Dead-ish levels

[Person_Man]

So, plenty of Tier 1-2 casters have levels (sometimes many levels) where they gain nothing but new spells. These spells give them a huge range of different options. But since they're the only thing the class is gaining each level, there is not much reason continue your progression in the class as soon as you can qualify for a prestige class.

Similarly, Tier 3 classes like the Psychic Warrior, Warblade, Crusader, Swordsage, Binder, Incarnate, Totemist, etc, also have "dead-ish" levels. The main source of their class abilities (new powers, maneuvers, stances, vestiges, or meldshaping) continue to progress at a well balanced clip each level. But often times they get no other class ability. So in general, people only stay in the class if there is a specific capstone or other high level ability that they're aiming for.

Compare this to the Monk or Samurai. They have no dead or dead-ish levels, but the abilities they do get suck.

I bring this up because in my homebrewing, I often find myself trying to create a long list of new abilities/options, and some sort of fair progression for them. After all, having a balanced variety of resources which the class can choose from is the hallmark of Tier 3 classes. But once you generate 30 or so options, it's really quite difficult to find another 20 options to structure into the class itself. And handing out bonus feats or minor increases to minor abilities (Trap Sense, Slow Fall, etc) just to fill in space seems like a huge cop out. This is most prevalent in the Pathfinder re-writes, where pretty much every class now has some minor scaled bonus used to fill in dead levels.

Thoughts? Is there an "ideal" class that paces it's class abilities out well, and makes them all meaningful?

[NeoSeraphi]

The dread necromancer has a ton of flavorful, meaningful abilities, and I really think it only has a few "dead-ish" levels (The ones where it only gets Mental Bastion).

I think the beguiler is also a pretty full class.

[Kaeso]

While this may not entirely awnser the question, the fact that clerics and wizards (especially clerics) get no meaningful class features after level 1 means they can multiclass, which means losing little to no spell levels and getting a lot of nice goodies in return. Church inquisitor, divine oracle, ordained champion, Ruby Knight Vindicator and Bone Knight are only a few of the many good prestige classes available to clerics.

[Person_Man]

The dread necromancer has a ton of flavorful, meaningful abilities, and I really think it only has a few "dead-ish" levels (The ones where it only gets Mental Bastion).

I think the beguiler is also a pretty full class.

I agree with your assessment of Dread Necromancer, and it's probably the best example of a Tier 3 class without dead or dead-ish levels. But in addition to Mental Bastion (limited Save bonus) and a similar bonus to Negative energy effects, there's also a bunch of levels where it gains nothing but 1 additional use per day of a Supernatural ability that duplicates a spell effect (Contagion, Negative Energy, Enervation) which are already on the Dread Necromancer's spell list. I personally consider that to be sloppy design.


Beguiler has 7 levels where they gain nothing but spells.


Anyone more familiar with Pathfinder want to offer up a good example, since avoiding dead levels was a big design goal for them?

[Yora]

I bring this up because in my homebrewing, I often find myself trying to create a long list of new abilities/options, and some sort of fair progression for them. After all, having a balanced variety of resources which the class can choose from is the hallmark of Tier 3 classes. But once you generate 30 or so options, it's really quite difficult to find another 20 options to structure into the class itself. And handing out bonus feats or minor increases to minor abilities (Trap Sense, Slow Fall, etc) just to fill in space seems like a huge cop out. This is most prevalent in the Pathfinder re-writes, where pretty much every class now has some minor scaled bonus used to fill in dead levels.
Why do you need to have lots of classes and prestige classes?

[CTrees]

Anyone more familiar with Pathfinder want to offer up a good example, since avoiding dead levels was a big design goal for them?

Well, a lot of the filler to avoid completely dead levels is just "one more rogue talent!" or "one more rage power!" or "you can use this once more per day/you get +1 to this ability!" so I'm not entirely convinced those count.

Ranger is a fairly good example, but I'd probably go with Cavalier and Magus. Both of those have a lot of levels with real extensions of their abilities, or new ways to use them, or just completely new tricks, especially with the capstones. Now, how good those new abilities are varies, but there are quite few levels which are arguably "dead."

