How dead levels work for spellcasters - a guide for DMs

[rockdeworld]

I've wanted to make this post for awhile, but abstained until now because I didn't think it needed to be made. I thought everyone understood that spellcasting is so much better than everything else in 3.x1 that people who play other editions joke that 3.x is "caster edition." And that part of the reason spellcasting is better, and why giving up spellcasting levels is so bad, is because every level in most spellcasting classes gives at least 1, and often 2 or more, new abilities for a PC to play with.

To help everyone understand why dead levels don't apply to spellcasters in the same way they do to non-spellcasters, I wrote this post highlighting the difference between the class tables of the mundane classes (fighter, rogue, etc) and spellcasting classes (wizard, cleric, bard, etc).

In short, this guide is:
-defining dead levels
-showing which levels are dead and which are not when you factor in spellcasting

This guide is not:
-a commentary on balance
-a plea for change
-saying that dead levels are good or bad

If you see someone talking about how the monk has so many abilities while the cleric has so few, point them to this thread.

If someone pointed you to this thread, the next part is for you.


Back in 2006, Kolja Raven Liquette wrote an article for Wizards called "Dead Levels" (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a).2 In the article, he talked about the blank spaces in the "special" column for the core classes, and provided some optional abilities to fill those. In that article, he wrote "The sorcerer, similar to the cleric, has nineteen dead levels." And that idea has kept cropping up from time to time over the years.

That idea is flat wrong.

Just to make sure we're all on the same page, here's Mr. Liquette's definition:
Dead levels: "levels during which no special abilities are gained."

An example of a dead level is Fighter 17, where he gets +1 BAB, some skill points, some HP, and nothing else.

A sorcerer at the same level, supposedly a "dead level", gets another 7th level spell (like Reverse Gravity, Insanity, Prismatic Spray, or Limited Wish), another 8th level spell (like Mind Blank, Greater Planar Binding, Horrid Wilting, or Polymorph Any Object), and the ability to cast another of any level 7 or 8 spell once more per day each. In other words, they get 2 more abilities and the space to use them, or more uses of any of their other abilities. And they also get more HP and skill points.

So the idea that the sorcerer has 19 dead levels is wrong because sorcerers, like every other spellcasting class, have an additional section of the class abilities table mundane classes don't have. And it's a toxic misconception because it leads people to believe that classes with a bunch of text in the "Special" column get more abilities, and are therefore more powerful than, classes like the wizard or sorcerer. When the truth is that Spellcasting provides classes with more abilities than any single class in the core rulebooks, most classes in general, or most monsters.

Why spellcasting is a "special ability": Spellcasting is a class ability that spellcasters get, and class abilities are always written under the "Special" column except when it's more convenient to write them as a separate table (eg. a monk's AC and speed bonuses). So being under the "Special" column makes no difference as to whether an ability is a "special ability" or not. Being listed as a class ability is what makes or breaks a "special ability."

So to fix this persistent misconception, I've re-formatted the core spellcasting classes' tables to show what they look like when you write spellcasting the way virtually every other class ability is written.3

Here's how the classes look when spellcasting is listed under the "Special" column of their class:



LevelBABFortRefWillSpecial
1st+0+0+2+2Bardic music, bardic knowledge, countersong, fascinate, inspire courage +1, spellcasting (4 level 0 spells known, 2 level 0 spells per day)
2nd+1+0+3+3Spellcasting (5 level 0 spells known, 2 level 1 spells known, 3 level 0 spells per day, 0 level 1 spells per day)
3rd+2+1+3+3Inspire competence, spellcasting (6 level 0 spells known, 3 level 1 spells known, 1 level 1 spell per day)
4th+3+1+4+4Spellcasting (2 level 2 spells known, 2 level 1 spells per day, 0 level 2 spells per day)
5th+3+1+4+4Spellcasting (4 level 1 spells known, 3 level 2 spells known, 3 level 1 spells per day, 1 level 2 spell per day)
6th+4+2+5+5Suggestion, spellcasting (2 level 2 spells per day)
7th+5+2+5+5Spellcasting (4 level 2 spells known, 2 level 3 spells known, 0 level 3 spells per day)
8th+6/+1+2+6+6Inspire courage +2, spellcasting (3 level 3 spells known, 3 level 2 spells per day, 1 level 3 spell per day)
9th+6/+1+3+6+6Inspire greatness, spellcasting (2 level 3 spells per day)
10th+7/+2+3+7+7Spellcasting (4 level 3 spells known, 2 level 4 spells known, 0 level 4 spells per day)
11th+8/+3+3+7+7Spellcasting (3 level 4 spells known, 3 level 3 spells per day, 1 level 4 spell per day)
12th+9/+4+4+8+8Song of freedom, spellcasting (2 level 4 spells per day)
13th+9/+4+4+8+8Spellcasting (4 level 4 spells known, 2 level 5 spells known, 0 level 5 spells per day)
14th+10/+5+4+9+9Inspire courage +3, Spellcasting (3 level 5 spells known, 4 level 0 spells per day, 3 level 4 spells per day, 1 level 5 spell per day)
15th+11/+6/+1+5+9+9Inspire heroics, spellcasting (4 level 1 spells per day, 2 level 5 spells per day)
16th+12/+7/+2+5+10+10Spellcasting (5 level 1 spells known, 4 level 5 spells known, 2 level 6 spells known, 4 level 2 spells per day, 0 level 6 spells per day)
17th+12/+7/+2+5+10+10Spellcasting (5 level 2 spells known, 3 level 6 spells known, 4 level 3 spells per day, 3 level 5 spells per day, 1 level 6 spell per day)
18th+13/+8/+3+6+11+11Mass suggestion, spellcasting (5 level 3 spells known, 4 level 4 spells per day, 2 level 6 spells per day)
19th+14/+9/+4+6+11+11Spellcasting (5 level 4 spells known, 4 level 6 spells known, 4 level 5 spells per day, 3 level 6 spells per day)
20th+15/+10/+5+6+12+12Inspire courage +4, spellcasting (5 level 5 spells known, 4 level 6 spells per day)




LevelBase Attack BonusFort SaveRef SaveWill SaveSpecial
1st
+0
+2
+0
+2Turn or rebuke undead, spellcasting (3 level 0 spells per day, 1+1 level 1 spells per day)
2nd
+1
+3
+0
+3Spellcasting (4 level 0 spells per day, 2+1 level 1 spells per day)
3rd
+2
+3
+1
+3Spellcasting (1+1 level 2 spells per day)
4th
+3
+4
+1
+4Spellcasting (5 level 0 spells per day, 3+1 level 1 spells per day, 2+1 level 2 spells per day)
5th
+3
+4
+1
+4Spellcasting (1+1 level 3 spells per day)
6th
+4
+5
+2
+5Spellcasting (3+1 level 2 spells per day, 2+1 level 3 spells per day)
7th
+5
+5
+2
+5Spellcasting (6 level 0 spells per day, 4+1 level 1 spells per day, 1+1 level 4 spells per day)
8th
+6/1
+6
+2
+6Spellcasting (3+1 level 3 spells per day, 2+1 level 4 spells per day)
9th
+6/1
+6
+3
+6Spellcasting (4+1 level 2 spells per day, 1+1 level 5 spells per day)
10th
+7/2
+7
+3
+7Spellcasting (3+1 level 2 spells per day, 2+1 level 3 spells per day)
11th
+8/3
+7
+3
+7Spellcasting (5+1 level 1 spells per day, 4+1 level 3 spells per day, 1+1 level 6 spells per day)
12th
+9/4
+8
+4
+8Spellcasting (3+1 level 5 spells per day, 2+1 level 6 spells per day)
13th
+9/4
+8
+4
+8Spellcasting (5+1 level 2 spells per day, 4+1 level 4 spells per day, 1+1 level 7 spells per day)
14th
+10/5
+9
+4
+9Spellcasting (3+1 level 6 spells per day, 2+1 level 7 spells per day)
15th
+11/6/1
+9
+5
+9Spellcasting (5+1 level 3 spells per day, 4+1 level 5 spells per day, 1+1 level 8 spells per day)
16th
+12/7/2
+10
+5
+10Spellcasting (3+1 level 7 spells per day, 2+1 level 8 spells per day)
17th
+12/7/2
+10
+5
+10Spellcasting (5+1 level 4 spells per day, 4+1 level 6 spells per day, 1+1 level 9 spells per day)
18th
+13/8/3
+11
+6
+11Spellcasting (3+1 level 8 spells per day, 2+1 level 9 spells per day)
19th
+14/9/4
+11
+6
+11Spellcasting (5+1 level 5 spells per day, 4+1 level 7 spells per day, 3+1 level 9 spells per day)
20th
+15/10/5
+12
+6
+12Spellcasting (4+1 level 8 spells per day, 4+1 level 9 spells per day)




LevelBase Attack BonusFort SaveRef SaveWill SaveSpecial
1st
+0
+2
+0
+2Animal companion, nature sense, wild empathy, spellcasting (3 level 0 spells per day, 1 level 1 spell per day)
2nd
+1
+3
+0
+3Woodland stride, spellcasting (4 level 0 spells per day, 2 level 1 spells per day)
3rd
+2
+3
+1
+3Trackless step, spellcasting (1 level 2 spell per day)
4th
+3
+4
+1
+4Resist nature’s lure, spellcasting (5 level 0 spells per day, 3 level 1 spells per day, 2 level 2 spells per day)
5th
+3
+4
+1
+4Wild shape (1/day), spellcasting (1 level 3 spell per day)
6th
+4
+5
+2
+5Wild shape (2/day), spellcasting (3 level 2 spells per day, 2 level 3 spells per day)
7th
+5
+5
+2
+5Wild shape (3/day), spellcasting (6 level 0 spells per day, 4 level 1 spells per day, 1 level 4 spell per day)
8th
+6/1
+6
+2
+6Wild shape (Large), spellcasting (3 level 3 spells per day, 2 level 4 spells per day)
9th
+6/1
+6
+3
+6Venom immunity, spellcasting (4 level 2 spells per day, 1 level 5 spell per day)
10th
+7/2
+7
+3
+7Wild shape (4/day), spellcasting (3 level 2 spells per day, 2 level 3 spells per day)
11th
+8/3
+7
+3
+7Wild shape (Tiny), spellcasting (5 level 1 spells per day, 4 level 3 spells per day, 1 level 6 spell per day)
12th
+9/4
+8
+4
+8Wild shape (plant), spellcasting (3 level 5 spells per day, 2 level 6 spells per day)
13th
+9/4
+8
+4
+8A thousand faces, spellcasting (5 level 2 spells per day, 4 level 4 spells per day, 1 level 7 spell per day)
14th
+10/5
+9
+4
+9Wild shape (5/day), spellcasting (3 level 6 spells per day, 2 level 7 spells per day)
15th
+11/6/1
+9
+5
+9Timeless body, wild shape (Huge), spellcasting (5 level 3 spells per day, 4 level 5 spells per day, 1 level 8 spell per day)
16th
+12/7/2
+10
+5
+10Wild shape (elemental 1/day), spellcasting (3 level 7 spells per day, 2 level 8 spells per day)
17th
+12/7/2
+10
+5
+10Spellcasting (5 level 4 spells per day, 4 level 6 spells per day, 1 level 9 spell per day)
18th
+13/8/3
+11
+6
+11Wild shape (6/day, elemental 2/day), spellcasting (3 level 8 spells per day, 2 level 9 spells per day)
19th
+14/9/4
+11
+6
+11Spellcasting (5 level 5 spells per day, 4 level 7 spells per day, 3 level 9 spells per day)
20th
+15/10/5
+12
+6
+12Wild shape (elemental 3/day, Huge elemental), spellcasting (4 level 8 spells per day, 4 level 9 spells per day)





Level
Base Attack Bonus
Fort Save
Ref Save
Will Save
Special


1st
+1
+2
+0
+0
Aura of good, detect evil, smite evil 1/day


2nd
+2
+3
+0
+0
Divine grace, lay on hands


3rd
+3
+3
+1
+1
Aura of courage, divine health


4th
+4
+4
+1
+1
Turn undead, spellcasting (0 level 1 spells per day)


5th
+5
+4
+1
+1
Smite evil 2/day, special mount


6th
+6/+1
+5
+2
+2
Remove disease 1/week, spellcasting (1 level 1 spell per day)


7th
+7/+2
+5
+2
+2



8th
+8/+3
+6
+2
+2
Spellcasting (0 level 2 spells per day)


9th
+9/+4
+6
+3
+3
Remove disease 2/week


10th
+10/+5
+7
+3
+3
Smite evil 3/day, spellcasting (1 level 2 spell per day)


11th
+11/+6/+1
+7
+3
+3
Spellcasting (0 level 3 spells per day)


12th
+12/+7/+2
+8
+4
+4
Remove disease 3/week, spellcasting (1 level 3 spell per day)


13th
+13/+8/+3
+8
+4
+4



14th
+14/+9/+4
+9
+4
+4
Spellcasting (2 level 1 spells per day, 0 level 4 spells per day)


15th
+15/+10/+5
+9
+5
+5
Remove disease 4/week, smite evil 4/day, spellcasting (1 level 4 spell per day)


16th
+16/+11/+6/+1
+10
+5
+5
Spellcasting (2 level 2 spells per day)


