Dungeons and Dragons and Table Top Gaming

[Werthead]

A lot of the problems in D&D are basically caused by 1) magic being far too powerful for what players really need it for, and 2) levels.

There's a reason why the overwhelming majority of tabletop roleplaying games do not use levels and have vehemently rejected them over the years. They tend to favour a power-gaming mindset and a very "gamey" style of advancement. They're also pretty artificial in how your character can suddenly do a ton more stuff better than five minutes earlier (in 5E it's notable how major just one level advancement can be, and you can see that in BG3; Auntie Ethel is a very, very hard fight at 3rd Level but pretty straightforward at 5th).

[Poobah]

14 minutes ago, Werthead said:

There's a reason why the overwhelming majority of tabletop roleplaying games do not use levels and have vehemently rejected them over the years.

I have to say in defence of D&D/Pathfinder etc. that I do quite like the structure, specificity and growth/progression narrative that these styles of game offer. I'm honestly not sure what I'd do other than flail hopelessly in one of these improv heavy systems where everything is made up kinda as and when.

[Werthead]

  

15 minutes ago, Poobah said:

I have to say in defence of D&D/Pathfinder etc. that I do quite like the structure, specificity and growth/progression narrative that these styles of game offer. I'm honestly not sure what I'd do other than flail hopelessly in one of these improv heavy systems where everything is made up kinda as and when.

That's not really how they work.

In most skill-based systems, you have skills which work on an improvement system. At the end of play sessions you get experience points and these can be applied to improving individual skills on a more granular basis. So you may "level up" more often than in D&D but each time you are applying a more moderate improvement.

In Deadlands/Savage Worlds, for example, you might have, say, 2d4 as your roll for a skill. You can spend an experience point to improve that to 3d4, or you might hoard several experience points to "level up" the die type to 2d6. Over numerous play sessions your skill in that area, which might be a weapon or a magic skill or whatever, will improve smoothly.

Deadlands/Savage Worlds, almost every 2d20 system (so Dune, Fallout etc), Cyberpunk Red etc are all non-level based games (well, some 2d20 games have a sort-of level-aping thing going on, but not really) which have a strong combat focus like D&D, they're not narrative/story-based systems with much vaguer rules for combat (like Powered by the Apocalypse and its ilk).

This is also why the Year Zero ruleset is so hugely beloved at the moment, because its modular design allows combat-heavy games (like Mutant and, I think, The Walking Dead) and more atmosphere, puzzle and role-playing based games (like Tales From the Loop), with some things inbetween (like Alien, possibly the best new TTRPG of the last five years).

We nearly got a non-level based version of D&D. When 3E was being field-tested at TSR, they put a bunch of its ideas into Alternity, which is basically an SF take on 2E which fixed 2E's split-target problem (where you roll high for some things but low for others) by making you roll low for everything (as opposed to WotC 3E, which obviously made you roll high), which preserved the utility of the 20-point stat system (something which is now fundamentally useless in 3E, 4E and 5E). They also field tested versions of feats and skills there, but interestingly the progression system is different and much more granular, without levels, at least not in the D&D sense. Alternity worked really well, despite the oddness of 1 being a critical and 20 being a fumble.

Alas when WotC took over TSR they threw out those ideas as "too radical" (hahaha) and made 3E more conservative, although still with some nods of the hat to modernity.

Edited April 4 by Werthead

[Mentat]

14 hours ago, baxus said:

Sure, but invisibility doesn't mean you move silently, and there's limits to what you can ask from a charmed humanoid even if the humanoid in question fails their save.

Invisibility can be superior to stealth in some occasions, and viceversa. An invisible wizard might not be able to sneak past a sleeping ogre without waking it, but a very stealthy rogue probably couldn't walk past two guards watching over the palace door. A charmed humanoid regards you as a trusted friend. I wouldn't give a trusted friend my mobile phone, but I'd certainly lend it to them if they said they needed to make a couple of calls.

14 hours ago, baxus said:

Also, how many invisibility or charm person can a 5th level wizard cast per day? 5th level rogue with carefully selected skills could try to hide and move silently dozens if not hundreds of times per day, and do it at +10 (8 ranks for 5th level +2 for some skill synergy) + Dex mod. (which is rarely below +3, at least).

You're right, of course, and I think this is really the key to the Martial/Caster balance. Swinging a sword proficiently is less powerful than casting Fireball. The fighter's advantage is that they can swing the sword as much as they want, while a wizard can only cast Fireball a limited amount of times per day. If it's often the case that the wizard is out of Fireballs while the fighter is merrily hacking away, then all is fine with balance. The wizard's power is balanced with the fighter's consistency. However, if the wizard's limited amount of Fireballs are enough to see them through the fights of the day before they need to rest, then balance clearly favors the wizard, who can use their actions to far greater effect than the fighter... and, though obviously this will vary greatly from table to table, experience shows it tends to.

