Well, I was reading the dead levels article...

[ngilop]

and I came to one conclusion. Really (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a), like Really (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20070227x) WoTC?

At least now I understand why the poor old mundane classes keep getting screwed.

Somehow classes like the druid are in need of more abilities becuase
The druid is the second-place offender of dead levels.

And somehow hthe fighter only has 9 dead levels.. idk when I look at the fighter I see 20 dead levels.

everyclass gets base attack bonus, save bonuses and feats, so how those can be thought of as class abilities makes no sense.

[Hyena]

WoTC were pretty much inept when handling balance, because they have no idea how their game played. They just kept pushing the idea of blaster wizard...


The monk is the only other core class, aside from the barbarian, that has no dead levels. Players always have something to look forward to with the monk, which boasts the most colorful and unique special abilities of all the character classes
That's their idea of balance.


Discerning Insight (Ex): A paladin can recognize when a person is trustworthy or not, giving the character a +1 bonus on Sense Motive checks when trying to get a "hunch" about the subject's personality after a 1-minute conversation (see Sense Motive on page 81 of the Player's Handbook).
That's their idea of a class feature that a class should get on 8th level.

[SowZ]

WoTC were pretty much inept when handling balance, because they have no idea how their game played. They just kept pushing the idea of blaster wizard...


That's their idea of balance.


That's their idea of a class feature that a class should get on 8th level.

Yeah, a +1 to one skill only situationally is hardly worth spending the time to calculate, geez. Should've been, "Add Wisdom to Diplomacy and Charisma to sense motive, or something, not been situational, and be one of a couple abilities.

I have long held, and will likely continue holding, that Druid is the single most OP class in core and possibly all base classes.

[Craft (Cheese)]

That's their idea of a class feature that a class should get on 8th level.

To be fair, the Dead Levels article is explicitly supposed to be tiny stuff that won't affect your character's power at all, just give them some extra flavor.

Not gonna defend the Monk and Druid stuff though.

[Ydaer Ca Noit]

I think the articles point is that no matter how powerful your class is, you feel better about your class if you gain something (even trivial) every level.

[SowZ]

To be fair, the Dead Levels article is explicitly supposed to be tiny stuff that won't affect your character's power at all, just give them some extra flavor.

Not gonna defend the Monk and Druid stuff though.

It's weird that they call out the Druid, though, since Druids get a decent number of pretty much entirely plot-point abilities and some of the most unique and creativity inspiring powers in the game.

[Drachasor]

I think the articles point is that no matter how powerful your class is, you feel better about your class if you gain something (even trivial) every level.

Yes, this. Dead Levels isn't a balance thing.

WOTC generally got better with class design as things went on in 3.5. I like a lot of their later classes much more than I like the PF stuff.

The Druid thing is odd though. I'd think the Wizard would have more dead levels than the Druid. I mean, if you aren't going to count spells. Well, most articles on RP stuff by anyone usually have a couple head-scratching bits.

The Monk is actually a good example here. It does get a lot of little things. This does make players feel better about it. In fact, many people feel TOO good about it given how weak it is. Proves the point though.

[ngilop]

I think the articles point is that no matter how powerful your class is, you feel better about your class if you gain something (even trivial) every level.

Except at 17th level Druids get 9th levels spells.

[eggynack]

Druids were called out because they have so few dead levels, rather than so many. It makes the few blank spots in their progression more jarring, or so the reasoning goes. This is especially obvious if you consider the class considered first in dead level having: the rogue. They too only have two dead levels, except one is at 20, which boosts them past the druid in terms of problematic dead levels. I agree that druids obviously don't need the help though, especially because woodland sprint is actually kinda powerful. Wall of thorns is a big game.

[Evandar]

My players (and myself) tend to get way more psyched over unlocking highly flavored and cool abilities than another 1d6 sneak attack damage, even if the former ability is a lot more situational and arguably worse.

I don't think most of the Dead Level things up there actually qualify as 'cool' though.

[bekeleven]

I don't think most of the Dead Level things up there actually qualify as 'cool' though.

But, swashbuckler

[PraxisVetli]

But, swashbuckler

Yeah, credit where credit is due.
The swashbuckler's ability is kinda cool.

[LordBiscuit]

Personally I don't feel that Druid has any dead levels. Spell lists are advanced every level, so I don't think it should be rated in the same way that a class without magic should be. Even a wizard strictly doesn't have any dead levels, since every level advances the number of spells known/used, just it's often stronger to prestiage to get a host of abilitys to enhance/supliment the caster levels.