17th
+17/+12/+7/+2
+10
+5
+5
Spellcasting (2 level 3 spells per day)


18th
+18/+13/+8/+3
+11
+6
+6
Remove disease 5/week, spellcasting (3 level 1 spells per day)


19th
+19/+14/+9/+4
+11
+6
+6
Spellcasting (3 level 2 spells per day, 3 level 3 spells per day, 2 level 4 spells per day)


20th
+20/+15/+10/+5
+12
+6
+6
Smite evil 5/day, spellcasting (3 level 4 spells per day)






Level
Base Attack Bonus
Fort Save
Ref Save
Will Save
Special


1st
+1
+2
+2
+0
1st favored enemy, Track, wild empathy


2nd
+2
+3
+3
+0
Combat style


3rd
+3
+3
+3
+1
Endurance


4th
+4
+4
+4
+1
Animal companion, spellcasting (0 level 1 spells per day)


5th
+5
+4
+4
+1
2nd favored enemy


6th
+6/+1
+5
+5
+2
Improved combat style, spellcasting (1 level 1 spell per day)


7th
+7/+2
+5
+5
+2
Woodland stride


8th
+8/+3
+6
+6
+2
Swift tracker, spellcasting (0 level 2 spells per day)


9th
+9/+4
+6
+6
+3
Evasion


10th
+10/+5
+7
+7
+3
3rd favored enemy, spellcasting (1 level 2 spell per day)


11th
+11/+6/+1
+7
+7
+3
Combat style mastery, spellcasting (0 level 3 spells per day)


12th
+12/+7/+2
+8
+8
+4
Remove disease 3/week, spellcasting (1 level 3 spell per day)


13th
+13/+8/+3
+8
+8
+4
Camouflage


14th
+14/+9/+4
+9
+9
+4
Spellcasting (2 level 1 spells per day, 0 level 4 spells per day)


15th
+15/+10/+5
+9
+9
+5
4th favored enemy, spellcasting (1 level 4 spell per day)


16th
+16/+11/+6/+1
+10
+10
+5
Spellcasting (2 level 2 spells per day)


17th
+17/+12/+7/+2
+10
+10
+5
Hide in plain sight, spellcasting (2 level 3 spells per day)


18th
+18/+13/+8/+3
+11
+11
+6
Remove disease 5/week, spellcasting (3 level 1 spells per day)


19th
+19/+14/+9/+4
+11
+11
+6
Spellcasting (3 level 2 spells per day, 3 level 3 spells per day, 2 level 4 spells per day)


20th
+20/+15/+10/+5
+12
+12
+6
5th favored enemy, spellcasting (3 level 4 spells per day)





LevelBABFortRefWillSpecial
1st+0+0+0+2Summon familiar, spellcasting (4 level 0 spells known, 2 level 1 spells known, 5 level 0 spells per day, 3 level 1 spells per day)
2nd+1+0+0+3Spellcasting (5 level 0 spells known, 4 level 1 spells per day)
3rd+1+1+1+3Spellcasting (3 level 1 spells known, 5 level 1 spells per day)
4th+2+1+1+4Spellcasting (6 level 0 spells known, 1 level 2 spell known, 6 level 1 spells per day, 3 level 2 spells per day)
5th+2+1+1+4Spellcasting (4 level 1 spells known, 2 level 2 spells known, 4 level 2 spells per day)
6th+3+2+2+5Spellcasting (7 level 0 spells known, 1 level 3 spell known, 5 level 2 spells per day, 3 level 3 spells per day)
7th+3+2+2+5Spellcasting (5 level 1 spells known, 3 level 2 spells known, 2 level 3 spells known, 6 level 2 spells per day, 4 level 3 spells per day)
8th+4+2+2+6Spellcasting (8 level 0 spells known, 1 level 4 spell known, 5 level 3 spells per day, 3 level 4 spells per day)
9th+4+3+3+6Spellcasting (4 level 2 spells known, 3 level 3 spells known, 2 level 4 spells known, 6 level 3 spells per day, 4 level 4 spells per day)
10th+5+3+3+7Spellcasting (9 level 0 spells known, 1 level 5 spell known, 5 level 4 spells per day, 3 level 5 spells per day)
11th+5+3+3+7Spellcasting (5 level 2 spells known, 4 level 3 spells known, 3 level 4 spells known, 2 level 5 spells known, 6 level 4 spells per day, 4 level 5 spells per day)
12th+6/+1+4+4+8Spellcasting (1 level 6 spell known, 5 level 5 spells per day, 3 level 6 spells per day)
13th+6/+1+4+4+8Spellcasting (4 level 4 spells known, 3 level 5 spells known, 2 level 6 spells known, 6 level 5 spells per day, 4 level 6 spells per day)
14th+7/+2+4+4+9Spellcasting (1 level 7 spell known, 5 level 6 spells per day, 3 level 7 spells per day)
15th+7/+2+5+5+9Spellcasting (4 level 5 spells known, 3 level 6 spells known, 2 level 7 spells known, 6 level 6 spells per day, 4 level 7 spells per day)
16th+8/+3+5+5+10Spellcasting (1 level 8 spell known, 5 level 7 spells per day, 3 level 8 spells per day)
17th+8/+3+5+5+10Spellcasting (3 level 7 spells known, 2 level 8 spells known, 6 level 7 spells per day, 4 level 8 spells per day)
18th+9/+4+6+6+11Spellcasting (1 level 9 spell known, 5 level 8 spells per day, 3 level 9 spells per day)
19th+9/+4+6+6+11Spellcasting (3 level 8 spells known, 2 level 9 spells known, 6 level 8 spells per day, 4 level 9 spells per day)
20th+10/+5+6+6+12Spellcasting (3 level 9 spells known, 6 level 9 spells per day)




LevelBase Attack BonusFort SaveRef SaveWill SaveSpecial
1st
+0
+0
+0
+2Summon familiar, Scribe Scroll, spellcasting (3 level 0 spells per day, 1 level 1 spell per day), spellbook (all level 0 spells, 3 level 1 spells)
2nd
+1
+0
+0
+3Spellcasting (4 level 0 spells per day, 2 level 1 spells per day), spellbook (+2 spells with max level 1)
3rd
+1
+1
+1
+3Spellcasting (1 level 2 spell per day), spellbook (+2 spells with max level 2)
4th
+2
+1
+1
+4Spellcasting (3 level 1 spells per day, 2 level 2 spells per day), spellbook (+2 spells with max level 2)
5th
+2
+1
+1
+4Bonus feat, spellcasting (1 level 3 spell per day), spellbook (+2 spells with max level 3)
6th
+3
+2
+2
+5Spellcasting (3 level 2 spells per day, 2 level 3 spells per day), spellbook (+2 spells with max level 3)
7th
+3
+2
+2
+5Spellcasting (4 level 1 spells per day, 1 level 4 spell per day), spellbook (+2 spells with max level 4)
8th
+4
+2
+2
+6Spellcasting (3 level 3 spells per day, 2 level 4 spells per day), spellbook (+2 spells with max level 4)
9th
+4
+3
+3
+6Spellcasting (4 level 2 spells per day, 1 level 5 spell per day), spellbook (+2 spells with max level 5)
10th
+5
+3
+3
+7Bonus feat, spellcasting (3 level 2 spells per day, 2 level 3 spells per day), spellbook (+2 spells with max level 5)
11th
+5
+3
+3
+7Spellcasting (4 level 3 spells per day, 1 level 6 spell per day), spellbook (+2 spells with max level 6)
12th
+6/1
+4
+4
+8Spellcasting (3 level 5 spells per day, 2 level 6 spells per day), spellbook (+2 spells with max level 6)
13th
+6/1
+4
+4
+8Spellcasting (4 level 4 spells per day, 1 level 7 spell per day), spellbook (+2 spells with max level 7)
14th
+7/2
+4
+4
+9Spellcasting (3 level 6 spells per day, 2 level 7 spells per day), spellbook (+2 spells with max level 7)
15th
+7/2
+5
+5
+9Bonus feat, spellcasting (4 level 5 spells per day, 1 level 8 spell per day), spellbook (+2 spells with max level 8)
16th
+8/3
+5
+5
+10Spellcasting (3 level 7 spells per day, 2 level 8 spells per day), spellbook (+2 spells with max level 8)
17th
+8/3
+5
+5
+10Spellcasting (4 level 6 spells per day, 1 level 9 spell per day), spellbook (+2 spells with max level 9)
18th
+9/4
+6
+6
+11Spellcasting (3 level 8 spells per day, 2 level 9 spells per day), spellbook (+2 spells with max level 9)
19th
+9/4
+6
+6
+11Spellcasting (4 level 7 spells per day, 3 level 9 spells per day), spellbook (+2 spells with max level 9)
20th
+10/5
+6
+6
+12Bonus feat, spellcasting (4 level 8 spells per day, 4 level 9 spells per day), spellbook (+2 spells with max level 9)



Writing these out actually takes quite a bit of work, even with copypasta,4 so it's no surprise the authors of the core rulebooks simplified it by adding another table (and it makes reading it a heck of a lot easier too).

And looking at spellcasting this way, another common occurrence arises: full-casters (i.e. those that get 9th level spells) usually get more than one ability per level. The cleric, sorcerer, and wizard gained at least 2 more spells at each level (the cleric in spells/day to prepare, the sorcerer in spells known, and the wizard in his spellbook). And the druid got a slew of abilities at each level. So any class with fewer than 2 abilities per level gets fewer abilities than those classes (that means you, Barbarian, Rogue, and especially Fighter).

So what now?

The way you can apply this guide to your games is this: when a player comes to you with a new class, and you're worried about its power level because it gets a lot of abilities, compare it to the classes in this post. Ask yourself "does this new and different class get more abilities than the ones I'm used to playing with?" In general, the answer will be no. And, although this is off-topic, anything printed by Wizards of the Coast will be within the same power range as the core classes.5

The point of this guide is to show which levels are really dead levels, and which aren't, when you factor in spellcasting. I didn't comment on power, or balance, because some classes with dead levels are still very strong, but sometimes "live" levels don't add to a class's power.6 For more information about the power of classes and individual abilities, you can open a new thread or even google them - this forum will probably come up high on the results page.

On a final note, if something in the guide seems wrong to you, feel free to post it in this thread, and we can discuss it further.

tl/dr: spellcasting is a class ability too, and often more than one per level




Footnotes:
1 3.x includes Pathfinder

2 He might've had a clue about whether some levels were really dead levels or not, since he wrote "the spellcasting classes that gain new spells spells per day or spells known every level, can be said to gain special abilities each time they advance." Where he went wrong was when he wrote "can be said to gain special abilities" instead of "gain abilities far more powerful than most class features or monster abilities." And in fairness, he could have learned all this since then. But I haven't seen a retraction or update to his article, and it's still the first link in google, so here we are.

3 Note this doesn't include familiar/mount/animal companion progression, which also give new abilities for spellcasters to play with, and which is another thing mundane classes don't get. I know some other special abilities (like maneuvers) have extra columns, but those could also be altered in the same format as above, like I did with the monk in a later post in this thread. Also, prestige class tables would look the same, except the +1 to existing ____casting level would be under the "Special" column.

4 And if anyone would like to help fill out this post by doing the other spellcasting classes, I'd both be grateful and would add it to this post giving credit to you.

5 Except the Samurai and Truenamer, which are weaker (to the point of being nonfunctional in the case of a Truenamer).

6 Personally, I think any dead levels are bad, because I don't like to level up and get nothing but slightly better bonuses and HP. But that's my personal preference.

[Extra Anchovies]

What makes the sorcerer have nineteen dead levels is that they can prestige out ASAP without losing anything (I'm assuming the familiar is traded for an ACF or flaw and picked up later with a feat, because that's something that everyone should be doing). A Sorcerer 3/Geomancer 10 with Southern Magician has literally no downsides next to a Sorcerer 13 with Southern Magician.

[Flickerdart]

My favourite part of early non-casting PrCs is that many of them pretend that "low-level spell as an SLA 1/day" is somehow a worthwhile class feature.

[Telonius]

My favourite part of early non-casting PrCs is that many of them pretend that "low-level spell as an SLA 1/day" is somehow a worthwhile class feature.

My favorite part of the article is how it pretends that the Monks' abilities are worthwhile class features. "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."

[Sian]

My favorite part of the article is how it pretends that the Monks' abilities are worthwhile class features. "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."

It never states that "colorful" or "unique" equals "good" or "strong". Players always have something to look forward to with the monk, it just aren't all that good, nor strong.

[Flickerdart]

My favorite part of the article is how it pretends that the Monks' abilities are worthwhile class features. "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."
The article never said the abilities were worthwhile. They are definitely colourful (that colour is brown, like poop) and unique (few other classes are as crappy as the monk).

[Twurps]

What makes the sorcerer have nineteen dead levels is that they can prestige out ASAP without losing anything (I'm assuming the familiar is traded for an ACF or flaw and picked up later with a feat, because that's something that everyone should be doing). A Sorcerer 3/Geomancer 10 with Southern Magician has literally no downsides next to a Sorcerer 13 with Southern Magician.