14 hours ago, baxus said:

That's not to say that casters are not powerful in their own right, but when we are talking about skills then rogue is THE character class.

I agree. My point is not that the rogue isn't the best skill monkey in 3E (they are), my point is that succeeding at difficult skill checks tends to be less impactful in D&D than either dealing damage effectively or having access to magical powers that exceed what even the most skilled humanoid can do (flying, teleporting, clairvoyance, mind reading, etc).

11 hours ago, Werthead said:

There's a reason why the overwhelming majority of tabletop roleplaying games do not use levels and have vehemently rejected them over the years.

I kind of agree with Poobah here. D&D should hold on to its basic identity as a game, and that includes having character levels (amongst many other things, like being a d20 system, the 6 basic stats, some character classes, monsters and spells...). Other, different, games can experiment to their heart's content with different systems, and I'm sure some of them will be mechanically superior to D&D, and might eventually become more popular, and that's all well and good, but D&D shouldn't stop being D&D. Nostalgia and familiarity will always mean there are enough people willing to play it even if there are better games out there. 

[Werthead]

Interesting analysis of Heart, the follow-up to Spire:

 

[Relic]

On 4/4/2024 at 9:32 PM, Werthead said:

 They're also pretty artificial in how your character can suddenly do a ton more stuff better than five minutes earlier 

you're right, this is a pretty huge issue. whats the solution?

[Gertrude]

This is why I prefer the milestone style of leveling. Yeah, the problem still exists and obviously you have to have some level of suspension of disbelief in this game, but it makes sense to me that after big arcs or meaningful adventures the party advances.

I know you mentioned this upthread, but I also really enjoyed how you gave the PCs specific perks that were related to gameplay. When I healed a lot, I got small perks to my healing spells and when I was frustrated by something you gave me an option to make it a bit easier to do what I wanted. Nothing OP, just a nice nod to what our characters would be thinking about and working on during their adventures. Cheers

[A wilding]

I seem to remember that in the very early days of D&D (my 2nd edition rulebooks are in the attic and I can't be bothered to get them out) a character had to take time out to level up after they had gained enough experience points. So it only happened at home base between adventures. This was a more "realistic" approach which avoided that problem. Though in those days characters tended to level up more slowly I think.

[IlyaP]

The Morrowind approach of improving in skill as one proceeded through the game always struck me as a logical approach to "levelling up", but how one would translate that to pen and paper? I honestly don't know.

[Mentat]

44 minutes ago, A wilding said:

I seem to remember that in the very early days of D&D (my 2nd edition rulebooks are in the attic and I can't be bothered to get them out) a character had to take time out to level up after they had gained enough experience points. So it only happened at home base between adventures. This was a more "realistic" approach which avoided that problem. Though in those days characters tended to level up more slowly I think.

Yes! I think you had to find a tutor or mentor and convince them or pay them to teach you the skills you hoped to acquire by leveling up. I also seem to remember in 3E (or 3.5E, or both) you had different level XP progression tables (fast, slow and standard).

I'm not sure having to find a tutor or mentor to level up is a great rule. It messes up with a lot of stuff (whatever adventure you're supposed to be immersed in, the need to keep the party together, the fact the DM might not even want powerful tutor/mentor NPCs being around). Also, character levels in D&D really represent an increase in raw power, rather than experience, knowledge or anything that could be taught by someone.

[Relic]

Maybe the solution is to really expand levels, from 20 to 50 or something. That way sometimes all you gain is a hit die, sometimes skill points, sometimes saving throws, sometimes new abilities, but not all at once.

[Mentat]

8 minutes ago, Relic said:

Maybe the solution is to really expand levels, from 20 to 50 or something. That way sometimes all you gain is a hit die, sometimes skill points, sometimes saving throws, sometimes new abilities, but not all at once.

That sounds like a lot of work in terms of house-ruling.

I'd say most D&D levels aren't really all that significant. Some are, though, and I think that's where it's probably more worth an effort to make it a milestone moment from the storytelling point of view:

- Acquiring a subclass. Some characters sort of start with one, but for others it should be an important character moment, kind of like Raistlin passing his wizarding test and becoming a red wizard or Sturm being knighted and becoming a Knight of Solamnia.

- Attaining 5th level in a class. Getting 3rd level spells (Fly! Fireball!) or the Extra attack ability is huge in terms of character power. You've pretty much become a force to be reconned with. This should definitely be a milestone moment in a campaign.

