then they should be across the board and not just in some classes. You are right- a shiny new ability it doesn't have to be but it can be just more bonuses to existing abilities which would be great for a class like the fighter who specializes in something specific and should progress in it. Maybe the rogue should get more skills to spend dice in or even more skill dice to spend since his abilities depend on them. There are so many ways to make it less dead without some extremely powerful ability. TBH if I was going to play a class that needed to take on targets head on I'd play monk because they have no dead levels. I hate when people say you gain more HP as if that's something special because EVERYONE gains HP- even those who gain other abilities. That's such a stupid retort in my opinion. At some point there has to be a middle ground to make it more fair and balanced. I also hate when people say oh well we can have modules and you can add them them to fill but that's also stupid if some classes have dead levels and others do not. What will you take from the classes that do not have dead levels then? Those classes will be more over-powered compared to those who have no dead levels.... It has to be one or the other, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 8:58AM
#283
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
The core is a fully functional game. Even 4e was fully functional without mandatory Feat Taxes.
Using modules to change the core to how you want to play is what DnD Next is supposed to be about.
Like I say in my signature: "This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery." How can that happen when spellcasters have no dead levels, while non-casters have dead levels?
Which is why you should be able to add all of that to your game.
Why should I be adding fixes to caster/non-caster discrepancies, discrepancies that shouldn't exist in the first place? For tradition's sake?
No, because DnD Next should be about providing the tools to customise the game to how you want to play.
If you feel that having a dead level is a problem then add a module to "fix" that problem.
Dont sit in the corner refusing to play until, in the spirit of DnD 4e, the developers "fix" your game with their eratta.
The problem most people have with dead levels is that casters don't really have dead levels while noncasters have plenty. This is something that needs to be fixed.
Requoting
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 9:50AM
#284
|
|
|
Kalex - people keep bringing up that the problem for them is that casters get more options when they level. And you keep bringing up... Tangential comments, enough that I don't get if you see them as tangential or not.
For instance, if the problem is variance in level abilities, than any system with no advancement will be perfect! So, travellers success is an argument against dead levels, not for it.
Similarly, you mention that with enough splat books and options, characters can become unbalanced (I'm summarizing, so I hope I didn't summarize incorrectly). And, that's true, but then you excuse Wotc admitting that Wotc needs to add spells because splat books sell. But, that's an argument for splat books for fighters - after all fighter but books as well.
I think you'll agree there's A lot of people who disagree with you. Hopefully, that helps you understand why dead levels _are_ a big deal - because they're a big deal to some portion of the fanbase. Still, there are many people who don't want too much complexity, and so it seems like a base that had optional feats could be successful. I believe this is wotcs proposed path.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 10:14AM
#285
|
|
|
Kalex - people keep bringing up that the problem for them is that casters get more options when they level. And you keep bringing up... Tangential comments, enough that I don't get if you see them as tangential or not. For instance, if the problem is variance in level abilities, than any system with no advancement will be perfect! So, travellers success is an argument against dead levels, not for it. Similarly, you mention that with enough splat books and options, characters can become unbalanced (I'm summarizing, so I hope I didn't summarize incorrectly). And, that's true, but then you excuse Wotc admitting that Wotc needs to add spells because splat books sell. But, that's an argument for splat books for fighters - after all fighter but books as well. I think you'll agree there's A lot of people who disagree with you. Hopefully, that helps you understand why dead levels _are_ a big deal - because they're a big deal to some portion of the fanbase. Still, there are many people who don't want too much complexity, and so it seems like a base that had optional feats could be successful. I believe this is wotcs proposed path.
Traveller does have variance between characters. It is possible to have wide variance that never gets mitigated. Part of the problem is the inability of some to find challenge and fun in disparity.
I suggest that WotC is unlikely to change their business model that has been the cause of breaking every edition of D&D since 1e AD&D. The fix for this problem isn't to break the game even faster.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire Concerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 11:27AM
#286
|
|
|
Why woulden't you want a new toy? They said that the goal was to decrease numaric bonuses and give classes more to do. Why not gain more stuff as you level? What could possibly make that a bad thing?
Is this a real question or are you just trying to be funny? If it's real:
- It could be bad simply for the fact that the game will become even more imbalanced.
- You can't keep adding stuff to each character without a whole group saying, "It's not fair my rogue doesn't get this while the fighter does!"
- You can't keep adding stuff without adding stuff to the creatures the players fight. This makes the game even more complex.
- Thus, a more complex game insues the two and a half hour long battles where everyone's worried about remembering feats and numbers as opposed to the game.
- The designers clear goal was to make combat faster and more streamlined. This goes against that goal.
- There are a lot of players that don't want "stuff" on their character. I am not one of them, but these forums are full of people that want the fighter to simply swing and hit. Some don't even want feats or racial feats.
- If the designers goal is to make everyone happy, then this would go against that goal as well.
- Adding stuff to a character will often diminish the uniqueness of the character because, in the end, there are only so many variables to play with. Soon they all start to cross making the classes homogenize.
If this was a joke, very funny.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 11:31AM
#287
|
|
|
But you do gain something every level - More HP.