This.
For 19 levels: a sorcerer only advances his familiar. Everything else (being: casting only) can be done equally wel with a full casting PrC with all extra benefits as a bonus. Even the familiar progression is easily matched as Extra Anchovies describes above.

For 19 levels: A cleric only advances 'turn undead'. Everything else (Again being: Casting only) can again be duplicated and out-performed by a PrC. And turning progression is hardly worth staying in the cleric class. If you really want it: take a PrC that progresses that too.

[Threadnaught]

My favorite part of the article is how it pretends that the Monks' abilities are worthwhile class features. "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."

Well yeah, Monks get stuff at every level which makes it out of the box, one of the more interesting Classes in Core.

Though Bard, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Sorcerer and Wizard also get something interesting every level.

Rogues slip up a little at levels 14 and 20, while Paladins completely fail at levels 7 and 13, seriously, at least the Rogue gets Base Attack Bonust and Save Progression, all 7th/13th level Paladins have over 6th/12th level Paladins is some more HP.

Fighters suck at every odd level. And all even levels.

[DarkSonic1337]

20 levels of sorcerer is still more interesting than 20 levels of Monk. Sorcerer only has two class features (one of which can be advanced by prestige classes), but it has no dead levels.

The fact that prestiging out of sorcerer into a full casting class has no downsides does not somehow make Sorcerer 20 actually bad.

[rockdeworld]

What makes the sorcerer have nineteen dead levels is that they can prestige out ASAP without losing anything
That's not a dead level. A dead level is Fighter 17, where he gets +1 BAB, some HP, and jack all for new abilities. A new player might be happy to be slightly better at hitting, 1-2 skills, and taking hits, but they'll never be excited about it. And if they're happy, they'll start being sad or annoyed when their fellow PC Wizard turns to them and says "Yay! This level I learned a spell that lets us travel to any plane we want at any time, and also lets me summon and control monsters with hit dice twice our level! What did you get?"

On the sorcerer's "dead level" 17, they get another 7th level spell (like Reverse Gravity, Insanity, Prismatic Spray, or Limited Wish), another 8th level spell (like Mind Blank, Greater Planar Binding, Horrid Wilting, or Polymorph Any Object), and the ability to cast another of any level 7 or 8 spell once more per day each. In other words, they get 2 more level-appropriate abilities and the space to use them, or more space for any of their other level-appropriate abilities. Oh, and they also get more HP and skill points. Unless you're burned out on playing sorcerers, it's impossible not to be excited about that.

That's the actual definition of a dead level.


Well yeah, Monks get stuff at every level which makes it out of the box, one of the more interesting Classes in Core.
Only for new players. For anyone with system mastery, the monk looks like "oh, another irrelevant ability at this level. *yawn*"

[Der_DWSage]

Only for new players. For anyone with system mastery, the monk looks like "oh, another irrelevant ability at this level. *yawn*"

That's still not a dead level, though. A boring new class ability is still a new boring class ability. I'd be hard-pressed to call a Fighter's 14th level dead, despite the fact that it's probably not going to be any kind of interesting feat.

That said, Wizard/Sorcerer/Cleric levels aren't quite dead levels, but they still have class features that are very easily attained by having prestige classes that don't give up spellcasting. Not quite sure what to call those-bread levels, I suppose. Sure, they work on their own, but you can certainly change it up a bit by putting some ham, butter, and/or cheese on it.

[rockdeworld]

That's still not a dead level, though.
Certainly not. I agree with you there. I was disagreeing about the levels being interesting.

On that note, since the monk is always trotted out as an example of a class with a lot of abilities, here's what a monk's class table looks like if you remove the abilities that aren't relevant by the level you get them (or after) and move all the extra tables under the "Special" column:




Level
Base Attack Bonus
Fort Save
Ref Save
Will Save
Special


1st

+0

+2

+2

+2
Bonus feat, flurry of blows*, unarmed strike (1d6), AC bonus (Wisdom)


2nd

+1

+3

+3

+3
Bonus feat, evasion


3rd

+2

+3

+3

+3
Fast movement (+10 ft.)*


4th

+3

+4

+4

+4
Ki strike (magic), unarmed strike (1d8)


5th

+3

+4

+4

+4
Flurry of blows (-1)*, AC bonus (+1)


6th

+4

+5

+5

+5
Bonus feat, fast movement (+20 ft.)*


7th

+5

+5

+5

+5



8th

+6/1

+6

+6

+6
Unarmed strike (1d10)


9th

+6/1

+6

+6

+6
Flurry of blows (-0)*


10th

+7/2

+7

+7

+7
Ki strike (lawful), AC bonus (+2)


11th

+8/3

+7

+7

+7
Greater Flurry*


12th

+9/4

+8

+8

+8
Abundant step, unarmed strike (2d6)


13th

+9/4

+8

+8

+8
Diamond soul


14th

+10/5

+9

+9

+9



15th

+11/6/1

+9

+9

+9



16th

+12/7/2

+10

+10

+10



17th

+12/7/2

+10

+10

+10



18th

+13/8/3

+11

+11

+11



19th

+14/9/4

+11

+11

+11
Empty body


20th

+15/10/5

+12

+12

+12




One thing to note, then, is that the monk class is very front-loaded, with lots of relevant abilities at low level (when "run up and hit it, hopefully don't get hit back" is a viable strategy for most encounters), but loses out in later levels, when alternate movement forms, special attacks and defenses, and especially high defenses against regular attacks (such as high AC, high HP, DR, regeneration, and fast healing) become pervasive.

*Flurry, Greater Flurry, and Fast Movement are all irrelevant at mid levels and up because the monk doesn't get Pounce, and in part because monks are actually bad at grappling at mid levels without UMDing a wand of Enlarge Person (then only Fast Movement is irrelevant), and bad at grappling at high levels because everyone with the same level of optimization as the monk has Freedom of Movement. So the monk has to get Pounce from an outside source, which often means leaving the monk class for a dip.

As for the other abilities:
AC Bonus: a +1 to AC every 5 levels is irrelevant at high levels because monsters get about +2 to hit per level around level 14.
Unarmed Strike: +2 damage from bigger dice on a class without Pounce is not relevant at high levels. With Pounce it could be relevant, but the monk's low BAB and MAD prevents that because he'll miss a lot of the attacks that would've dealt more damage. For example, at level 16 the monk has +12 BAB and maybe +5 to hit from Str/Dex, and +2 to hit from charging. Average monster AC is 31, so he'll miss 55% of his attacks made at full BAB. Over 5 attacks from flurry, only 4 can hit at all, and that +2 from increased damage dice becomes 3 extra damage per round, vs. the 239 average HP for monsters. Pathetic.
Still Mind: To quote the monk handbook, "You don’t need this. You have a high wis and good will saves, you shouldn’t be failing anyways."
Slow Fall: To quote the monk handbook again, "there is a level 1 spell and a fairly cheap ring that makes this useless. And those can be used anywhere."
Purity of Body: doesn't work against Mummy Rot and other relevant diseases.
Wholeness of Body: To quote the monk handbook again, "Very limited amount of healing. Max of 40 points at level 20, at level 7 it’s 14. That’s like a cure spell in combat…that gets worse with higher levels. Especially bad when you consider a one level dip into Shadow Sun Ninja gives you infinite healing that can actually matter even in combat."
Improved Evasion: A monk already has a good reflex save, a good Dex mod, and Evasion, so they'll virtually never fail a reflex save.
Diamond Body: Poison saves are so low a monk can't fail most of them at this level, and his Fort is high enough that he probably won't fail the others.
Quivering Palm: never works against level-appropriate enemies.
Ki Strike (Adamantine): the only monsters with DR/adamantine are golems, which are CR 16 at the highest.
Timeless body: is only relevant if your DM lets you take off 50 years (race-dependant) from the campaign to accrue the mental bonuses to your stats. This is usually only allowed during character creation with DM permission, so if you're actually leveling up, it probably won't be.
Tongue of the sun and moon: many variants of Tongues have been available since level 5, including a wand of Tongues (and don't say your Monk doesn't have UMD or Sir Giacomo will show up to discipline you).
Perfect Self: Being considered an Outsider can be actively bad for the monk, as you can't be resurrected except with True Resurrection, but is sometimes good for other reasons, so that's a mix. But the DR is bypassed by everything at this level.



That said, Wizard/Sorcerer/Cleric levels aren't quite dead levels, but they still have class features that are very easily attained by having prestige classes that don't give up spellcasting. Not quite sure what to call those-bread levels, I suppose.
"Gravy." Also, "only gives up familiar advancement" (another ability I forgot to include in the Sorcerer table above) if the PrC level advances casting, and "a substantial loss" if it doesn't.

[Ashtagon]

It never states that "colorful" or "unique" equals "good" or "strong". Players always have something to look forward to with the monk, it just aren't all that good, nor strong.

No matter what level your monk is, he can always look forward to having decent class features.

Look forward != attain.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

This idea is flat wrong.

The idea is NOT flat wrong. Quoted in the very same article you linked: "The bard has ten dead levels but gains spells per day and spells known during each one of those levels (which can be considered special abilities in their own right)."

There's a straight acknowledgement that spells are a type of progression. The definition of "Dead Level" that's typically tossed around doesn't CARE about new spells -- it cares about new ABILITIES, specifically.

Is it a little strange? Yes. Does the definition possibly gloss over the importance of gaining new spells and/or new spell levels? Yes. But the point still stands, and it typically ignores spells and other default progressions because Dead Levels are often used in comparison to, say, PrC options you could take where you'd get your spells AND new abilities to boot.

[rockdeworld]

<snip>
Either you didn't read my entire post (which addresses your points, particularly the second footnote), or you aren't equating new spells with class abilities. Either way, I can't have a discussion with you if you're flat refusing to listen to what I say, except to reply: yes, dead levels are used as reasons to take a PrC. But spellcasting levels are solid class abilities that have to be replaced to make a PrC viable, not reasons to go into any PrC (unlike for example Barbarian Rogue 20).

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Either you didn't read my entire post (which addresses your points, particularly the second footnote), or you aren't equating new spells with class abilities. Either way, I can't have a discussion with you if you're flat refusing to listen to what I say, except to reply: yes, dead levels are used as reasons to take a PrC. But spellcasting levels are solid class abilities that have to be replaced to make a PrC viable, not reasons to go into any PrC (unlike for example Barbarian 20).

Eh. I just think you're intentionally ignoring his definition of Dead Levels. There's nothing in his definition that implies that Spellcasting gains aren't solid class abilities: merely that they don't fit his definition of a "Dead Level."

The definition of "Dead Level" that's commonly used doesn't equate new spells with class abilities. I don't think it's WRONG, even if it's perhaps a little inaccurate.

[rockdeworld]

Eh. I just think you're intentionally ignoring his definition of Dead Levels.
From the article linked in the OP: "levels during which no special abilities are gained."

If the only reason you're saying Spellcasting isn't a special ability is because it's not under the "Special" column, read the OP (and the rest of this thread).

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

If the only reason you're saying Spellcasting isn't a special ability is because it's not under the "Special" column, read the OP (and the rest of this thread).

I did read that, and I understand your point.

In my experience, most players who understand the game appreciate the power of spellcasting. They understand that sometimes a single spell level's options surpass the entirety of another class's entire set of abilities. That's not the issue.

That does NOT mean those classes do not have dead levels though. I'll grant you new spell levels, absolutely. But in my in-game and DMing experience players tend not to get too excited over +2 spells known or +1 spell per day unless they're HIGHLY experienced players with good knowledge of spells and how to utilize them optimally. Is another spell known a power boost? Sure. But players mentally place that progression in a similar vein to the Fighter's +1 Base Attack Bonus or the Barbarian's +1 Rage/Day. It doesn't FEEL exciting, nor is it really appreciable (usually) what it does for your capabilities...especially since you already learned the 4th level spells you were REALLY excited about LAST level.

It's largely a perception thing, but it does lead to spellcasters having dead levels. Are they AS dead as those possessed by some other classes? No. But they're still dead levels. Well, below 0 hp anyway: not the full -10, but close enough.

[rockdeworld]

You say you understand, but I don't think you do, because:
-A dead level is a level "during which no special abilities are gained."
-You yourself said that spellcasters gain +2 spells known or +1 spell per day
-Spells are abilities
-You wrote that sorcerers get dead levels

It's not a matter of perception, it's the fact that some classes get 0 new abilities at level up, and others get always-level-appropriate abilities from spells.

Yes, I'm talking about whether or not people are excited to level up based on their abilities, but the bottom line is some classes get them, and others don't.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Yes, I'm talking about whether or not people are excited to level up based on their abilities, but the bottom line is some classes get them, and others don't.

...but no one is arguing that spellcasters don't continue to gain spells. The question is merely whether or not that's a "dead level," and there isn't really a solid definition of that: I have a firm grasp of the power of a spell progression, but I'd still argue that the Wizard has a bunch of dead levels.

To quote your article again:

The devoted spellcasting classes, which is to say the spellcasting classes that gain new spells per day or spells known every level, can be said to gain special abilities each time they advance, especially the sorcerer and wizard. This is less true for the cleric and druid, who merely gain additional spells per day at every even-numbered level of the same repertoire they could already cast. The dead level abilities presented in this article keep these spell progressions in mind, so that the least significant abilities have been granted to sorcerers and wizards.