EDIT: I'm not counting Summoner, because while the evolutions are exciting, it's still "pick more abilities off this list" that Barbarians/Rogues/Alchemists/etc. get, making it just slightly less exciting than "my spell casting increased again, just like every other level." Sacred Servant Paladins may count. Actually, a lot of archetypes are pretty darn full.


Why do you need to have lots of classes and prestige classes?

Why, in my day, we only had fighting man, magic-user, and cleric, and we weren't too sure about cleric! and you know what? We were happy! Then along came Greyhawk with it's shifty little thief and goody-goody paladin - bah, who needs 'em! And when we hit first edition, with bards and monks and subclasses... insanity! Everyone should just make fighting men and be done with it, I say!

Okay, sarcasm aside, having ridiculous numbers of options is fun. I actually love what Legend did to multiclassing, and some of the non-d20 games are even more fantastic on "you can be whatever you want to be." Why would you want to restrict things to fewer classes and prestige classes?

[NeoSeraphi]

I agree with your assessment of Dread Necromancer, and it's probably the best example of a Tier 3 class without dead or dead-ish levels. But in addition to Mental Bastion (limited Save bonus) and a similar bonus to Negative energy effects, there's also a bunch of levels where it gains nothing but 1 additional use per day of a Supernatural ability that duplicates a spell effect (Contagion, Negative Energy, Enervation) which are already on the Dread Necromancer's spell list. I personally consider that to be sloppy design.


Well, it's still a full caster, I mean, with abilities like Charnel Touch, Fear Aura, DR X/Blugeoning and Magic and Undead Mastery, on top of 9ths, you really can't expect the class to give you something shiny at every level in addition to its spells. I'm personally just happy that the dread necromancer is the only 20 level full caster (IIRC) that gives you a flavorful, powerful, and level-appropriate capstone.

[Rejusu]

Druid is fairly good for this. If only because they have three main scaling features (wild shape, spellcasting, and animal companion).

[Yora]

Okay, sarcasm aside, having ridiculous numbers of options is fun. I actually love what Legend did to multiclassing, and some of the non-d20 games are even more fantastic on "you can be whatever you want to be." Why would you want to restrict things to fewer classes and prestige classes?

Because every time you say "class X can do this", it also means "everone who is not class X can't do it". By making up more specialized classes, you are taking away option from everyone. Which is the fundamental flaw of the entire d20 system.
If you say something is possible in a world, don't restrict it to a very small and specific group of characters. Make it a spell or a feat, not a class feature for yet another specialized and obscure class. Rules bloat is something I really hate.

[prufock]

Because every time you say "class X can do this", it also means "everone who is not class X can't do it". By making up more specialized classes, you are taking away option from everyone. Which is the fundamental flaw of the entire d20 system.
If you say something is possible in a world, don't restrict it to a very small and specific group of characters. Make it a spell or a feat, not a class feature for yet another specialized and obscure class. Rules bloat is something I really hate.

I completely agree with this mindset, and I actually hope 5th ed makes things even more generalized across classes - even possibly eliminating the idea of classes, though I know that won't happen, since it's part of D&D culture.

The 4th edition got things closer, I think, with the generic progression and just different features for each class, but I think it should go even further. All the features should be available to all characters. Want a wizard who can sneak attack? Just select sneak attack as your attack power! You lose out on a spell power, but that's the trade-off. I still think it's reasonable to have some prerequisites, arranged in something like talent trees or power chains or whatever you want to call them.

[dextercorvia]

I actually don't mind if the class only gets abilities periodically, so long as there is some reason to stick through it. I especially like it if the class fills in some of the holes in the 'feat' gaps.

[Essence_of_War]

Anyone more familiar with Pathfinder want to offer up a good example, since avoiding dead levels was a big design goal for them?

I really like the pathfinder soulknife (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/soulknife) and the pathfinder psychic warrior (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/soulknife)

The soulknife feels like I'm always progressing and always looking forward to getting something cool!

Some of the psywar levels are definitely dead-ish (hello path skills?) and should probably scale a little better to not be so low-impact. Currently, it comes out to something like 12 extra skill points over 19 levels. But that is 6/20 levels, and I think the rest of them are pretty great.