/thread
Where I am concerned you are preaching to the choir.
Yep. Players too worried about getting all the shiny new class features, not worried about just enjoying the game and the encounters us DM's slave for hours to set forth.
By that token, all levels after first should be dead levels so we can all just sit back and enjoy all that juicy RP.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 11:33AM
#288
|
|
|
But you do gain something every level - More HP.
/thread
CLEARLY, they are talking about gaining things in ADDITION to hit points.
Why have a dead level when you could gain a cool new ability that allows you to take advantage of new tactics and whatnot? Simply keeping up with the pace isn't very fun. I think that even casters should have an ability at every level.
Why? It causes power level to rise steeply, making the game harder to balance. I'm not saying levels should be dead, but there shouldn't be a cool new ability every level. Small bonuses to existing abilities are good enough for the level not to be considered dead.
I disagree in part because a new ability doesn't mean more power. In many cases, it could mean more flexibility. For example, gaining training in a new skill. Now I know they shouldn't do that, because skills are supposed to be an optional system. That was just an example.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 12:25PM
#289
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2011
|
Why woulden't you want a new toy? They said that the goal was to decrease numaric bonuses and give classes more to do. Why not gain more stuff as you level? What could possibly make that a bad thing?
Is this a real question or are you just trying to be funny? If it's real:
- It could be bad simply for the fact that the game will become even more imbalanced.
- You can't keep adding stuff to each character without a whole group saying, "It's not fair my rogue doesn't get this while the fighter does!"
- You can't keep adding stuff without adding stuff to the creatures the players fight. This makes the game even more complex.
- Thus, a more complex game insues the two and a half hour long battles where everyone's worried about remembering feats and numbers as opposed to the game.
- The designers clear goal was to make combat faster and more streamlined. This goes against that goal.
- There are a lot of players that don't want "stuff" on their character. I am not one of them, but these forums are full of people that want the fighter to simply swing and hit. Some don't even want feats or racial feats.
- If the designers goal is to make everyone happy, then this would go against that goal as well.
- Adding stuff to a character will often diminish the uniqueness of the character because, in the end, there are only so many variables to play with. Soon they all start to cross making the classes homogenize.
If this was a joke, very funny.
Not a joke, but I am very funny  .
Anyway, a dead level, I think, is where you gain exactly what's listed in the generic, front of the book section. You know, HP, Skill Points, Feats, whatnot. A level in which your class grants you exactly nothing (the value of your Hit Die does not count) shouldent exist. You should get another per day use of an ability, an extra skill die, a new spell/manuver, or even just another point of trap sense/DR/Whathaveyou.
At the very least, have the option, in core, to never have a dead level.
holydoom.weebly.com: Holydoom! A lighthearted RPG in progress. Loosely based on 3.5. 4, and GURPS. Very, Very, Very loosely. Seriously, visit it now. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/ … s_Handbook An attempt at CharOp To anyone who thinks Pathfinder is outselling D&D
Show
While one report may say that FLGS report a greater amount of book sales, one cannot forget the fact that the 71000 DDI subscribers paying 6-10 dollars a month don't count as "Book Sales." "see sig" redirects here
Show
Oblivious troll is Oblivious PbP supporter! General thoughts, feelings, and info on DDN!
Show
Stuff I Heard Mike Say (subject to change): Multiclassing will be different than in 3.5! That's important.
There is no level cap; classes advance ala 3.5 epic levels after a set level.
Mundane (AKA fighter and co) encounter and daily powers will probably not be in the PHB (for the lack of space), but nor will they be in some obscure book released halfway through the edition. You can't please everyone, but you can please me. I DO NOT WANT A FREAKING 4E REPEAT. I DO NOT WANT A MODULE THAT MIMICS MY FAVORITE EDITION. I WANT MODULES THAT MIMIC A PLAYSTYLE AND CAN BE INTERCHANGED TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FEEL, BUT NOT THE THEME, OF D&D. A perfect example would be an espionage module, or desert survival. A BAD EXAMPLE IS HEALING SURGES. WE HAVE 4E FOR THOSE! A good example is a way to combine a mundane and self healing module, a high-survival-rate module, and a separate pool of healing resource module.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 12:27PM
#290
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
But you do gain something every level - More HP.
/thread
CLEARLY, they are talking about gaining things in ADDITION to hit points.
Why have a dead level when you could gain a cool new ability that allows you to take advantage of new tactics and whatnot? Simply keeping up with the pace isn't very fun. I think that even casters should have an ability at every level.
Why? It causes power level to rise steeply, making the game harder to balance. I'm not saying levels should be dead, but there shouldn't be a cool new ability every level. Small bonuses to existing abilities are good enough for the level not to be considered dead.
I disagree in part because a new ability doesn't mean more power. In many cases, it could mean more flexibility. For example, gaining training in a new skill. Now I know they shouldn't do that, because skills are supposed to be an optional system. That was just an example.
I was going off the post that I quoted that seemed to indicate abilities that increased power. I agree that you can gain things that don't unbalance the game. I personally am against dead levels.
|
|
|