See? You can both fill "dead levels" by his definition of the term while still acknowledging the power that spell progressions grant.

[rockdeworld]

The question is merely whether or not that's a "dead level," and there isn't really a solid definition of that
Then you either didn't see or are actively ignoring the very solid definition I quoted from the article, which unfortunately means we can't have a discussion about this topic.

However I am grateful to you for helping me sharpen and tighten up my arguments for the OP.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Then you either didn't see or are actively ignoring the very solid definition I quoted from the article, which unfortunately means we can't have a discussion about this topic.

And I believe you're missing the fact that it's unclear if gaining additional spells known qualifies as a "Special Ability." I believe that's a point which is open to debate, hence the author's constant use of "can be said to gain" instead of "gain."

[Snowbluff]

Ugh, yes! Thank you. People seem to think that dead levels are in far more places than they actually are.

[Troacctid]

It's pretty clear that they do count as special abilities, or else Monk 12 would be considered a dead level.

[Cerefel]

If you don't want to acknowledge spells as counting against dead levels, that's fine. The real issue here then becomes the significant difference between a dead level in a mundane class and a dead level in a spellcasting class.

A mundane dead level is just +1 BAB(at most) and slightly better saves, while a caster dead level can still net them something like Plane Shift or Polymorph or at minimum more uses per day of their spellcasting.

[rockdeworld]

^ I can agree with that point of view, and I support that post.

For my OP, I'm specifically calling spellcasting a "special ability" because it's a class ability that spellcasters get, and class abilities are always written under the "Special" column except when it's more convenient to write them as a separate table. So that being under the "Special" column makes no difference as to whether an ability is a "special ability" or not.

[elonin]

Is there a possible fix to class balance in looking at dead levels? Spell casters are more powerful than non in either case but we're looking to balance the classes, right?

[The Viscount]

Well in terms of balance the writer mentions that casters get weaker dead levels abilities precisely because every level advances casting. Wizard, for example, has an ability that pretty much doesn't benefit it at all. In a party with more than one wizard it's actually harmful.

In terms of the design aspect of dead levels, rockdeworld, should we treat every level of ranger and paladin as not dead because they advance casting, or should we only strike out the levels that actually add more spells per day? Every level increases caster level, after all.

[rockdeworld]

Is there a possible fix to class balance in looking at dead levels? Spell casters are more powerful than non in either case but we're looking to balance the classes, right?
Well first keep in mind: dead levels aren't always bad for balance, and "live" ones aren't always good. In this thread I'm pointing out what dead levels are and aren't (especially that they aren't exciting) without wanting to comment on their balance.

Now having said that, yes there is a possible fix to class balance re: dead levels, and the Homebrew section of this forum has done some fine work with each of the classes. WotC themselves tried to fix the issue of classes having boring, dead levels when they created 4e, and they did a good job in that regard. If you're more interested in discussing that, I recommend perusing either of those places or opening a new thread.


In terms of the design aspect of dead levels, rockdeworld, should we treat every level of ranger and paladin as not dead because they advance casting, or should we only strike out the levels that actually add more spells per day? Every level increases caster level, after all.
Caster level increase is worth mentioning, but isn't really a new ability (in the same way BAB isn't a new ability). Familiar/animal companion/special mount advancement is also worth mentioning, and sometimes provides new abilities.

So if you just want to look at "new abilities gained" like Mr. Liquette says, then Paladin 7 is an example of a dead level, because the Paladin doesn't get any new spells (and his mount doesn't gain new abilities), but Paladin 14 isn't a dead level, because he gets a new level 1 and level 4 spell per day (assuming a high Wis mod).

[Chronos]

If we're just talking about abilities that get players excited, let me just say that a sorcerer is going to get a heck of a lot more excited to get Polymorph Any Object at level 17 than any monk ever will be to get Tongue of the Sun and Moon.

And speaking of sorcerers, prestige classes do advance familiars. In fact, all classes advance familiars, and most of them to a greater degree than wizard or sorcerer levels do. A familiar's HP, HD, skills, BAB, and saves are all derived from their master's, and wizard and sorcerer are both bottom-of-the-line in all of those categories. The only things a familiar gets from wizard or sorcerer specifically are a little more natural armor that doesn't matter, a little more intelligence that doesn't matter, and the familiar table's "Special" column, most of which is done by the level you'd take a PrC anyway.

[rockdeworld]

If we're just talking about abilities that get players excited, let me just say that a sorcerer is going to get a heck of a lot more excited to get Polymorph Any Object at level 17 than any monk ever will be to get Tongue of the Sun and Moon.
We're not, but yeah, right on =)

The bit about familiars is half-right: familiars' NA bonus, Int bonus, and abilities are based on "the master’s combined level in classes that grant familiars", not just any class.

[Cerefel]

The bit about familiars is half-right: familiars' NA bonus, Int bonus, and abilities are based on "the master’s combined level in classes that grant familiars", not just any class.

That was kinda mentioned...


The only things a familiar gets from wizard or sorcerer specifically are a little more natural armor that doesn't matter, a little more intelligence that doesn't matter, and the familiar table's "Special" column, most of which is done by the level you'd take a PrC anyway.

[rockdeworld]

It was mentioned and I missed it - sorry :smallfrown:

My reply then only applies to the first sentence, for whatever that's worth.

[eggynack]

In terms of the design aspect of dead levels, rockdeworld, should we treat every level of ranger and paladin as not dead because they advance casting, or should we only strike out the levels that actually add more spells per day? Every level increases caster level, after all.
Every level does not increase caster level on a ranger or paladin, because their progression is half their level. It's one of the contributing factors to paladin 13 being one of the deadest levels out there, more dead even than rogue 20, due to the lack of save bump.

[Malimar]

The only things a familiar gets from wizard or sorcerer specifically are a little more natural armor that doesn't matter, a little more intelligence that doesn't matter, and the familiar table's "Special" column, most of which is done by the level you'd take a PrC anyway.

Hey now, the familiar's Intelligence bonus allows me to say "My monkey is the second-smartest member of the party, after me." That's a worthy class feature right there.

[ekarney]

I think what you're doing here is clumping all casters into one category. The High-OP Wizard/Druid/Cleric group without considering many of he other casters.

Yeah, a 7th level Wizard get polymorph at 7th level. Which is definitely a boon.

But at 8th level you also have a Sohei who only has a chance at getting warning. Warning is the Sohei's entire 2nd level spell list for the Sohei. Is that advancement of maybe getting warning really a boon?

That 8th level of monk is starting to look pretty inviting right? Comparing his 8th level class features to warning maybe once a day. At 8th level the monk gets 1d10 unarmed damage and 40ft of slowfall.

So yeah Polymorph's nice enough that it could probably pass for not a dead level.

But the Soheis and Paladins and Rangers of the world, despite all being casters probably should have their casting only levels counted as dead.

[The Viscount]

Every level does not increase caster level on a ranger or paladin, because their progression is half their level. It's one of the contributing factors to paladin 13 being one of the deadest levels out there, more dead even than rogue 20, due to the lack of save bump.

You're right, I should have been more specific. I meant that every level gives a 1/2 increase in caster level, which doesn't have an effect at odd levels, but is still present when doing PrC math.

[rockdeworld]

I think what you're doing here is clumping all casters into one category.
Yeah, I get it. The bit about getting 2 abilities per level only really applies to full casters.

On that note, I'll take Warning over 1d10 unarmed damage and 40 ft. of slowfall every day of the week. Nothing makes those abilities look inviting.

[Mystral]

This thread, in long and ardous elaboration, adresses a point that has been made in the original article, 9 years ago.

Why is this thread?

Also, I think it might be against forum rules to accuse someone of not reading or understanding a post that they don't agree with (implying that the only reason for lack of consent is lack of understanding). Even if this is not against the rules, it is a highly destructive way of talking to people.

[Grod_The_Giant]

On the "spells as abilities" front: I think you're missing part of the point, rockdeworld. Dead levels aren't about power, they're about perception. Levels where you only get +1 ability use/day aren't exciting because, well, you could already do the thing. It's nothing new. A straight-classed cleric is almost as bad as a fighter in those terms, because you're only getting something new every other level. In fact, it's pretty much the magical version of more BAB/HD/skill points-- it makes you marginally better at what you could already do without changing the game at all. If it makes you feel any better, we could call such things "dying levels" rather than "dead levels."

Spontaneous casters are another story, because-- as you've said-- they get new spells known. I'd call that a sort of grey area from a player-perspective front. Is it better than a dead level? Absolutely. But it's not, necessarily, better (ie, more exciting) than a level where you gain a unique ability from your class. After all, as Djinn pointed out, it's just your normal progression. Call 'em "sick levels," perhaps.

(Levels where you get access to a new spell level are a different story, though)

[Chronos]

Of course it's their normal progression, just like it's the normal progression for a 17th-level monk to get Tongue of the Sun and Moon. How is that relevant?

And what the heck is a sohei? Something from Oriental Adventures, I guess? There's probably a reason I've never heard of it.

[ekarney]

And what the heck is a sohei? Something from Oriental Adventures, I guess? There's probably a reason I've never heard of it.

Yeah, it's basically a Barbarian with casting and some monk abilities.

It's a brilliant concept, except it was executed horrifically, I'd love to one day work on a fixed up verison. And yeah it is from OA.

[ranagrande]

Sohei isn't nearly as bad as people are making it out to be. For one thing, Warning is not the only second level Sohei spell; it's the only second level Sohei spell that first appeared in Oriental Adventures. The Sohei's complete list of second level spells is Animal Messenger, Bull's Strength, Delay Poison, Lesser Restoration, Remove Paralysis, Resist Elements, Shield Other, and Warning.

[rockdeworld]

This thread, in long and ardous elaboration, adresses a point that has been made in the original article, 9 years ago.

Why is this thread?
If you read the first paragraph in the OP (outside the intro), you'll see I answered that question: the idea that spellcasters get dead levels on the levels that they gain new spells has kept cropping up over the years.


Also, I think it might be against forum rules to accuse someone of not reading or understanding a post that they don't agree with (implying that the only reason for lack of consent is lack of understanding). Even if this is not against the rules, it is a highly destructive way of talking to people.
I absolutely agree that saying someone doesn't understand just because they disagree is wrong, and dumb. And if you read past the line where I say I don't think they understand, you'll see I in no way implied that the only reason was because they disagreed: I laid out the 4 points which were the reason for my saying that, inviting them to tell me why I was wrong. And in their next post they picked one and told me why it was wrong. They weren't using the same definition I was, so there was no point in continuing the discussion.


On the "spells as abilities" front: I think you're missing part of the point, rockdeworld. Dead levels aren't about power, they're about perception. Levels where you only get +1 ability use/day aren't exciting because, well, you could already do the thing. It's nothing new.
I think you're confusing +1 ability use per day with +1 spell per day for prepared casters, and I can assure you the two are vastly different. That's because +1 ability use per day means, in general, +1 of that resource. But +1 spell per day means +1 of any resource. For prepared casters that want to be as versatile as possible, and especially casters that can spontaneously cast spells like the cleric and druid, they have incentive and opportunity to put a different spell in each of their slots. And if they don't, it's because the ability is good enough to use multiple times and still be relevant.

E.g. when the Barbarian turns level 4, he gets +BAB, +HP, +saves, and Rage 2/day. All more of the same pre-existing abilities, and the rage 2/day is relevant because it means twice as many encounters when the Barbarian gets to be awesome. When the cleric turns level 4, he gets +BAB, +HP, +saves, and another 0th level spell and another 2nd level spell (bringing the total to 4 3 minimum). Which means on top of Bull's Strength, which ends combat faster and lasts for 1-2 combats, and Divine Insight, which lets them take the place of the party rogue for an encounter, they also get Augury, which lets them know what direction to take in a dungeon, and therefore bypass an encounter.

[Threadnaught]

E.g. when the Barbarian turns level 4, he gets +BAB, +HP, +saves, and Rage 2/day. All more of the same pre-existing abilities, and the rage 2/day is relevant because it means twice as many encounters when the Barbarian gets to be awesome. When the cleric turns level 4, he gets +BAB, +HP, +saves, and another 0th level spell and another 2nd level spell (bringing the total to 4 minimum). Which means on top of Bull's Strength, which ends combat faster and lasts for 1-2 combats, Hold Person, which is a save-or-lose, and Divine Insight, which lets them take the place of the party rogue for an encounter, they also get Augury, which lets them know what direction to take in a dungeon, and therefore bypass an encounter.

When a Paladin turns level 7, they get +BAB and +HP.

When a Paladin turns level 13, they get +BAB and +HP.

When a Fighter turns level 5, 7, 11, 13, 17 and 19, they get +BAB and +HP.

[Anlashok]

Yeah I generally think there's way too much obsession with what's written in the "special" box.

My favorite I think is monk and wizard/sorcerer:

Level 12 monks gain one fourth level spell once per day. This is not a dead level.

Level 12 wizards gain one fifth and one sixth level spell/day and two spells known of their choice. This is a dead level.

Even if you ignore the advantages of higher level spells and being able to choose which spells you learn, the wizard literally gains twice as many spells as the monk but is considered deader than the former? I'm not even sure how you can justify that.

[Molan]

See I have a problem with this whole "dead levels r bad #cry" shpeil because "dead" levels where no special ability is gained are there for BALANCE.