[RndmNumGen]

So, plenty of Tier 1-2 casters have levels (sometimes many levels) where they gain nothing but new spells. These spells give them a huge range of different options. But since they're the only thing the class is gaining each level, there is not much reason continue your progression in the class as soon as you can qualify for a prestige class.

Similarly, Tier 3 classes like the Psychic Warrior, Warblade, Crusader, Swordsage, Binder, Incarnate, Totemist, etc, also have "dead-ish" levels. The main source of their class abilities (new powers, maneuvers, stances, vestiges, or meldshaping) continue to progress at a well balanced clip each level. But often times they get no other class ability. So in general, people only stay in the class if there is a specific capstone or other high level ability that they're aiming for.

Compare this to the Monk or Samurai. They have no dead or dead-ish levels, but the abilities they do get suck.

I bring this up because in my homebrewing, I often find myself trying to create a long list of new abilities/options, and some sort of fair progression for them. After all, having a balanced variety of resources which the class can choose from is the hallmark of Tier 3 classes. But once you generate 30 or so options, it's really quite difficult to find another 20 options to structure into the class itself. And handing out bonus feats or minor increases to minor abilities (Trap Sense, Slow Fall, etc) just to fill in space seems like a huge cop out. This is most prevalent in the Pathfinder re-writes, where pretty much every class now has some minor scaled bonus used to fill in dead levels.

Thoughts? Is there an "ideal" class that paces it's class abilities out well, and makes them all meaningful?

What if you approached this problem from both ends? Have some bonus feats and minor increases such as Trap Sense, but then take a different approach to giving out the 'Core' resources such as spells/maneuvers, where, rather than advancing as spells do, they got to pick new abilities or new ways to use these abilities at higher levels.

Take a look at the PF Barbarian's Rage Powers for example. Now apply this to casters. Say at level 1, they learned 3 Lv1 spells, then at Lv3, they can either learn a Lv2 spell or they can apply a free metamagic to a Lv1 they know. This only applies if they take a level in the class; if they PRC out to a class that 'advances casting', their CL still increases, but they don't learn any new spells or upgrade any existing ones unless the PRC explicitly grants it(I imagine most PRCs would grant different kinds of spells, keeping access to spells in the main class unique).

That is just an example of course. Considering I didn't even attempt to balance it, that's probably a terrible progression, but it is a different way of thinking about things.

[Rejusu]

Because every time you say "class X can do this", it also means "everone who is not class X can't do it". By making up more specialized classes, you are taking away option from everyone. Which is the fundamental flaw of the entire d20 system.
If you say something is possible in a world, don't restrict it to a very small and specific group of characters. Make it a spell or a feat, not a class feature for yet another specialized and obscure class. Rules bloat is something I really hate.


The 4th edition got things closer, I think, with the generic progression and just different features for each class, but I think it should go even further. All the features should be available to all characters. Want a wizard who can sneak attack? Just select sneak attack as your attack power! You lose out on a spell power, but that's the trade-off. I still think it's reasonable to have some prerequisites, arranged in something like talent trees or power chains or whatever you want to call them.

I think this is apt here:

And when everyone's super, no-one will be.

Homogenisation is one of the things that ruined 4th edition. When you have everyone able to do everything what makes you unique? What makes playing X spellcaster different from playing Y spellcaster, or Z martial class different from W martial class? Class features are what offer those differences. They're there so you can say: "Look, I can do this. No one (or not many other people) can do this!"

Now obviously it doesn't always work. You get classes that can do what other classes can do, but better than they can do it. So in practice it's not perfect, but it's a sound principle.

Not to mention that there's already systems in place that share features between classes. They're called feats and skills. Now I'm not saying there must be no overlap, it'd be a bit silly if there was just one spellcasting class. But uniqueness does matter, it's what makes your character feel special.

Without it, you're just not super any more.

[CTrees]

Because every time you say "class X can do this", it also means "everone who is not class X can't do it". By making up more specialized classes, you are taking away option from everyone. Which is the fundamental flaw of the entire d20 system.
If you say something is possible in a world, don't restrict it to a very small and specific group of characters. Make it a spell or a feat, not a class feature for yet another specialized and obscure class. Rules bloat is something I really hate.