Monk is a good example of how to make a class look exciting, while making it suboptimal. "Woop I'm a Monk that is able to do a lot of cool things, aside from actually being able to beat things with my fists since I have an AC of tissue paper and a rogues attack progression." It has plenty of cool bits, great movement speed and the best set of resistances in the game, but when it actually comes down to it just struggles to preform well in combat without cranking through a lot of handbooks.

[Failed Phantasm]

I've always thought the Monk entry was being secretly sarcastic. Just wrap "colorful" and "unique" in quotes and it suddenly reads much better.

[Kennisiou]

Yeah, credit where credit is due.
The swashbuckler's ability is kinda cool.

Wizards gave people an option to just make it a function of the bluff skill that you can use it for seduction in that way AND lowered its use time in that version compared to the Swashbuckler version. If you're including their full online archive, then Swashbuckler's dead levels are less "adds a cool new function to bluff" and instead "gets a bonus on a function of bluff everyone else has access to in exchange for taking longer to do it," which is way less cool in addition to less powerful.

Seriously, I feel like wizards just repeatedly denied Swashbuckler anything resembling "cool things" when making it...

[sleepyphoenixx]

Personally I don't feel that Druid has any dead levels. Spell lists are advanced every level, so I don't think it should be rated in the same way that a class without magic should be. Even a wizard strictly doesn't have any dead levels, since every level advances the number of spells known/used, just it's often stronger to prestiage to get a host of abilitys to enhance/supliment the caster levels.

The levels are "dead" in the sense that they don't offer any incentive to stay in the class. There's no reason for anyone to stay a wizard beyond level 5 at the latest.

Druid does it right imo. Not all the abilities you get are super powerful but things like venom immunity, a thousand faces or elemental wild shape at least feel like they accomplish something.
You actually get something from staying a druid beyond more CL, something that gives you that "woo, new abilities" feeling.The fact that there are no really good druid PrC's helps, of course. :smalltongue:
(Planar Shepherd doesn't count since it's too strong for most games, Moonspeaker is limited to a single race).

[NichG]

But dead levels in casting classes means more motivation for people to explore the PrCs part of the system (which in turn gives a reason to buy more splatbooks).

There's kind of a design dissonance between PrCs and the idea of 'people should be rewarded for staying in a base class for 20 levels'. PrCs are sort of like 'now that you've made it out of the rookie leagues, here's all these awesome new options you can look at to customize your character'. Trying to combine that with 'you really want 20 levels of the base class' risks making the PrC options generally just not worth it (and there already are a lot of PrCs that are just not worth it). Given the amount of pages of content dedicated to PrCs versus pages dedicated to base classes, this is kind of a waste.

So how about this - make sure every base class has a dead level every other level. Players can gain a class feature for that level from any PrC they qualify for, instead of taking the PrC as a separate level. To take a PrC's Lv3 class feature, you must take all lower-level class features from that PrC first.

You'd probably also want to strip out the dead levels from the PrCs and in general remove half of the PrC levels since you only get one PrC feature every 2 levels instead of every level.

[sleepyphoenixx]

When people don't take a PrC because the base class is better you went to far in the other direction (see druid).
It should be about tradeoffs. Take a PrC, gain awesome ability A but don't gain awesome ability B. Choose the one that fits your concept better.
We already have just that when people choose between different PrCs. I just feel that there should be a viable reason for staying in your base class, too.

[eggynack]

The fact that there are no really good druid PrC's helps, of course. :smalltongue:
(Planar Shepherd doesn't count since it's too strong for most games, Moonspeaker is limited to a single race).
Well, there's also lion of Talisid, but that's really close to normal druid such that it barely counts. I've also considered considering some quick dips into traditionally cleric prestige classes. For example, consider considering something like seeker of the misty isle. You're down a level of stuff advancement, and a good druid race, and you get the travel domain. Druids get teleportation options, but they don't exactly get efficient teleportation options, so dimension door, teleport, and greater teleport are all meaningful additions. Astral projection is also somewhat meaningful, as it gives druids a second 9th to work with. I'm not sure if this is a good idea yet, but my suspicion is that dropping a single level of wild shape or the animal companion isn't the end of the world.

[bekeleven]

I'm not sure if this is a good idea yet, but my suspicion is that dropping a single level of wild shape or the animal companion isn't the end of the world.

You can get 5 wild shape HD from magic items, although some hard cap at 20.