Fighters should NOT get extra powers every other level, unless they do find a PrC that lets them advance their build and avoid that. That's the point of PrCs, it's a trade off. The core classes should not be modified to eliminate dead levels because they're fundamentally there to balance the class, and if the PC doesn't like it then they SHOULD PrC out.

A human fighter 20 with good Con and Str gets like around 20 feats (I didn't actually count, sorry). That is PLENTY reason to suck up the "dead" levels, because a character like that, while it may be a "1 trick pony" (rawr, I solve my problems with violence kind of pony) can still do a ton of crazy crap. It can outfight pretty much anything or anyone if built right.

Now, if you wanted to say, "spending all these levels with no special ability add just to get these crappy spells as a Paladin or Bard is a bad trade off", well, you certainly could argue that. But for that, you have a TON of PrC options to specialize your character AND the Complete series and UA offer even MORE ways to variant your character and get more flavor out of them while keeping them balanced.

Throwing stuff into dead levels and not taking these balancing steps is just a bad idea.

[Anlashok]

Firstly, the fighter is not 'balanced' by its dead levels. The fighter is poop.

Second, I question whether 'balancing' something by making it more boring is any flavor of good design in the first place.

Thirdly, your premise is wrong from the start: Very obviously dead levels are not necessarily a balancing factor. The monk has no dead levels and is generally considered to be very weak without specific optimization tricks. The cleric (at least according to WOTC) has 19 dead levels and is one of the strongest classes in the game. Dead levels have no bearing on balance.

[rockdeworld]

Update: clarified purpose of the guide in the intro, and added the other core classes to the OP. I'm done adding classes unless someone wants me to add a non-core class, or posts it themselves and wants me to add it to the OP.


See I have a problem with this whole "dead levels r bad #cry" shpeil because "dead" levels where no special ability is gained are there for BALANCE.
Regardless of my feelings on the matter, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you in this guide. The guide is only to point out what levels are really dead, and which aren't, when you factor in spellcasting.

[Chronos]

The one that I think everyone can agree is bad design is rogue 20. Even if you call Fighter 3, say, a dead level, there's still a reason to take it: You take it on your way to Fighter 4, which isn't dead. Rogue 20, though, gives you nothing, not now and not in the future. Even if you can't qualify for any PrC, there's no reason not to take a level of Fighter instead. Or Barbarian, or Monk, or Wizard, or anything else at all.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I don't think this deserves to be called a 'guide'. You refer to an old article, modify the definition of 'dead level' given in that article, then list a couple of classes' dead levels, using your new definition. There's basically no advice in here, you're just trying to make a point. Your whole post can be summed up in that one sentence at the end: "So don't forget: spellcasting is a class ability too, and often more than one per level".

In addition to that, I don't agree with you, and I don't agree with the original article either. In my opinion, a dead level is a level you take only because it leads to the next level(s) of the class, which has/have abilities you want. That means some levels aren't dead, because they don't take you anywhere special - rogue 20 is the best example of that.

Examples of dead levels include fighter 3, 5 and 7 on the road to dungeoncrasher, and duskblade 8, 9 and 12 on the way to full attack arcane channeling. That includes a level that provides a new spell level - duskblade 9. It's a dead level because you didn't take it for the spells (Abjurant Champion could do that, and better), even if the spells are a worthwhile upgrade.

Yes, this means 'dead level' is now a subjective designation. Some people might take monk 17 for the ability, some people might take it on the way to monk 20, some people might shudder at the thought of taking monk past 3rd (or at all). There are different optimization levels and styles, so it stands to reason that there would be different designations of 'dead level' - that's natural, that's useful, that's not worth changing (and you couldn't if it was).

[rockdeworld]

I don't think this deserves to be called a 'guide'. You refer to an old article, modify the definition of 'dead level' given in that article, then list a couple of classes' dead levels, using your new definition.
I'm fairly certain I didn't modify the original article's definition, seeing as I quoted it directly. I did try to show why the author didn't follow his own definition. But otherwise, you got the point.

And no, there's Well, you're right, there was no advice, because there's a multitude of advice on this forum that doesn't need repeating here. The point of this thread is to show people who think the sorcerer/cleric/wizard don't get many abilities that that idea is mistaken. Then they can decide if they want to change it. But there is a way the guide can help a DM with some small decisions, like whether or not to allow a class into their games.

Actually, maybe that should be my advice at the end of the guide.

[atemu1234]

So we're arguing what a dead level is here? Is that what this is?

Because my working definition is 'can PrC out without losing anything'.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I'm fairly certain I didn't modify the original article's definition, seeing as I quoted it directly.
Thanks for the reasonable response, I'm glad you didn't take it as a personal attack :smallsmile:. I want to respond to this point: the original article refers to sorcerer levels 2-19 as dead levels, and you argue that they are not - that is the point of the tread. For that reason, you have modified the definition of 'dead level' implicit to the article. Both definitions can be described with the same words ("levels during which no special abilities are gained"), but you have changed the definition of 'special ability' to include spells known, thereby changing the levels that fall in the category 'dead', quite radically.

Whether you call it 'changing the definition' or 'changing the application of the definition' is a matter of taste; the funcional difference is that the set of dead levels D was altered to exclude at least 19 sorcerer levels S, if you'll pardon my feeble attempt at mathspeak. That's why I wrote what you quoted there.

[rockdeworld]

you have changed the definition of 'special ability' to include spells known, thereby changing the levels that fall in the category 'dead', quite radically.
Right on the money. The argument I'm making in the OP is that's not changing the definition, and that the original author misapplied his own definition because he was only looking at abilities in the special column. And what I've noticed is that others, like him, ignore spellcasting when deciding if a class has too many abilities or is otherwise too powerful. Thus I wanted to correct that misconception.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I think you're confusing +1 ability use per day with +1 spell per day for prepared casters, and I can assure you the two are vastly different. That's because +1 ability use per day means, in general, +1 of that resource. But +1 spell per day means +1 of any resource. For prepared casters that want to be as versatile as possible, and especially casters that can spontaneously cast spells like the cleric and druid, they have incentive and opportunity to put a different spell in each of their slots. And if they don't, it's because the ability is good enough to use multiple times and still be relevant.
I assure you, I am not. I'm drawing a distinction between build versatility and daily versatility. Yes, a cleric's spell slot is a lot more versatile, but it's not a new ability. The build, the character as a whole, doesn't gain anything. It's still "take this thing you could already do and do it more." You're exactly the same cleric as you were a level ago. You can't point to your sheet and say "now I can do ____!" There's no perceivable in-character difference.


See I have a problem with this whole "dead levels r bad #cry" shpeil because "dead" levels where no special ability is gained are there for BALANCE.
The number one rule of game design is that fun is the priority. Not balance, not verisimilitude, but fun. Now, what is fun varies person to person, which is why there are so many games, but I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks "+1 BAB" is a fun reward for leveling up. If your class is "balanced" but not fun to play, it's not a good class. And in a game like D&D, progression is a major element of class and character design.


And what I've noticed is that others, like him, ignore spellcasting when deciding if a class has too many abilities or is otherwise too powerful. Thus I wanted to correct that misconception.
As someone who's put in a lot of time on the homebrew sections of the board, I assure you that no-one (with the possible exception of WotC) ignores spellcasting when deciding if a class is too powerful.

[rockdeworld]

You can't point to your sheet and say "now I can do ____!" There's no perceivable in-character difference.
In the same post, I gave an example of a cleric doing exactly that. Could you please tell me, if I'm mistaken, what's wrong with that example - or more generally, "before, I could do 3 different things per day, now I can do 4"? And in particular, how that's any different from a homebrew cleric that doesn't get another spell per day at level 4, but instead gains eg. the monk's Abundant Step, or Rage as an SLA 1/day?


As someone who's put in a lot of time on the homebrew sections of the board, I assure you that no-one (with the possible exception of WotC) ignores spellcasting when deciding if a class is too powerful.
I would submit to you that your sample population is skewed towards people with more interest in balance and fun, who have spent more time in design, and who understand the game better. Over here in the Roleplaying Games > 3.5e section, there are more posts like this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?432730-Skill-Focus-is-OP!-Or-more-****-my-DM-says)

[StreamOfTheSky]

I feel like I've been banging my head against a wall forever on this. Thank you, OP. Spellcasters being considered to have tons of dead levels has been and always will be one of the worst arguments ever put forth in 3E. All the people saying, "well, they can just prestige class out and keep the spells" ...that's part of the problem. The solution is to nerf any caster PrC so that it's never plainly superior to advancing in your base class. Either equally porous and bland non-spell class features, or partial loss of CL advancement if it has some really nice features. Trying to rein in casters feels hopeless with all the circular logic that perpetually makes them stronger.

Casters are really strong --> adding in this new buff won't make them any more broken than they already are, so who cares? --> why bother with all these nerfs, the casters will still have ways to break the game --> man, why are casters so strong?


The fact that prestiging out of sorcerer into a full casting class has no downsides does not somehow make Sorcerer 20 actually bad.


Ugh, yes! Thank you. People seem to think that dead levels are in far more places than they actually are.

Voices of sanity! :smallsmile:

[Grod_The_Giant]

In the same post, I gave an example of a cleric doing exactly that. Could you please tell me, if I'm mistaken, what's wrong with that example - or more generally, "before, I could do 3 different things per day, now I can do 4"? And in particular, how that's any different from a homebrew cleric that doesn't get another spell per day at level 4, but instead gains eg. the monk's Abundant Step, or Rage as an SLA 1/day?
I just did. You can use more options in a given day, but you can't use any new options. He might be able to cast Bull's Strength, Divine Insight, and Augury today, but yesterday he cast Bull's Strength and Augury, and the day before he went with Divine Insight and Augury. From a non-metagame perspective, he's exactly the same character, casting the same spells at the same times. The homebrew cleric who can now Rage, though? He's qualitatively different. He can now do something that he couldn't do before-- not just something he had to wait a day to do, but something totally new.

[Molan]

Firstly, the fighter is not 'balanced' by its dead levels. The fighter is poop.

Second, I question whether 'balancing' something by making it more boring is any flavor of good design in the first place.

Thirdly, your premise is wrong from the start: Very obviously dead levels are not necessarily a balancing factor. The monk has no dead levels and is generally considered to be very weak without specific optimization tricks. The cleric (at least according to WOTC) has 19 dead levels and is one of the strongest classes in the game. Dead levels have no bearing on balance.

Ugh, no.

Balancing a class by not giving it stupdenous incredible powers well above and beyond that of other classes is in fact a good idea. Getting a fighter level with no feats sucks, but what doesn't suck is having a really tough class that can glory boy it's way through pretty much any physical encounter. You can do SO much with the Fighter class by Merit of all of it's feats. Yes, you COULD PrC or cross class after fighter 2....but you do in fact have to give up on a whole bunch of feats to do it.

It's like the Paladin. Best class in the world? No, far from it. But consider the idea that "there's no reason to progress past Paladin 6". By this logic, you spend six levels scooping up any level entry where there's something in the "special ability column", then you move away...likely permanently truncating your Caster progression, your Smite Damage, and your lay on hands power -- because those scale with class levels.

I think you just made my point anyway. Monk has tons of "not dead levels" in terms of the special ability entry but the class is a mess. It also has multiple Use Per Day abilities, where I find that giving a class more then 2 is usually a bad idea because there's too many "charge" based actions to keep track of. Since the Monk class generally struggles to keep up with it's buddies, you could then argue that all of it's "Special Ability Column" entries are "dead levels" because they don't get done what a fighter got done by taking some "dead" fighter levels.

With your cleric example, the dead levels DO have an effect on balancing, because -- EXACTLY to your point -- Clerics are stupid powerful spellcasters. If the game filled up all their "dead levels" with extra abilities IN ADDITION to their spells, they'd be stupid broken and there'd be no reason to roll anything else. As it is, most clerics who aren't worried about their turning progression (and even some who are) can easily PrC shortly after starting to keep their caster progression AND get some Special Abilities to boot -- which is how the game is supposed to work. But those PrCs are still balanced in other ways.

Absence of a "special ability" entry is, in fact, for balance.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I just did. You can use more options in a given day, but you can't use any new options. He might be able to cast Bull's Strength, Divine Insight, and Augury today, but yesterday he cast Bull's Strength and Augury, and the day before he went with Divine Insight and Augury. From a non-metagame perspective, he's exactly the same character, casting the same spells at the same times. The homebrew cleric who can now Rage, though? He's qualitatively different. He can now do something that he couldn't do before-- not just something he had to wait a day to do, but something totally new.
I agree with this. To expand and elaborate:

How would you fluff the cleric's extra daily spell? Would the people in-universe comment on their apparently vastly increased strength, that is, since killing that dragon they've been slightly more competent at remembering multiple spells? Don't forget that (high-level, especially) clerics have dozens of spells per day, so one more is hardly likely to make a difference, even if it's a higher-level one - spell levels may well be an abstraction in-universe (and we all know that spell levels aren't the best indication of power level, which makes it harder to tell what's what in-universe).

I'd say that very few NPCs will be able to tell the difference between a cleric 5 and a cleric 6, let alone cleric 15 and cleric 16. This in contrast to a cleric 15 and (say) cleric 13/church inquisitor 2, because the inquisitor is clearly immune to charms, and able to detect evil at will, without preparing it. That's important - this in-universe difference is what tells you it's not just a numeric increase, but also a new ability.

