Level-based progression and why it's bad for D&D. (IMO)

[Nytemare3701]

I've been recently fiddling with a very specific form of D&D3.X...E6 Gestalt, Starting level 6. You choose your build, you have a total of 12 levels to work with, but your level never changes. The positives were astounding.

1. The DM can eyeball a challenge easier. This was true of normal E6, but it's especially true of this variant. Base numbers for the players such as saves, HD, and BAB never change. The only changes to the players are gear and feats. The guy who's good at hitting things STAYS good at hitting things.

2. Gestalt means that most characters have no crippling weaknesses. 3 good saves and a d12 hit-die are reasonably attainable. On the other side, no matter how much you specialize, your power doesn't usually surpass ECL8ish (barring cheese of course).

3. Progression can be fast or slow, but never disrupts the DM's existing challanges. Factotum's don't ever break action economy, but they DO get another font of inspiration. Wizards Don't get level 4 spells, but they do get a new metamagic feat. A character can "level" in under 5 minutes, even in midcombat if the DM prefers it that way. It's THAT easy.

TL;DR If you play E6 Gestalt and START at 6, progression becomes almost indiscernable from loot acquisition in speed and impact. It's REALLY smooth.

Side Note: 5e's focus on the non-leveled BAB and AC seems to be leaning towards this, and I like it.

[RobbyPants]

I wouldn't say levels are bad for D&D. It's sort of what D&D has always been. You start out rather unimpressive, and later, can slay hoards of orcs and dragons.

But, yeah, if you want a more "realistic" or reasonable game, keeping it at a similar power level is nice. Keeping the PCs low enough level that they can't take over the city is handy. It reminds me of when I was playing Diablo (and this same thing happens in D&D in most campaigns). In the span of months, a rag-tag group of heroes gains enough power to be able to take down immortal beings.

It does tend to stretch the imagination.

[oslecamo]

I would say the main problem isn't levels themselves, but that they're badly implemented in the sense that eventually the devs seemed to just start throwing numbers at random and pray it works.

For example, a melee character with good fort save and bad will save. At the start the diference isn't that big, but as he levels up the diference between both saves does become drastically bigger. The melee character is probably boosting his Con for more HP that boosts his Fort, but not his Wisdom so his Will save is further left behind. So it isn't that hard that at higher levels  the melee character is making his Fort saves in all but a 1, but needs a nat 20 to make a Will save with the same DC. So when a monster shows up and throws an area Will save the melee characters with bad Will progression drop dead and the Cleric that invested in Wisdom and has good Will save shrugs it off with ease.

So yeah, E6 does help keep the numbers in check quite a bit.

The problem however is that some people do want teleporting wizards and take over cities/countries/words/planes, and killing balors/pit fiends, and for that you do need higher levels (or a really long E6 campaign where you collect rare artifacts or something).

All a matter of play taste really. Some people prefer a more stable party, others want to seriously mess up the world.

[Bauglir]

I've been a proponent of the "Level determines your campaign power level" idea for a while now. You do need some sort of advancement, and E6 has a reasonable mechanism for this purpose. It also does force the DM to focus on creating an engaging story, because I've noticed that there's a lot less emotional investment in your advancement when it's less significant like this. You've got fewer choices to make in creating your character's mechanics, so you have to focus on getting your players invested elsewhere.

[Unbeliever]

I've played a few campaigns where there is no advancement now.  One, for example, is a superhero campaign.  Only in specific types of story arcs do super-heroes really "level up." 

But, it does affect the game, as it changes the kinds of rewards the players are geared towards.  In a D&D type of game, it means it's all gear-based, which could be good or bad.  I also found that it does have a subtle psychological effect.  One of our players is lukewarm about it b/c he really likes advancement.  It is the case, I think, that the people like new toys every few weeks for characters to fiddle with. 

As RobbyPants notes, this is the game D&D is and has always been.  You start off as a know-nothing Shirefolk and end up as a world-shattering force of ultimate power.  To some extent, if you're not into that, then D&D as written just ain't your game. 

I can see the appeal, though, of a game where the progression is more "horizontal" (gaining a few new abilities here or there) rather than "vertical" -- maybe with a slight vertical grade.  I guess E6 does this, though I've never been that enamored with it.  I guess I'd usually look for another game than D&D since gaining levels is so integral to the idea of the game -- to the point where 5E's talk of smoothing it out a lot might do violence to what I think of as D&D.