[Chronos]

And somehow hthe fighter only has 9 dead levels.. idk when I look at the fighter I see 20 dead levels.

everyclass gets base attack bonus, save bonuses and feats, so how those can be thought of as class abilities makes no sense.
Most classes don't get feats, and of those that do, none get as many as the fighter. All characters get feats, but they're not from class. Getting more of them is just fine as a class feature, as long as they're good enough.

And the real problem with prestige classes is all of the classes that give full casting advancement plus other abilities for almost no cost. My personal standard is that, if a player can't tell you why anyone would want to stay base class 20 instead of taking a particular prestige class, then that prestige class is too powerful, and shouldn't be allowed.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Well, there's also lion of Talisid, but that's really close to normal druid such that it barely counts. I've also considered considering some quick dips into traditionally cleric prestige classes. For example, consider considering something like seeker of the misty isle. You're down a level of stuff advancement, and a good druid race, and you get the travel domain. Druids get teleportation options, but they don't exactly get efficient teleportation options, so dimension door, teleport, and greater teleport are all meaningful additions. Astral projection is also somewhat meaningful, as it gives druids a second 9th to work with. I'm not sure if this is a good idea yet, but my suspicion is that dropping a single level of wild shape or the animal companion isn't the end of the world.

I prefer a level of Contemplative if i can justify getting knowledge religion as a class skill (by whatever method).
Luck domain is a pretty nice high level option with Miracle, Moment of Prescience and Spell Turning. Also, free reroll.
If you have Dragon Wild Shape you could even consider dipping both Contemplative and SotMI once you get the necessary WS HD for your preferred dragon form.

Your AC gets relatively weaker by that point (and i prefer Urban Companion anyway unless it's a low level game) and if you absolutely need that level of WS HD you can get it from items.

Edit:

My personal standard is that, if a player can't tell you why anyone would want to stay base class 20 instead of taking a particular prestige class, then that prestige class is too powerful, and shouldn't be allowed.

So, since wizards don't get anything past level 1 besides bonus feats any arcane PrC that gives more than that or doesn't lose CL is too powerful?
That's a little harsh imo.

The only arcane PrC that loses more than one CL that's worth taking for the full 10 is Swiftblade, and that's because it gets really strong abilities at pretty much every level.
It would certainly swing the balance more towards "never PrC as a caster and if you have to, only to dip".

[Stux]

So, since wizards don't get anything past level 1 besides bonus feats any arcane PrC that gives more than that or doesn't lose CL is too powerful?
That's a little harsh imo.

Eh, I kind of agree. A PrC should make you give up something, it shouldn't be strictly better than the base class. It should always be a trade off. And a meaningful one at that. The fact that pretty much nothing a PrC can offer can be as good as the only thing the base class really offers is basically a flaw of the system. But hey, we have to work with what we have.

We could potentially have prestige classes that fully progress casting except reducing spells per day. I'm not aware of any precedent for how such a rule would work, but I could definitely see a reasonable homebrew of a 9 or 8 /10 progression PrC being turned in to full progression with the loss of 1 spell/day of every level you can cast. Or something along those lines. Of course its not like T1s need help, but in a high op game some DMs might go for it.

[Drachasor]

Eh, I kind of agree. A PrC should make you give up something, it shouldn't be strictly better than the base class. It should always be a trade off. And a meaningful one at that. The fact that pretty much nothing a PrC can offer can be as good as the only thing the base class really offers is basically a flaw of the system. But hey, we have to work with what we have.

We could potentially have prestige classes that fully progress casting except reducing spells per day. I'm not aware of any precedent for how such a rule would work, but I could definitely see a reasonable homebrew of a 9 or 8 /10 progression PrC being turned in to full progression with the loss of 1 spell/day of every level you can cast. Or something along those lines. Of course its not like T1s need help, but in a high op game some DMs might go for it.

That's how the Archmage works.

[Dead_Jester]

Edit:


So, since wizards don't get anything past level 1 besides bonus feats any arcane PrC that gives more than that or doesn't lose CL is too powerful?
That's a little harsh imo.

The only arcane PrC that loses more than one CL that's worth taking for the full 10 is Swiftblade, and that's because it gets really strong abilities at pretty much every level.
It would certainly swing the balance more towards "never PrC as a caster and if you have to, only to dip".