Of course, for a sorcerer, it's different; they don't get access to their whole spell list, so an NPC would see you use a new spell.

This is in addition to my previous argument, that is: You wouldn't take cleric levels 2-19 to get some cleric ability you want - you take cleric levels to get into a PrC, or you don't take cleric levels at all.

[Flickerdart]

Ugh, no.

Balancing a class by not giving it stupdenous incredible powers well above and beyond that of other classes is in fact a good idea. Getting a fighter level with no feats sucks, but what doesn't suck is having a really tough class that can glory boy it's way through pretty much any physical encounter. You can do SO much with the Fighter class by Merit of all of it's feats. Yes, you COULD PrC or cross class after fighter 2....but you do in fact have to give up on a whole bunch of feats to do it.
A level-appropriate dragon takes a fighter apart with its muscles alone, as do most other such encounters. The fighter is well-known and well-documented as weak even in its area of expertise.

[Threadnaught]

Balancing a class by not giving it stupdenous incredible powers well above and beyond that of other classes is in fact a good idea.

I haven't read a single post where anybody says the opposite should happen.


Getting a fighter level with no feats sucks, but what doesn't suck is having a really tough class that can glory boy it's way through pretty much any physical encounter. You can do SO much with the Fighter class by Merit of all of it's feats. Yes, you COULD PrC or cross class after fighter 2....but you do in fact have to give up on a whole bunch of feats to do it.

Umm, Tome of Battle, Totemist, Cleric, Druid, Artificer, well built Monk, or even a simple Barbarian. All of these Classes are missing almost nothing from the Special box, or at least have a new Special Box in the form of an entire table. They can handle fights just as well as Fighter could.


It's like the Paladin. Best class in the world? No, far from it. But consider the idea that "there's no reason to progress past Paladin 6". By this logic, you spend six levels scooping up any level entry where there's something in the "special ability column", then you move away...likely permanently truncating your Caster progression, your Smite Damage, and your lay on hands power -- because those scale with class levels.

What do 7th level and 13th level of Paladin give you over 6th level and 12th level respectively? With no Constitution modifier and a Charisma of 12, that's +5.5 HP, +1 BAB, +1 damage to Evil creatures 2-3/day and the ability to heal +1HP per day. Nothing interesting happens whatsoever, you don;t improve as much as a Monk of the same level, a Monk of the same levels gains 7: +4.5 HP, +1 BAB, +1 Flurry of Blows AB and the ability to heal 14HP per day. 13: +4.5 HP and Spell Resistance 23.


I think you just made my point anyway. Monk has tons of "not dead levels" in terms of the special ability entry but the class is a mess. It also has multiple Use Per Day abilities, where I find that giving a class more then 2 is usually a bad idea because there's too many "charge" based actions to keep track of. Since the Monk class generally struggles to keep up with it's buddies, you could then argue that all of it's "Special Ability Column" entries are "dead levels" because they don't get done what a fighter got done by taking some "dead" fighter levels.

True, Monk could be better, but the Class really sets a character up for some really sweet Feats to buff up all defences. Levels that give nothing, do nothing other than give a character levels in the Class that gave nothing.


With your cleric example, the dead levels DO have an effect on balancing, because -- EXACTLY to your point -- Clerics are stupid powerful spellcasters. If the game filled up all their "dead levels" with extra abilities IN ADDITION to their spells, they'd be stupid broken and there'd be no reason to roll anything else. As it is, most clerics who aren't worried about their turning progression (and even some who are) can easily PrC shortly after starting to keep their caster progression AND get some Special Abilities to boot -- which is how the game is supposed to work. But those PrCs are still balanced in other ways.

A Cleric has no Dead Levels, a Cleric gains at each level...
8 HP, +2 Fort/Will Saves, Turn/Rebuke Undead, 3 Orisons, a 1st level Spellslot and the 1st level Domain Slot.
+4.5 HP, +1 BAB, +1 Fort/Will Saves, +1 Orison and +1 level 1 Spellslot.
+4.5 HP, +1 BAB, +1 Ref Saves, a 2nd level Spellslot and the 2nd level Domain Slot.
+4.5 HP, +1 BAB, +1 Fort/Will Saves, +1 Orison, +1 level 1 Spellslot and +1 level 2 Spellslot.
+4.5 HP, a 3rd level Spellslot and the 3rd level Domain Slot.
+4.5 HP, +1 BAB, +1 All Saves, +1 level 2 Spellslot and +1 level 3 Spellslot.
+4.5 HP, +1 BAB, +1 Orison, a 4th level Spellslot and the 4th level Domain Slot.
+4.5 HP, +1 BAB, +1 Fort/Will Saves, +1 level 3 Spellslot and +1 level 4 Spellslot.
+4.5 HP, +1 Ref Saves, +1 level 2 Spellslot a 5th level Spellslot and the 5th level Domain Slot.
+4.5 HP, +1 BAB, +1 Fort/Will Saves, +1 level 4 Spellslot and +1 level 5 Spellslot.
+4.5 HP, +1 BAB, +1 level 1 Spellslot, +1 level 3 Spellslot, a 6th level Spellslot and the 6th level Domain Slot.
+4.5 HP, +1 BAB, +1 All Saves, +1 level 5 Spellslot and +1 level 6 Spellslot.
+4.5 HP, +1 level 2 Spellslot, +1 level 4 Spellslot, a 7th level Spellslot and the 7th level Domain Slot.
+4.5 HP, +1 BAB, +1 Fort/Will Saves, +1 level 6 Spellslot and +1 level 7 Spellslot.
+4.5 HP, +1 BAB, +1 Ref Saves, +1 level 3 Spellslot, +1 level 5 Spellslot a 8th level Spellslot and the 8th level Domain Slot.
+4.5 HP, +1 BAB, +1 Fort/Will Saves, +1 level 7 Spellslot and +1 level 8 Spellslot.
+4.5 HP, +1 level 4 Spellslot, +1 level 6 Spellslot, a 9th level Spellslot and the 9th level Domain Slot.
+4.5 HP, +1 BAB, +1 All Saves, +1 level 8 Spellslot and +1 level 9 Spellslot.
+4.5 HP, +1 BAB, +1 level 5 Spellslot, +1 level 7 Spellslot and +1 level 9 Spellslot.
+4.5 HP, +1 BAB, +1 Fort/Will Saves, +1 level 8 Spellslot and +1 level 9 Spellslot.

Completely ignoring any bonus Spells from stats, none of these levels are missing interesting options. Despite it not appearing so interesting in a vacuum.


Absence of a "special ability" entry is, in fact, for balance.

In that case, a Commoner (without any flaws), would be the most balanced Class in the game.

[rockdeworld]

I just did. You can use more options in a given day, but you can't use any new options. He might be able to cast Bull's Strength, Divine Insight, and Augury today, but yesterday he cast Bull's Strength and Augury, and the day before he went with Divine Insight and Augury. From a non-metagame perspective, he's exactly the same character, casting the same spells at the same times. The homebrew cleric who can now Rage, though? He's qualitatively different. He can now do something that he couldn't do before-- not just something he had to wait a day to do, but something totally new.
You're totally confusing me. When a character can use different abilities evety day, and you say getting to use another completely different ability is just more of the same, I respectfully disagree. You do know that a cleric has so many spells that they can basically prepare a new spell in each slot each day for their entire careers, right? VS the example homebrew cleric I gave who is stuck with a bad level 3 spell, when the regular cleric (who somehow got it on his spell list) could choose to prepare that spell, or choose anything else.

ExLibrisMortis: If you want vastly more power at every level, you're playing the wrong game. There's no class that gets that. And if the sorcerer is different at each level because he casts new spells, a prepared caster can simulate that by only casting the same spells until they level up, then preparing new ones. Then a NPC would see that too, so they'd be the exact same in your scenario.

[Grod_The_Giant]

You're totally confusing me. When a character can use different abilities evety day, and you say getting to use another completely different ability is just more of the same, I respectfully disagree. You do know that a cleric has so many spells that they can basically prepare a new spell in each slot each day for their entire careers, right? VS the example homebrew cleric I gave who is stuck with a bad level 3 spell, when the regular cleric (who somehow got it on his spell list) could choose to prepare that spell, or choose anything else.
A cleric at level five can prepare x spells from a list. A cleric at level six can prepare x+2 spells from the exact same list. Nothing is gained. His player doesn't get any new options. Within a day, he may be able to do more different things, but over the course of the level he cannot. But when he hits level seven, his list is drastically expanded. Now the player has new options, new spells that he can prepare.

I think you're getting tripped up by the nature of tier 1's-- that is, they can change their schtick from day to day, while most classes only get to change when they level up (and even then, only slightly). Gaining a new spell level gives you a new schtick; getting a new spell slot only lets you use your old schticks more effectively.

[rockdeworld]

A cleric at level five can prepare x spells from a list. A cleric at level six can prepare x+2 spells from the exact same list. Nothing is gained.
Aha, now I get what you're saying: those casters only gain new abilities every other level - namely "every level 2 spell", "every level 3 spell", etc.

Nonetheless, when I consider that mundane classes only improve their bonuses, whereas said cleric gets to use more, new (if desired) encounter-affecting abilities, I have to respectfully disagree that this implies casters don't get new abilities at every level.

[Gnorman]

At this point you're quibbling about what "new" means.

Everything that the cleric could do at level 6, he could do at level 5, by virtue of how the cleric spell list works. Being able to do those things slightly more times per day does not make those things "new." That's all Grod is saying.

[ExLibrisMortis]

ExLibrisMortis: If you want vastly more power at every level, you're playing the wrong game. There's no class that gets that. And if the sorcerer is different at each level because he casts new spells, a prepared caster can simulate that by only casting the same spells until they level up, then preparing new ones. Then a NPC would see that too, so they'd be the exact same in your scenario.
No, that's not what I said. I was replying to your argument - that spells known and spells/day make a level not dead - by pointing out that it's very hard to call something a 'new ability' when nobody in-universe is actually able to see this 'new ability'. The Church Inquisitor's detect evil is not 'vastly more power at every level' (it's a first-level paladin ability, for one), it's something recognizably new at every level.

In addition, you're a bit off the mark on 'no class gets that'. For an obvious example, the Ur-Priest gets vastly more power at every level. Regular wizards and clerics get vastly more power at every second level (not new power, but more). That's the way D&D scales; you go from cat-fearing flintlock to machine gun to main battle tank to orbital death ray over the course of 17 levels. Or, if you're hasty, a sufficiently optimized wizard gets 9th-level spells at level 1; take a look at dextercorvia's elf generalist bootstrapper (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=10197586&postcount=9). At that point, it's pretty hard to argue that a wizard gets much interesting at all from levels 2-4, 6-9 and so on.

As for prepared casters simulating the sensation of gaining new abilities by intentionally narrowing their spell use, that's just absurd. Nobody would or should do that, as it completely defeats the point of playing a prepared caster, and completely turns around the responsibilities involved. It's the game designer's job to make sure a class offers new and interesting options, not the player's job to simulate that in absence of proper design.

[rockdeworld]

As for prepared casters simulating the sensation of gaining new abilities by intentionally narrowing their spell use, that's just absurd. Nobody would or should do that, as it completely defeats the point of playing a prepared caster, and completely turns around the responsibilities involved. It's the game designer's job to make sure a class offers new and interesting options, not the player's job to simulate that in absence of proper design.
Of course it's absurd, but if your definition of "recognizably new" is "an NPC sees you do something new" (which was the impression I got from your previous post), then a prepared caster has something recognizably new whenever they want. And that is in fact the point: any time a prepared spellcaster gets a new spell per day, they can do something new with it. Not just "have something new", or "have something old", but "have the choice of whether they want something new or something old, as suits their preference".

But if your definition of "something new" is "a new spell level", like Grod_The_Giant, then as in my last post we're just using different definitions (presumably for good reasons - I've already explained mine, but don't know yours or his).

And I would contend that the only spells vastly more powerful than the spells of previous level are the recognizably broken ones (the polymorph line, shivering touch, etc), but that's again just a difference of definition.

[Gnorman]

I think the definition was more along the lines of "can do something demonstrably different," which, as I mentioned in the last post, does not happen between Cleric 5 and Cleric 6, for example. Cleric 6 is not capable of anything "new" as compared to Cleric 5. It's comparable to the Barbarian getting a second use of Rage, i.e. an increase in frequency alone, not novelty.

It's not just "a new spell level," either, and I think you might have overlooked some of Grod's nuance there. Sorcerer 6 can do something new. Cleric 6 cannot. But ultimately it's a very fine semantic hair to split.

[JoshuaZ]

There are at least three different notions of Dead Level floating around here.

There is Dead_Level(no spells) where anything in the separate spellcasting column doesn't count.

There is Dead_Level(PrCable) where they don't gain anything that they couldn't easily gain with a PrC that also gives
other goodies.

There is Dead_Level(PCs care) which is a level where players are likely to see the level as simply providing boring bonuses. Note that this last isn't well-defined (and as already pointed out, whether they view spellcasting advancement in this category depends on the players).