Other than that, it's maybe worth looking out for specially significant spells, powers or abilities and, if possible, have them manifest in dramatically appropiate moments close to level advancement.

Ultimately, if it works in the story, it doesn't really matter that much how much actual sense it makes or what the rules say. It can be a mentor giving you an impactful lesson, the power of friendship, the blessing of a deity or powerful being, defeating a nemesis with a smite, a meaningful moment of character development...

[Which Tyler]

2 hours ago, IlyaP said:

The Morrowind approach of improving in skill as one proceeded through the game always struck me as a logical approach to "levelling up", but how one would translate that to pen and paper? I honestly don't know.

Yeah, it's a good system, but would surely be too complicated for tabletop.

2 hours ago, Mentat said:

Yes! I think you had to find a tutor or mentor and convince them or pay them to teach you the skills you hoped to acquire by leveling up. I also seem to remember in 3E (or 3.5E, or both) you had different level XP progression tables (fast, slow and standard).

I'm not sure having to find a tutor or mentor to level up is a great rule. It messes up with a lot of stuff (whatever adventure you're supposed to be immersed in, the need to keep the party together, the fact the DM might not even want powerful tutor/mentor NPCs being around). Also, character levels in D&D really represent an increase in raw power, rather than experience, knowledge or anything that could be taught by someone.

My homebrew is that PCs have to take a full day of R&R to train, study, meditate etc somewhere safe where they can let their guard down.
I also allow them to learn extra (non-ASI) feats, skills, languages etc - which requires a dedicated tutor and 3 days (so 24 hours of actual study) to reach half-proficiency. Some stuff I'll allow by spending a LOT of hours just playing about with stuff (reduced if they've a transferable skill).

 

Essentially - levelling up is putting into practice what you've learned by doing stuff, and trying out something new.
Learning something new requires either being taught, or teaching yourself through trial and error.

 

 

Ultimately, to my AD&D attuned brain, PCs get powerful stupidly quickly, even with me artificially trying to slow them down. You can go from random schmuck on the street to olympian (level 5-6ish) in a week of game time; to superhero (level 10-12ish) by the end of your first month; and to god-killer in another month or two.

Edited April 8 by Which Tyler

[Gertrude]

2 hours ago, Mentat said:

Other than that, it's maybe worth looking out for specially significant spells, powers or abilities and, if possible, have them manifest in dramatically appropiate moments close to level advancement.

I was actually thinking about this after I posted. It might be kinda fun for the DM to perhaps pick out some ability that the PC would get at the next level and allow the player to have one of two uses of it to use at their discretion before they actually level up. Like a caster might be able to produce a reduced power fireball, but only that one time when they need it. Or a fighter might be able to shrug off a bit more damage to mimic a HP gain.  Maybe the Rogue can add an extra Dex bonus point to a lockpick or other skill. Just little things to suggest that they are learning through their adventures, but haven't mastered it yet.

[Kalbear]

6 hours ago, IlyaP said:

The Morrowind approach of improving in skill as one proceeded through the game always struck me as a logical approach to "levelling up", but how one would translate that to pen and paper? I honestly don't know.

It's not that bad. Earthdawn had a good example of this. Every talent (your special, magical skills) could be advanced by a level, and the cost for each of these was in karma points which increased via fibonacci sequence values (1,2,3,5,8,13,21,etc). At certain thresholds the talent got specific perks or special abilities, but otherwise it just increased the kind of dice you rolled to determine success. (so level 1 = d6, level 2 = d8, level 3= d10). In addition you got certain abilities unlocked after some period of time as well for your general class. 

It sounds like a lot but it was all really self-contained and there weren't a ton of talents per class, so it wasn't crazy. It also meant that most everything scaled pretty similarly, solving some balance issues. 

5 hours ago, Relic said:

Maybe the solution is to really expand levels, from 20 to 50 or something. That way sometimes all you gain is a hit die, sometimes skill points, sometimes saving throws, sometimes new abilities, but not all at once.

I think this is a real good idea and something I was talking about with my group. While it's true that some levels aren't that significant for some classes that's a flaw and sucks; it should be a feeling of getting some really cool things all the time. I mentioned champions getting to jump further as an example of how crap some of those level breaks are, but the real problems are that (again) magic users always feel like they're getting something amazing basically every 2 levels and often feel amazing every level because they get more slots. I suspect you need things to feel more like what you're getting in those 3-4-5 levels, not less. 

But having more granulated progression would also be nice. The idea of having milestone progression has a flaw - it gives the characters no real idea of how well they're doing. You can give them slices of XP every week and that helps, but it still means you go from not knowing how fireballs work to being able to cast them effortlessly in one big jump. 