[Halinn]

I really do prefer other systems for games where characters are meant to stay roughly at the same power level. D&D seems to me to be about the whole ascension through the ranks.

[caelic]

Agreed.  The thing is that, in order to remove level-based progression from D&D, you need to do so much work that you might as well just be rebuilding the system from the ground up...and there are systems out there that have already done that.  Point-based systems like Hero and GURPS allow for a much more gradual and linear increase in power (although they have problems of their own, of course.)  The current edition of Hackmaster is an interesting middle-ground; there's level-based progression, but each level is a MUCH smaller increase in power (roughly half a level in D&D terms) and a good portion of the power increase is character-point based.

[Nytemare3701]

Agreed.  The thing is that, in order to remove level-based progression from D&D, you need to do so much work that you might as well just be rebuilding the system from the ground up.

Not really...I have yet to find a real flaw with GE6S@6 in that regard.

The problem however is that some people do want teleporting wizards and take over cities/countries/words/planes, and killing balors/pit fiends, and for that you do need higher levels (or a really long E6 campaign where you collect rare artifacts or something).

All a matter of play taste really. Some people prefer a more stable party, others want to seriously mess up the world.

Simple to fix really...Use lower level demons and call them balors. A CR10 Creature is an epic boss fight. You want to teleport? It's a good thing E6 fully supports ritual magic for that kind of thing. The point isn't to tone down the game, it's to remove the mechanically unsound higher levels.

I wouldn't say levels are bad for D&D. It's sort of what D&D has always been. You start out rather unimpressive, and later, can slay hoards of orcs and dragons.

It's NOT though. The game was never really tested much at the higher levels, and the mechanics completely break down as you go higher. The game just doesn't function in the "heroic fantasy" sense. It's a fundamental problem with the system.



You guys want progression? Here's some progression:

XP to level from 6-7: 6000.
XP to level from 7-8: 7000.
XP to level from 8-9: 8000
XP to level from 9-10: 9000
Total XP involved: 30,000. That's 6 feats.

If you were put in a game where your BAB, Saves, AC, and HP didn't change by level, would you seriously be underwhelmed by 6 feats? In a best case scenario, you are a PsiWar tank and you just took Psionic Body+ a ton of free powerpoint feats. In a worst case, you took the +2/+2 skill feats and broke the skill rank cap.

[Unbeliever]

If you were put in a game where your BAB, Saves, AC, and HP didn't change by level, would you seriously be underwhelmed by 6 feats? In a best case scenario, you are a PsiWar tank and you just took Psionic Body+ a ton of free powerpoint feats. In a worst case, you took the +2/+2 skill feats and broke the skill rank cap.

Yes, I would be.  What can I really do with 6 feats?  Maybe a fighting style and something fun for the hell of it? 

Part of why I was never into E6 is b/c the system isn't built for it.  What happens to be a feat and what happens to be a class ability, and what level that is unlocked at, are arbitrary.  So, some builds and concepts are fine.  Others are not. 

D&D's conception of fantasy has always been rather "gamey."  That is, it only bears a passing resemblance to literary fantasy.  Heroes are always shrugging off arrows to the chest, facing overwhelming odds, and so on.  This has spawned literally hundreds, if not thousands, of discussions over what hit points are or are not.  And, by "always" I mean since 2nd edition at least, when I got on the bandwagon.  And, hell, I'd question whether D&D was "tested" in any real or useful sense at any level, viz. Glitterdust, Druid animal companions, and so on. 

You're welcome to like what you like, but in my opinion it seems to me that you're asking something from D&D that it's not prepared to give.  It's a game built around the level progression.  As Caelic suggests, you may be happier with something else.  I'd personally recommend Mutants and Masterminds for its peerless flexibility (that way any fantasy archetype is on the table) and way it handles a lack of power progression.  There's also the very nice One Roll Engine and similar systems. 

Finally, it occurs to me that loot progression is anything but smooth.  Or, at least, it totally can be.  A keen weapon, belt of battle, big stat booster, staff, and so on can radically affect someone's power.  In a way, level-based progression is at least predictable, if extremely spiky (which I will freely admit).