For simplicity, let us label these DL1, DL2 and DL3.

Note that there are legitimate concerns about all three of these. DL3 and DL1 share similar issues with players not caring about just getting another spell per a day (whether or not they should).

DL2 is primarily a concern about spellcasters almost always PrCing out. This is a legitimate and substantial problem in 3.5. But note that this is to a large extent due to the many caster PrCs which +1 and +2 PrCs in the PrC tier list (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1573.0), and even in the +0 category there are many which are often better than staying in the class (e.g. archmage, geometer).

However, the "solution" of trying to give them additional class features is makes the already powerful classes even more powerful is by nature problematic. This and the tension with DL1 not being a great notion of dead level (essentially acknowledged in the original Dead Level article, but apparently not acknowledged enough for the OP's liking) likely contributed to this attitude. Note that in Pathfinder both wizards and sorcerers get substantial additional features, and this to some extent does solve the problem (in that sorcerers now almost never want to PrC out) but the cost of this is serious power creep. Another option here is to turn all full-casting PrCs into 9/10 casting which would handle this to some extent- but I imagine many players would object to that very strongly. Note also that neither the feature proposed for wizards nor the feature proposed for sorcerers are at all powerful enough to actually discourage PrCing.

DL3 is an interesting issue that is both more subjective and player-dependent than DL1 and DL2 and it also isn't even clear if it should matter. Is it really a problem if every so often a PC gets some better numeric bonuses but nothing else? This seems to be more an issue of what sort of players one has and what works best for them.

It is also worth noting that there are some PrCs that have "Dead Levels" in possibly one or all of these senses. The most egregious is the Pale Master which literally at level 1 gets nothing but +2 to will and a d4 hit die. But this is an example of a PrC where actually doing much to handle that would actually be *bad* because it is also +1 to the PrC tier list (albeit probably on the lower end of that list until one gets the capstone feature).

In my own campaign world, the Pale Master and the Master of Shrouds are more explicitly set off against each other as one being the master of corporeal undead and the other being the master of incorporeal undead, and so I have the Pale Master have a level 1 class feature that lets them add their class level to knowledge checks related to corporeal undead and a similar feature for Master of Shrouds and incorporeal undead, but I suspect that many would see +1 to a very narrow set of knowledge checks to be still not far from a "Dead Level" while seeing this feature scale too much at the top of the class. I'm not sure if a different weak feature at level 1 would do better (in this case suggestions are genuinely welcome!).

This also raises a fairly silly question: how much worse could WOTC have been about dead levels if they had tried to apply it to PrCs? One could have some fun with taking some of the stronger +1 and +2 PrCs with "dead levels" and suggesting thematic abilities for the dead levels. One almost imagines that something like this happened with Incantratrix which explains the bonus feats, or Mage of the Arcane Order which explains the bonus languages.

[StreamOfTheSky]

At this point you're quibbling about what "new" means.

Everything that the cleric could do at level 6, he could do at level 5, by virtue of how the cleric spell list works. Being able to do those things slightly more times per day does not make those things "new." That's all Grod is saying.

No, that's not true at all. He still has more 3rd level spell slots. A 5th level cleric can DMM Persist Lesser Vigor on the party, and cast his 3rd level domain spell which may or may not provide a useful option that day. A 6th level cleric can DMM Persist Lesser Vigor on the party *and* have a dispel magic ready for debuffing an enemy mage, and cast his 3rd level domain spell which may or may not provide a useful option that day.

Or insert whatever spell(s) you prefer based on your needs. Having more of your highest level spell slots absolutely is a new feature. Instead of having to pick one of several options, you can now have multiple of those options prepared and ready to go. If you don't think having more good spells readily available isn't a game-changer, I seriously doubt you've ever actually played a spellcaster. The added flexibility *is* a "new" feature.

[Gnorman]

No, that's not true at all. He still has more 3rd level spell slots. A 5th level cleric can DMM Persist Lesser Vigor on the party, and cast his 3rd level domain spell which may or may not provide a useful option that day. A 6th level cleric can DMM Persist Lesser Vigor on the party *and* have a dispel magic ready for debuffing an enemy mage, and cast his 3rd level domain spell which may or may not provide a useful option that day.

Or insert whatever spell(s) you prefer based on your needs. Having more of your highest level spell slots absolutely is a new feature. Instead of having to pick one of several options, you can now have multiple of those options prepared and ready to go. If you don't think having more good spells readily available isn't a game-changer, I seriously doubt you've ever actually played a spellcaster. The added flexibility *is* a "new" feature.

I never said it wasn't a "game-changer," and I have in fact played many a spellcaster. Obviously having more spell slots is better than fewer; and obviously by that metric Cleric 6 is better than Cleric 5. I just said that, under the definition of "new" that I believed Grod was using, being able to do something you could already do slightly more often is not truly a new option; it does not allow the cleric to cast a spell that it could not already cast before. The 5th level cleric could DMM Persist Lesser Vigor as well as cast dispel magic. The fact that the 6th level cleric can now do both in a single day does not mean that any new options have been added, just the ability to use multiple old options. I can see how that can be characterized as something "new," but personally think it's a semantic stretch.

In any case, it's a very fine point, and one that is ultimately meaningless to the discussion herein, so I'll drop it.

[Anlashok]

Dunno. I'd argue that it by definition opens new options. Because. You know. You can do both. That opens up new dimensions and options for the cleric in a very real way. No, it's maybe not quite the same as when you gain a new spell level, but it feels incredibly disingenuous to equate or even compare it to a fighter getting +1 BAB. Or a Barbarian getting +1 BAB and +1 to trap sense.

[Gnorman]

Oh, on that point I absolutely agree. I'm not suggesting that we should use this as a justification to give clerics more abilities. Spellcasting is obviously that good. I was just pointlessly arguing about an extremely narrow and irrelevant detail, because this is the Internet and I was led to believe that is what one is supposed to do there. :smalltongue:

[Cerefel]

I think what's happening in this thread is that people are getting really bogged down with semantics and vague definitions and have just started missing the original point entirely.

Dead levels are not inherently a bad thing, what's bad is that they overwhelmingly affect mundane characters more than they affect casters, especially because the abilities that casters are getting are usually more powerful than those of mundane classes and the casters end up with more of these strong abilities in the long run.

[Troacctid]

Dead levels are definitely bad. They're a hallmark of a poorly-designed, unexciting class. A good class gives players something to look forward to at every level.

[OldTrees1]

There is Dead_Level(PCs care) which is a level where players are likely to see the level as simply providing boring bonuses. Note that this last isn't well-defined (and as already pointed out, whether they view spellcasting advancement in this category depends on the players).

-snip-

DL3 is an interesting issue that is both more subjective and player-dependent than DL1 and DL2 and it also isn't even clear if it should matter. Is it really a problem if every so often a PC gets some better numeric bonuses but nothing else? This seems to be more an issue of what sort of players one has and what works best for them.

Consider this from a DM's chair(aka Game Design and Player Enjoyment are important). While DL3 is more subjective and player-dependant, it is so in a way that correlates closer to the DM's goals than the more objective measurements.

Should we care if a few consecutive levels provides nothing but bonuses? Maybe, maybe not. Should we care if a few consecutive levels provide nothing the player cares about? Yes, we should care(whether we act is a more nuanced question). The more subjective measurement correlated closer with that player's enjoyment and thus gave us(pretending to be DMs) more information with which to draw a conclusion.

Now while DL3 is more subjective than DL1 or DL2, it is not random. There is signal amidst the noise even when we adopt the role of game critics rather than DMs. Take Monk and Wizard as examples. We can easily draw a conclusion about which class features(including spellcasting) tend to be cared about and which ones tend to not. We can compare the tendency to value Pounce(Spirit Lion Totem) vs a Bonus Fighter Feat. Yes these estimates will not hold universally true, but we know these estimates to be better in general these purely objective measurements.

However there is not much to argue about DL3 and threads continue when parts in agreement take their leave for other threads.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Dead levels are not inherently a bad thing, what's bad is that they overwhelmingly affect mundane characters more than they affect casters...
Yeah, uh...

Dead levels are definitely bad. They're a hallmark of a poorly-designed, unexciting class. A good class gives players something to look forward to at every level.
This. Leveling up is supposed to be a reward for players. It should feel like one. Especially when you're playing a slower campaign and it takes weeks or months of real time to reach the next level. It's quite possible to make balanced classes that still get new things at every level, and doing otherwise is simple laziness.

(Even if we're talking about already-overpowered things like clerics and sorcerers, you can pass out a bunch of weak-ish features without really increasing their relative power at all)

[JoshuaZ]

I think what's happening in this thread is that people are getting really bogged down with semantics and vague definitions and have just started missing the original point entirely.


This is why I tried to be more precise about what people meant and proposed three different notions in the thread. Rather than argue over definitions it is more helpful to simply be clear about whichever definition is relevant. This is to some extent a problem of disguised queries (http://lesswrong.com/lw/nm/disguised_queries/).


Dead levels are not inherently a bad thing, what's bad is that they overwhelmingly affect mundane characters more than they affect casters, especially because the abilities that casters are getting are usually more powerful than those of mundane classes and the casters end up with more of these strong abilities in the long run.

Um, so you complained about people getting caught in the semantics and then you implicitly used a specific notion of dead level, which is one of the issues in the thread. It might be more helpful to rather than use in this comment a notion of "Dead Level" where people are arguing over the term to just say that this is a big part of how melee and mundane characters can't get nice things.


Consider this from a DM's chair(aka Game Design and Player Enjoyment are important). While DL3 is more subjective and player-dependant, it is so in a way that correlates closer to the DM's goals than the more objective measurements.

Should we care if a few consecutive levels provides nothing but bonuses? Maybe, maybe not. Should we care if a few consecutive levels provide nothing the player cares about? Yes, we should care(whether we act is a more nuanced question). The more subjective measurement correlated closer with that player's enjoyment and thus gave us(pretending to be DMs) more information with which to draw a conclusion.

Now while DL3 is more subjective than DL1 or DL2, it is not random. There is signal amidst the noise even when we adopt the role of game critics rather than DMs. Take Monk and Wizard as examples. We can easily draw a conclusion about which class features(including spellcasting) tend to be cared about and which ones tend to not. We can compare the tendency to value Pounce(Spirit Lion Totem) vs a Bonus Fighter Feat. Yes these estimates will not hold universally true, but we know these estimates to be better in general these purely objective measurements.

However there is not much to argue about DL3 and threads continue when parts in agreement take their leave for other threads.

This is a really good point, and is particularly relevant in the context of what actually matters. Anecdote time: In my last campaign one player was playing a fighter (it was their first campaign in 3.5/PF that wasn't a quick one-shot) and there were both DL3 issues after a few levels and also tier discrepancy issues, so I ended up giving them plot based reasons to get some extra Tome of Battle maneuvers added on (we were playing mainly Pathfinder but the PF equivalent had not yet been made). This worked really well at helping both the DL3 and the Tier issue.




Even if we're talking about already-overpowered things like clerics and sorcerers, you can pass out a bunch of weak-ish features without really increasing their relative power at all

I'm not completely sure about this- one does need to be careful. I don't think that the proposed additional features for sorcerers, wizards and clerics in the original Dead Level article really are anything that any player would look forward to(Woohoo! My spellbook became marginally harder for other people to read!), but those are also classes where they already have a fair bit to look forward to most levels from spells. If one looks at say what Pathfinder did with the Sorcerer it makes there be more reason to look forward to things but it is a definite power creep.

[Molan]

Umm, Tome of Battle, Totemist, Cleric, Druid, Artificer, well built Monk, or even a simple Barbarian. All of these Classes are missing almost nothing from the Special box, or at least have a new Special Box in the form of an entire table. They can handle fights just as well as Fighter could.



What do 7th level and 13th level of Paladin give you over 6th level and 12th level respectively? With no Constitution modifier and a Charisma of 12, that's +5.5 HP, +1 BAB, +1 damage to Evil creatures 2-3/day and the ability to heal +1HP per day. Nothing interesting happens whatsoever, you don;t improve as much as a Monk of the same level, a Monk of the same levels gains 7: +4.5 HP, +1 BAB, +1 Flurry of Blows AB and the ability to heal 14HP per day. 13: +4.5 HP and Spell Resistance 23.

-- Snip --

Completely ignoring any bonus Spells from stats, none of these levels are missing interesting options. Despite it not appearing so interesting in a vacuum.



In that case, a Commoner (without any flaws), would be the most balanced Class in the game.

I'm legitimately confused.

You said the Cleric has 19 dead levels, to try to say that not giving the cleric entries in the special abilities column was NOT for balance. I said that those "dead levels" (i.e., levels w/no entry in the special ability column) were left dead because the cleric's spells make it super powerful.

You then go through to argue EXACTLY that point by illustrating all the stuff the cleric gets at each level...despite the fact that you said they were "dead" to begin with.

I know the Cleric gets a bunch of stuff at each level. It's a cleric. The point was that they didn't give the cleric MORE stuff in each of it's "dead levels" by leaving the "special abilities" column blank because to give the cleric MORE powers on top of what it already has would be UNBALANCED.

The commoner is a complete sh*t class because it's SUPPOSED to be. It doesn't balance with anything else because it's not supposed to. The whole point of this was, "Just because you don't have entries in special abilities, i.e. 'dead levels', does not mean that you gain nothing by progressing in the class."