Well, I think that that is more a proof that caster design in core 3e is terrible rather than lack of PrC balance (which is a problem, but only becomes serious in the worst offenders); they have absolutely no features; look at the sorcerer, it literally gets nothing beyond first level. They get spells, and if you want to get any other abilities, you need to PrC out; the fact that you aren't even giving anything up makes it simply poor design. The sad thing is, after all the improvement WotC made at the end of 3.5 (with all the tier 3 classes with a bunch of fluffy and not too game breaking abilities to fill out some of the dead levels), they returned to their old ways in 4e and, from what we've seen of it, Next.

[Stux]

That's how the Archmage works.

Well colour me mistaken! Cheers. Definitely something you could house rule for other PrCs if you were so inclined anyway.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I agree with the basic premise (staying in the wizard class should be worthwhile) but not with your proposed fix of making PrCs in general inferior to the base class.

The problem with that approach is that you go to far in the other direction.
If it's never worth it to PrC as a caster, why have caster PrCs at all?
On the other hand, adding special abilities to the higher levels of wizard makes it a tradeoff where both options are worth considering.

For the sake of argument, let's say we remove the Incantatrix PrC and give the wizard Metamagic Effect at level 9.
Metamagic Effect is certainly one of the more powerful PrC abilities and there's quite a few people who would stay at least 9 levels in the wizard class.
There's also plenty of builds who don't take Incantatrix though so it's not a "must-have" ability. We now have two viable options (PrC at 5 or stay until 9) instead of "PrC out asap".

Add additional (valuable but not must-have) abilities at higher levels and wizard 20 is a viable build without making PrCs any less desirable.

[Stux]

I agree with the basic premise (staying in the wizard class should be worthwhile) but not with your proposed fix of making PrCs in general inferior to the base class.

Well I basically agree.

Its not about making the prestige classes worse as such, its about making the tradeoff meaningful. The PrC should be able to do something different or significantly better than the base class, something that players would conceivably actually want to do, but not not be able to do something or do something significantly worse compared to the base class, again something that some players are going to want to do. That's just good game design.

At the moment most Wizard PrC are either:
1) Pretty much objectively better than the Wizard - they add something really good and only lose bonus feats that aren't worth much by comparison.
2) Pretty much objectively worse than the Wizard - they add something not worth as much as feats, or add something that is better but lose caster levels which are worth a lot more to players than any class feature.

That just seems like bad game design.

Again, part of the problem is how valuable caster levels are. Fighters don't mind losing a point of BAB in exchange for a decent class feature, but for Wizards it is all but unthinkable to lose a caster level, even though a caster level behind a wizard is still better than about 95% of all other base classes. I can't really think of a way to resolve this that doesn't involve a complete rebuild of the magic system though.

[LordBiscuit]

The levels are "dead" in the sense that they don't offer any incentive to stay in the class. There's no reason for anyone to stay a wizard beyond level 5 at the latest.

Druid does it right imo. Not all the abilities you get are super powerful but things like venom immunity, a thousand faces or elemental wild shape at least feel like they accomplish something.
You actually get something from staying a druid beyond more CL, something that gives you that "woo, new abilities" feeling.The fact that there are no really good druid PrC's helps, of course. :smalltongue:
(Planar Shepherd doesn't count since it's too strong for most games, Moonspeaker is limited to a single race).

True, but then it's a trade off really, since the wizard is much more powerful in terms of choice and spells he gets. When I played as a level 5-7 wizard when I was newer, each and every level had exciting possiblities that I really didn't need all the fiddly bits associated to it. The wizard was pure wow all the way. Though of course, optimalisation allows for even more wow to be bolted on for little/no cost while going for concept.

Though then again, my idea of a dead level is that nothing exciting happens. Though it just makes for a much more potent build when you start giving wizards random abilitys to bulk out their caster levels. While melee classes in the core rulebook tend to be somewhat dull, uninspired and two classes are essencally watered down cleric/druids with small situational perks to counter it. Paladin and Ranger respectively.

Though if it loses caster levels, then it likely isn't an option. I don't plan to level 20, so I don't want to miss getting more spells.

[T.G. Oskar]

I think there's a disclaimer in the article that explains their thinking behind the "Dead Levels" and what they consider as such. Specifically, that (barring certain exceptions) a dead level involves having absolutely no new class features (that includes access to new spells), and that the abilities granted have to be flavorful, not crunchy. The second article already mentions this: people were debating what exactly a dead level should be, and specifically mention slow fall and trap sense as abilities that people considered didn't "save" a dead level (FWIW, I agree with that concept; Slow Fall and Trap Sense isn't something you're actually looking for).