Ah... Yeah, I can accept that. I don't entirely agree, but I suspect that's a question of scale. Again, though... I suspect Legend does exactly what you want, with mixing tracks and so forth.

[deuxhero]

I really like the pathfinder soulknife (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/soulknife) and the pathfinder psychic warrior (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/soulknife)

The soulknife feels like I'm always progressing and always looking forward to getting something cool!

Some of the psywar levels are definitely dead-ish (hello path skills?) and should probably scale a little better to not be so low-impact. Currently, it comes out to something like 12 extra skill points over 19 levels. But that is 6/20 levels, and I think the rest of them are pretty great.


Both of which are DSP and not Pazio.

[Duke of URL]

Because every time you say "class X can do this", it also means "everone who is not class X can't do it". By making up more specialized classes, you are taking away option from everyone. Which is the fundamental flaw of the entire d20 system.
If you say something is possible in a world, don't restrict it to a very small and specific group of characters. Make it a spell or a feat, not a class feature for yet another specialized and obscure class. Rules bloat is something I really hate.

The approach we're taking with Boundless Horizons is to fix the multiclassing mechanic so that it's actually effective, so that you don't need "101 new classes!" supplements to imagine almost any idea. The underlying mechanic is supposed to make it easy to mix and match classes without the hefty sacrifice in power you pay for losing class levels.

That is, you don't need a "Swashbuckler" class because you can do it just as well -- if not better -- with a Rogue/Fighter/Duelist. "Beguiler" isn't necessary because you could be a Wizard (enchantment specialist)/Rogue instead (or even a Psion/Rogue).

The only time you would need to add classes to the core system would be if you were introducing an entirely new mechanic (invokers, binders, etc.).

Now, of course, getting back to the OP, the basic mechanical fix to multiclassing is fairly simple, but to really make it work required going back to make every single class have something useful at every level. Granted, for spellcasters, access to a new spell level is considered "something useful", so they often get only that, but then they typically get a class feature on the even levels.

As an example, we can take the Rogue class -- the SRD version is a decent starting point, though there are four dead levels (12, 14, 18, and 20). Our version is much simpler: increased precise strike (which subsumes sneak attack) on odd levels and a "rogue ability" of your choice on even levels; rather than forcing trap sense or evasion at a particular level, you can choose from a good-sized list of options (which includes rogue-related bonus feats), though several have minimum level requirements. This is a much more flexible Rogue than the SRD and offers an incentive to stay in for 20 full levels.

[prufock]

When you have everyone able to do everything what makes you unique? What makes playing X spellcaster different from playing Y spellcaster, or Z martial class different from W martial class?

The same thing that, in 3.5, makes one fighter different from another fighter, or one Wizard different from another Wizard, or one Whatever different from another Whatever. Selection.

Sneak Attack may be an option for any character you want to build, however this does not mean that every character will choose Sneak Attack. Not every character will chose a given spell (unless that spell is simply TOO good to pass up, in which case it's a poorly-balanced spell). Not every character will want to be able to break bricks with their pinky finger, or to transform into a bear, or to sing inspiring tunes, or what have you.

However, under such a system, all characters are free to choose these options if they wish, rather than jumping through the hoops of class selection, feat and skill taxes, alignment restrictions, race restrictions, and other unnecessary flim flam.


Class features are what offer those differences. They're there so you can say: "Look, I can do this. No one (or not many other people) can do this!"
There is no conceptual difference here, only a mechanical one. There are still a limited number of people who would choose X power.

Maybe a better way to think of this would be that such a system is basically a "build your own class" system. In my head, this would be similar to, but still distinct from, point buy systems like Mutants and Masterminds. All options in that game are open to all characters, but you are limited in how many you can choose and how powerful they can be (based on level). You still get conceptually and mechanically different characters.

[Person_Man]

Great conversations above. To refocus things a bit, I think that it might be useful to restate my original post in a different way.

Think of class abilities in two "columns."