So, what exactly were you trying to say here?

I also disagree with another sentiment recently posted that "Dead levels are inherently bad and a sign of poor design and laziness."

No, this is simply not true. Those levels are there because WOTC playtested these classes extensively and found that by adding more STUFF into each open level in a given class or PrC either A. Made the class too powerful or B. filled a party with way too many fluff abilities and bogged down the game. Your opinion that any dead level is bad is simply that -- an opinion. YOU like getting something new at every level, however other players are perfectly content with enjoying their overall build, and are entertained by aspects in the game other then whatever new ability entry they get, such as, what actions can their character actually TAKE during the course of gameplay. When characters are more interested in what kind of stuff their character is doing rather then whatever stat blocks are entered on their sheet they tend not to care as much and enjoy more streamlined play.

I'm not making this stuff up. I've had a decent number of players request that I ban books outside of PHB, DMG and MM1 in my games to simplify and streamline the game, saying that there's too much silly nonsense in the game in not doing so. I've actually had players insist on banning UA and we actually don't use ToB or ToM at all -- for all of these reasons.

You could say, "I don't like when I don't get a meaningful new ability at every level so I'm using a bunch of UA stuff and/or PrCs and/or some crazy homebrew rules in my campaign." and that would be fine. But you would be in error saying that, "I don't like it, therefore it was done wrong and is bad."

It's just not true.

[JoshuaZ]

I also disagree with another sentiment recently posted that "Dead levels are inherently bad and a sign of poor design and laziness."

No, this is simply not true. Those levels are there because WOTC playtested these classes extensively and found that by adding more STUFF into each open level in a given class or PrC either A. Made the class too powerful or B. filled a party with way too many fluff abilities and bogged down the game.

Do you have evidence for this? Say data showing class features that were removed during playtests?

[Odin's Eyepatch]

We've been talking about spellcasters and extra spells for a while, but how about extra attacks?

At lvl 6, 11, and 16, full BAB classes gain an extra attack. Is that a dead level? Not really (you can do something new and worth waiting for), but nobody really mentions it. Because they look at the Special collumn. Could it be therefore more comparable to all of those levels where Spellcasters don't get extra spells?

I'm siding with the camp that believes that spellcaster levels where you only increase spell capacity are dead (or close to dead) levels. Though having an extra 5th level slot is not comparable at all to that +1 BAB, if you ignore the power discrepancy, they are comparable on a "dead level" scale, where you can do things a bit better, but it isn't as exciting or as impressive as learning 6th level spells, or getting that extra 3rd attack.

Heck, I believe that Monks have 3 dead levels. In what way is getting an extra 10ft. of slow fall, better than +1 BAB? They could have just put "Slow Fall" at 4th level, and forget about reminding people about it every other level afterwards.

It's about perception. I've been playing a monk for over a year now, and when I hit Monk lvl 10, it felt like the deadest level on earth. +10ft. extra slow fall? My fists are now lawful, despite the fact that most creatures with DR/lawful are good creatures? So my fists are slightly better against just a handful of specific creatures in the Multiverse? What a lousy level! Obviously this is all bad game design. But getting a small increase to a rather weak ability, and another ability that I would never see come into play? It felt dead... Especially with the sorcerer starting to teleport people across the continent!

[rockdeworld]

We've been talking about spellcasters and extra spells for a while, but how about extra attacks?
The 3rd and 4th iterative attacks can be considered dead levels, since you'll rarely hit with the 3rd and never hit with the 4th unless you boost your attack bonus through the roof. When looking at damage per round, they add almost nothing. The 2nd (at -5) is fine.

Edit: it turns out that's not exactly right, since when I did the math, it looked like this:
For reference, let's say we have a level 16 Barbarian with 24 Str, a +5 falchion, improved critical, and power attack (and his other feats don't affect attacks). Greater Rage gives +6 Str for 30. Average AC is 32 at CR 16, so the optimal power attack is -1.
Attack bonus = 16 (BAB) + 10 (str) + 5 (enhancement) - 1 (PA) = 30
Damage = 5 (2d4 avg) + 15 (str) + 5 (enhancement) + 2 (PA) = 27


tohit30252015
base damage27272727
extra dice dam.0000
hit chance 0.950.70.450.2
crit chance0.30.30.30.3
crit threat2222
total 41.0430.2419.448.64


Considering a level 11 character with a +3 weapon and otherwise the same, the average AC at CR 11 is about 23, so the optimal PA is -0.
Attack bonus = 11 (BAB) + 10 (str) + 3 (enhancement) = 24
Damage = 5 (2d4 avg) + 15 (str) + 3 (enhancement) = 23

tohit241914
base damage232323
extra dice dam.000
hit chance0.950.850.6
crit chance0.30.30.3
crit threat222
total34.9631.2822.08


Notably in both cases the PC has a 95% chance to-hit on the first attack (simple for a fighter or barbarian).



I've been playing a monk for over a year now, and when I hit Monk lvl 10, it felt like the deadest level on earth. +10ft. extra slow fall? My fists are now lawful, despite the fact that most creatures with DR/lawful are good creatures? So my fists are slightly better against just a handful of specific creatures in the Multiverse? What a lousy level! Obviously this is all bad game design. But getting a small increase to a rather weak ability, and another ability that I would never see come into play? It felt dead... Especially with the sorcerer starting to teleport people across the continent!
Good anecdote! This is exactly the reason we want more game balance, and part of the reason I made this thread.


WOTC playtested these classes
[Citation needed]

Or it could be like Pathfinder, where they held open playtesting and then ignored the feedback.

[Troacctid]

BAB isn't a useful consideration when discussing dead levels because every class gets it — it's essentially a function of character level rather than class level. Yeah, some classes get a little more of it, but as balancing mechanisms go, it's not terribly relevant, especially considering the way the multiclass system works. This isn't 5e where a Fighter 11 gets an extra attack but a Fighter 10/Barbarian 1 doesn't.

[Threadnaught]

I'm legitimately confused.

Then perhaps you should try reading my post. I'm not saying this because you don't seem to understand, but because you have completely misrepresented the content of my own post in yours.


You said the Cleric has 19 dead levels, to try to say that not giving the cleric entries in the special abilities column was NOT for balance.

No I did not, I said Clerics had no dead levels and provided evidence.
I maintain that the dead levels of Commoner are not for balance, that the dead levels of Fighter are not for balance, that Paladin 7 and 13 are not for balance, that Rogue 19 is not for balance.


I said that those "dead levels" (i.e., levels w/no entry in the special ability column) were left dead because the cleric's spells make it super powerful.

What about Paladin, Rogue or Fighter? The main benefit of them reaching their dead levels is HP.


You then go through to argue EXACTLY that point by illustrating all the stuff the cleric gets at each level...

Of course I did, I did make the statement that Clerics have no dead levels.


...despite the fact that you said they were "dead" to begin with.

If you were to stop telling this lie and read through my post, you would realize that I am doing the opposite, which is my reason for doing the opposite of what you claim I had said.


I know the Cleric gets a bunch of stuff at each level. It's a cleric. The point was that they didn't give the cleric MORE stuff in each of it's "dead levels" by leaving the "special abilities" column blank because to give the cleric MORE powers on top of what it already has would be UNBALANCED.

Yes it would, good job we both know I didn't claim that Cleric needed more, isn't it?


The commoner is a complete sh*t class because it's SUPPOSED to be. It doesn't balance with anything else because it's not supposed to. The whole point of this was, "Just because you don't have entries in special abilities, i.e. 'dead levels', does not mean that you gain nothing by progressing in the class."

Really?

You're saying that the reason Cleric doesn't have anything specifically listed under Special, is because it is already an incredibly powerful Class, while ignoring the part of my comment where I mention that Cleric, like other Casters, has a separate table as an extension to the Special box and declaring that Commoner isn't given any Special abilities, not as a balancing mechanic, but because it sucks anyway?

Okay, how about instead we compare a Con of 18, Intelligence 10 and other mentals stats significantly higher, minimum rolls.
Fighter 5 vs Cleric 5. Fighter has +5 HP, +1 BAB and +2 Skill Points, Cleric gets +5 HP, +2 Skill Points, 3rd level Spells and new Spellslots.
Fighter 5 vs Druid 5. Fighter has +5 HP, +1 BAB and +2 Skill Points, Ddruid gets +5 HP, +4 Skill Points, Wild Shape, 3rd level Spells and new Spellslots.
Fighter 5 vs Wizard 5. Fighter has +5 HP, +1 BAB and +2 Skill Points, Wizard gets +5 HP, +2 Skill Points, a Bonus Feat and their Familiar improves.
Fighter 5 vs Monk 5. Fighter gets +5 HP, +1 BAB and +2 Skill Points, Monk gets +5 HP, +4 Skill Points, +1 AC, +2 FoBAB and Immunity to Disease.


So, what exactly were you trying to say here?

Core Mundanes are bad, specifically Fighter. Dead Levels play a large part in this.


I also disagree with another sentiment recently posted that "Dead levels are inherently bad and a sign of poor design and laziness."

But it clearly is.
I would like to point you to The Elder Scrolls series, specifically Oblivion.

Oblivion's leveling system has its own unique quirk in which, the never actually become stronger without a dedicated build designed to take advantage of all the most powerful attributes.

People hated it and there are guides that still exist today, dedicated to keeping players at level 1 so they can actually become powerful.


Your opinion that any dead level is bad is simply that -- an opinion. YOU like getting something new at every level, however other players are perfectly content with enjoying their overall build, and are entertained by aspects in the game other then whatever new ability entry they get, such as, what actions can their character actually TAKE during the course of gameplay. When characters are more interested in what kind of stuff their character is doing rather then whatever stat blocks are entered on their sheet they tend not to care as much and enjoy more streamlined play.

So instead of people playing RPGs like Final Fantasy, PoKéMoN or The Elder Scrolls, they should just play Fable 3?

No seriously, if a player is rewarded for killing a huge Dragon that has been terrorizing a village for decades and almost killed the character in the fight against it, with +1 HP, +1 BAB, +2 Skill Points AND bigger harder Dragons to fight which actually have cool and interesting abilities, I don't think you're going to have that player for long. The character is frail so they're unlikely to survive combat, they can't do anything outside of combat and with the Dragons getting bigger and stronger too, that means the player's character is going to be even less effective.


I'm not making this stuff up. I've had a decent number of players request that I ban books outside of PHB, DMG and MM1 in my games to simplify and streamline the game, saying that there's too much silly nonsense in the game in not doing so. I've actually had players insist on banning UA and we actually don't use ToB or ToM at all -- for all of these reasons.

It would seem that your gaming group is in a minority.
You could try pointing out how in PoKéMoN, not every level teaches a new move, but seriously? They lee up fast enough to get to a higher level far more quickly than the average D&D character and there's ways of teaching them moves that don't involve leveling up. The other RPGs generally have some cool quirk at each level that makes the game far more interesting. Except Fable 3.


You could say, "I don't like when I don't get a meaningful new ability at every level so I'm using a bunch of UA stuff and/or PrCs and/or some crazy homebrew rules in my campaign." and that would be fine. But you would be in error saying that, "I don't like it, therefore it was done wrong and is bad."

It's just not true.

Oh but I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying it's bad. Not because I don't like it, but because it doesn't provide an incentive for leveling up. If a player doesn't feel motivated by your game, that's bad game design.
I don't even think the developers of FATAL said to themselves "Gee, we really ought to make a game nobody wants to play."

Because to do that is to fail before even trying and a game that nobody wants to play, is a failure.

[JoshuaZ]

We've been talking about spellcasters and extra spells for a while, but how about extra attacks?

At lvl 6, 11, and 16, full BAB classes gain an extra attack. Is that a dead level? Not really (you can do something new and worth waiting for), but nobody really mentions it. Because they look at the Special collumn. Could it be therefore more comparable to all of those levels where Spellcasters don't get extra spells?

I'm siding with the camp that believes that spellcaster levels where you only increase spell capacity are dead (or close to dead) levels. Though having an extra 5th level slot is not comparable at all to that +1 BAB, if you ignore the power discrepancy, they are comparable on a "dead level" scale, where you can do things a bit better, but it isn't as exciting or as impressive as learning 6th level spells, or getting that extra 3rd attack.

Heck, I believe that Monks have 3 dead levels. In what way is getting an extra 10ft. of slow fall, better than +1 BAB? They could have just put "Slow Fall" at 4th level, and forget about reminding people about it every other level afterwards.

It's about perception. I've been playing a monk for over a year now, and when I hit Monk lvl 10, it felt like the deadest level on earth. +10ft. extra slow fall? My fists are now lawful, despite the fact that most creatures with DR/lawful are good creatures? So my fists are slightly better against just a handful of specific creatures in the Multiverse? What a lousy level! Obviously this is all bad game design. But getting a small increase to a rather weak ability, and another ability that I would never see come into play? It felt dead... Especially with the sorcerer starting to teleport people across the continent!

This is a really good point. At the end of the day, players need to enjoy themselves, and when something is a simple increase to a numeric bonus, it often isn't going to make them happy simply because it is in a column for special abilities. And that's going to be especially the case when there's already a large power discrepancy between that class and some other classes.