While I don't agree with their idea of dead levels, considering the writer of the article (Kolja Raven-Liquette, owner of The Waking Lands website), he was probably screwed by WotC to limit to those abilities rather than work on dead levels as a concept. It's a good point to measure the change in quality (the Dead Levels article is right around the time of PHB II and MoI, where the first changes in quality started to appear) of WotC content, paving the way for Heroes of Horror, the Binder from Tome of Magic and all ToB classes.

Personally, my conception of dead levels is wider: Slow Fall is decent at 1st level, but when the only thing you gain at level 6 and higher is a small increase to Slow Fall and nothing else, that's definitely a dead level. Conversely, a new spell level may or may not consist of a dead level (for a full spellcaster, any level in which they gain a new spell level simply cannot be a dead level; the rest depends on what other class features they get). It's a bit abstract, but the idea is that every level has to be "balanced" (where each ability has an abstract "weight").

As a final point: Applied Force is pretty decent. It's a +1 bonus to Strength checks to burst doors or walls, which stacks VERY nicely with the Dungeon Crasher bonus (that's a +19 to Strength checks, which is enough to make Open Lock or Knock feel silly). It's about one of the few really worthwhile dead level bonuses.

[Zombulian]

I love dead levels. No matter who they're for. Extra fluff abilities are always great. Hexblades eventually get prestidigitation at will? Spooky. Spirit animals get to be more than just a random animal that all give the same class features? Alright!

Then Swashbuckler and Samurai actually give mechanical benefits, which is always great.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Though then again, my idea of a dead level is that nothing exciting happens. Though it just makes for a much more potent build when you start giving wizards random abilitys to bulk out their caster levels. While melee classes in the core rulebook tend to be somewhat dull, uninspired and two classes are essencally watered down cleric/druids with small situational perks to counter it. Paladin and Ranger respectively.

Though if it loses caster levels, then it likely isn't an option. I don't plan to level 20, so I don't want to miss getting more spells.

Wizard doesn't actually get more powerful if you give it actual abilities at the later levels since you still have to choose between special abilities.
The only difference would be that the choice is between PrC A, B, C or straight wizard instead of just PrC A, B or C.
As it stands, staying pure wizard isn't really much of a choice since you even get the bonus feats from PrCs, in addition to other stuff.

I don't really play much melee (because it is, as you said, dull) so i'll leave the comments on that to others.

[NichG]

So just make it so that every level has to be a base class, but you can Gestalt a PrC level every so often after Lv6 (I'd probably do every-other-level).

PrCs stay useful and the pressure to have distinctive abilities is removed from base classes and they can act more like a chassis for advancement of this or that. Now there's no question 'PrC or base class?' which will be a hard thing to balance anyhow. Instead its 'which PrC to take with my base class?'

[eggynack]

I prefer a level of Contemplative if i can justify getting knowledge religion as a class skill (by whatever method).
Luck domain is a pretty nice high level option with Miracle, Moment of Prescience and Spell Turning. Also, free reroll.
If you have Dragon Wild Shape you could even consider dipping both Contemplative and SotMI once you get the necessary WS HD for your preferred dragon form.

Your AC gets relatively weaker by that point (and i prefer Urban Companion anyway unless it's a low level game) and if you absolutely need that level of WS HD you can get it from items.

Yeah, that seems reasonably workable as well. It's really mostly a vague sort of thought rather than a full fledged plan. I mean, say you're level eleven, and you take a not thing advancing class, and pick up a wild shape amulet at the same time. You get most of wild shape, because you've reached dire tortoise, and that in combination with the diminishing returns from the animal companion probably means that you can PrC forever in ways that pump your casting ability. I just have no idea what you can do with that fact. Like, the key question is, "What druid prestige classes would be good if you were unconcerned with WS and AC advancement." I might just construct a thread for such a question. Probably on the morrow.

[Eldan]

So just make it so that every level has to be a base class, but you can Gestalt a PrC level every so often after Lv6 (I'd probably do every-other-level).

PrCs stay useful and the pressure to have distinctive abilities is removed from base classes and they can act more like a chassis for advancement of this or that. Now there's no question 'PrC or base class?' which will be a hard thing to balance anyhow. Instead its 'which PrC to take with my base class?'

That's been something I've actually considered doing for a while now, based on 4th edition's Paragon Paths.

You wouldn't be a Wizard 5/Incantatrix 5 anymore, you'd be a Wizard 10//Incantatrix 5.