Column One: "Static" resources: Abilities listed in the "Special" column of the class Table. Examples: Bonus feats, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, Favored Enemy, etc. Special abilities tend to be static, in that after a certain point, after you gain new levels you stop gaining additional resources, and instead gain incrementally better versions of the previously established resources. And your choices within those resources tend to be limited. A classic example is the Barbarian. Across 20 levels he pretty much gains just six resources: Fast Movement, Rage, Uncanny Dodge/Imp Uncanny Dodge, Trap Sense, and Damage Reduction. Beyond 3rd level, everything he gains is more or less an incrementally better version of one of those abilities. (Notable exceptions are Wild Shape, Animal Companions, and Special Mounts). Some of these powers scale with certain prestige classes, but most don't.

Column Two: "Open Ended" resources: Abilities listed in the "Spells per Day" column of the class Table. Example: Spells, psionic powers, soulmelds/essentia, maneuvers/stances, or vestige progression. These abilities are open ended, in that you have a great deal of choice at each level, the resources you gain tend to scale automatically (X damage per level, X rounds per level, DC = 10 + 1/2 level + key attribute), and each time you gain a level you gain new resources. A classic example is the Wizard. Across 20 levels he gets 40 spells (plus bonus feats and a Familiar from his "static" column). Each spell can be chosen from a very long list. Each spell scales on it's own. And this huge variety of well scaled resources is what makes the class Tier 3 or higher. (Notable exceptions are half-casters and Monks, who gain a separate track of Column Two abilities, but they scale very poorly). These abilities almost always scale to about 80%-100% if you select the appropriate prestige class. Which is why all classes should have some


So, it's been my observation that Tier 3 or higher classes almost all have a full set of abilities in Column 2. So the question is, within the context of 3.X/PF D&D, how many Column 1 abilities should a class have in order to keep it interesting and give the player an incentive to stay in the class, and how powerful and/or differentiated do they need to be?

[Rejusu]

It's also worth noting that in 3.5 it's not just about incentives to stay in the class but also about the cost of leaving the class. PrC's are rarely cheap to enter, often you pay in feats and skill points, sometimes you just need a class feature to qualify. Most of the time the feat requirements are also feats you wouldn't normally take. There may also be other costs to pay, your PrC may not advance your column abilities or your column two abilities. Or it may not advance your C2 abilities every level.

As for multi-classing into other base classes, there's no cost for entry but the cost is neither your C1 or your C2 abilities from your original class advance.

Sometimes the cost of entry isn't worth the rewards gained. It may be that you want something that advances your C2 abilities but want different things for your C1 abilities but there's nothing available that would actually improve your build.

To this end it's more important not to give people incentive to leave their class rather than just providing incentive to stay. Which would mean avoiding PrC's that are just straight improvements on an existing base class. A PrC should offer something different rather than something better.

[kardar233]

Well, as Seraphi isn't plugging his own damn homebrew, I'll have to do it for him: :smallmad::smalltongue:

The Duelist (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=222961), apart from being the smoothest piece of homebrew I've read on these forums, has a grand total of two "dead levels", one of which progresses a Sneak Attack-esque bonus damage and a bonus feat, while the other gives a (very relevant to the class) crit range increase. Every other level has an interesting and flavourful ability on it.

It keeps me looking forward to each level, and not just because "I can get a spell/strike/thing that does 8d6 instead of 4d6!". Instead I learn how to skewer charging foes, counterattack after deflecting an attack or lunge far past where I should be able to reach.

[Thurbane]

Because every time you say "class X can do this", it also means "everone who is not class X can't do it". By making up more specialized classes, you are taking away option from everyone. Which is the fundamental flaw of the entire d20 system.
If you say something is possible in a world, don't restrict it to a very small and specific group of characters. Make it a spell or a feat, not a class feature for yet another specialized and obscure class. Rules bloat is something I really hate.
See, I'm kind of the opposite. There's plenty of "class-less" systems out there where you can purchase abilities for you character outside of the confines of a class structure. I love that only certain classes get some abilities - it makes a class feel more distinct and "special".

Neither approach is better or worse, IMHO, but personally I vastly prefer a class structured approach to character abilities.