I also think that having a lot of the drudgery of this stuff be available on apps and online makes this a lot easier in terms of what you might want to do and keeping track of it. 

[baxus]

On 4/4/2024 at 9:32 PM, Werthead said:

They're also pretty artificial in how your character can suddenly do a ton more stuff better than five minutes earlier.

That depends on how you, your gaming party and your DM handle levelling up. If it happens in an instant you gain enough XP, then yes, it can feel weird in your adventure narrative. But there are other ways of doing it. The party may take shorter breaks between adventures where characters could train or study or do whatever is required to explain their new abilities. Your party's ranger could level up after taking the party through some dangerous mountain pass, which would explain the improvement in his Survival skill, your rogue could pick a type of lock he/she's never encountered before, your cleric could be taught some new ceremonies of his faith etc. The possibilities are endless, only if the party and the DM choose to put in some extra effort (and delay the gratification of levelling up for a short period of time).

On 4/4/2024 at 9:32 PM, Werthead said:

in 5E it's notable how major just one level advancement can be, and you can see that in BG3; Auntie Ethel is a very, very hard fight at 3rd Level but pretty straightforward at 5th

I have missed this major level advancements you talk about. My strongest 5e character reached 8th level so far, so it might be that I'm yet to experience this major bump with just one level improvement.

Btw, there's more than a one level advancement between levels 3 and 5  

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, baxus said:

I have missed this major level advancements you talk about. My strongest 5e character reached 8th level so far, so it might be that I'm yet to experience this major bump with just one level improvement.

Btw, there's more than a one level advancement between levels 3 and 5  

The difference in power between levels 4 and 5 is pretty insane. It's also pretty insane from 3 to 4, but 4-5 is even moreso.

Specifically: 

- Virtually every martial character gets a second attack as part of their attack action.

- Everyone increases their proficiency bonus from +2 to +3, meaning everyone gets better at hitting things and casting spells and doing anything

- All major spellcasters get access to 3rd level spells, which are significantly above the powerlevel of 2nd level spells

 

This means that your martial characters are usually doubling the amount of damage they're doing on a turn. Your spellcasters have both more abilities to do more things and those things hit significantly harder. And everyone is better at everything by 50%. 

The 3-4 bump is mostly about the ASI or feat, especially the feat. Getting crossbow master and being able to go from shooting once to shooting twice in a turn is pretty crazy. Sharpshooter/GWM have similar powerful beats. Even if you go away from some of the more broken feats you get things like +2 to your main stat, which adds chances to hit and chances to damage increases. But the feats are usually where it becomes nuts. 

[Werthead]

In 1-2E you levelled up far more slowly and what you got for going up a level was pretty minimal unless you were a spell-caster, in which case your power level could increase dramatically. Apart from the Bloodstone Wars adventure arc, where they decided to reset the D&D level scale to 100 and allowed you to simply "level up" into being a demigod (literal ascendancy!) and then cap off the campaign by just murdering Orcus. I think everyone agreed afterwards that was going a bit silly though. 

3E tried to get around that with feats and skills, so all classes got significantly better with each level, but the EXP levels were way too low (they revamped them for 3.5E and then again in PF1) so you'd level up once per session pretty reliably, whereas in 2E you might level up once every 10 sessions once you got to Level 10 or thereabouts. Also, they never really removed spell-caster supremacy, so everyone got a lot better between levels but spell-casters got a lot better. And the book-keeping for 3E was pretty extensive as a result.

5E I think has come up with some solid ways to limit spell-caster supremacy whilst giving non-magic-users some extra utility, but without simply making all classes reskins of one another (4E's key weakness). It's not perfect but they've definitely found some ways of improving it.

[Which Tyler]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

This means that your martial characters are usually doubling the amount of damage they're doing on a turn. Your spellcasters have both more abilities to do more things and those things hit significantly harder. And everyone is better at everything by 50%.

5% not 50%

It's an extra +1 on a d20 roll

Also worth noting than an increase of 5% is the smallest possible increase in a d20 based system. If you you increases by smaller I crements, you need a completely different system

Edited April 8 by Which Tyler

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

5% not 50%

It's an extra +1 on a d20 roll

It's an increase from +2 to +3. That's a 50% increase in what it was before. Given the fundamental math that's a pretty big deal in terms of overall success rates. This is especially true when you expertise instead of just proficiency.

Another way to put it - for most characters the proficiency bonus is equivalent to getting a +2 stat increase. It's equivalent to getting a +1 weapon. And it is doing that for every single thing that they can competently do.