Or a Ranger 10/Bloodhound 5, or whatever.

[LordBiscuit]

Wizard doesn't actually get more powerful if you give it actual abilities at the later levels since you still have to choose between special abilities.
The only difference would be that the choice is between PrC A, B, C or straight wizard instead of just PrC A, B or C.
As it stands, staying pure wizard isn't really much of a choice since you even get the bonus feats from PrCs, in addition to other stuff.

I don't really play much melee (because it is, as you said, dull) so i'll leave the comments on that to others.

They become more effective relative to pure wizards, hence there really isn't any reason why you shouldn't go nuts on prestaging, as long as the casting is still full as possible. I was commenting on a prestiage Wizard being much more effective then a plain wizard. Even the plain wizard doesn't have any dead levels though, seems almost exclusive mundanes (including prestiage classes. Yes Bear Warrior, I am looking firmly at you, with your 6 dead levels) and semi-mundanes (ranger and paladin namely) and staggered Magic Level prestiage classes (since the special abilities offered often don't make up for the loss. Though there are a few exceptions)

[Coidzor]

That's been something I've actually considered doing for a while now, based on 4th edition's Paragon Paths.

You wouldn't be a Wizard 5/Incantatrix 5 anymore, you'd be a Wizard 10//Incantatrix 5.

Or a Ranger 10/Bloodhound 5, or whatever.

Gets a bit interesting with things like Suel Arcanamach, Assassin, Knight of the Weave, Ur-Priest, Sublime Chord, or Divine Crusader that add their own spell progressions though. I think.

Edit: Also, gishing & theurging.

[Jlerpy]

That's been something I've actually considered doing for a while now, based on 4th edition's Paragon Paths.

You wouldn't be a Wizard 5/Incantatrix 5 anymore, you'd be a Wizard 10//Incantatrix 5.

Or a Ranger 10/Bloodhound 5, or whatever.

Wouldn't that make PrCs that don't give full CL rather strong?

[Coidzor]

Wouldn't that make PrCs that don't give full CL rather strong?

It'd certainly make more people potentially choose them if they liked the benefits of the class features & chassis, I suppose.

[Chronos]

Actually, for all its other faults, Incantatrix actually gets it right, by that criterion I mentioned. Giving up access to an entire school of magic (or an additional entire school of magic, if you're already specialized) is a significant sacrifice. If someone asked me why I'd take wizard 20 over prestiging into incantatrix, I'd say "Because I want to keep access to all of my spells".

Now, Incantatrix is still so overpowered that it shouldn't be allowed, but that's just because, even though it requires a significant sacrifice, the benefits it gives you are far more significant. But stick that same restriction on most of the other popular wizard PrCs, and it'd work: It's enough of a sacrifice that the PrC isn't a no-brainer, but not so much of one that straight wizard isn't a no-brainer, either.

[Pex]

Pathfinder went in the opposite direction. Base classes are given cool stuff while the Prestige Classes are meh. For arcane casters Loremaster isn't terrible and Arcane Archer is improved to fit the niche concept. They prefer the archetype model of alternate class features of the base class. One's personal taste determines which archetype is good for you, but the method works out alright.

[jedipotter]

I think the articles point is that no matter how powerful your class is, you feel better about your class if you gain something (even trivial) every level.

I never liked dead levels. It is just so boring to gain a level and get....just a couple numbers added to your character. And even getting another daily use is boring. You get the most fun from getting something new.

But trivial things are just so annoying. Getting like a +1 to a skill to do something you most likely won't bother with is pointless. They just go out of the way to make mundane useless. And it is not like it would be so hard to give them good stuff.

[MeeposFire]

Well, I think that that is more a proof that caster design in core 3e is terrible rather than lack of PrC balance (which is a problem, but only becomes serious in the worst offenders); they have absolutely no features; look at the sorcerer, it literally gets nothing beyond first level. They get spells, and if you want to get any other abilities, you need to PrC out; the fact that you aren't even giving anything up makes it simply poor design. The sad thing is, after all the improvement WotC made at the end of 3.5 (with all the tier 3 classes with a bunch of fluffy and not too game breaking abilities to fill out some of the dead levels), they returned to their old ways in 4e and, from what we've seen of it, Next.

No they didn't in 4e D&D you get something at every level. You gain something at literally every level and in some levels you get multiple new bonuses or abilities. They carefully designed the 4e progression to make sure you avoided dead levels.

I cannot comment on next however.