Effect of removing dead levels from 3.5?

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Just as a thought experiment, what would happen if we just erased every level where a class doesn't gain anything (including spells), essentially moving all later levels down?
For example, the Fighter is now a 10-level class that grants a Bonus Feat at every level, because all the odd-numbered levels were removed. The Marshal is a 14-level class because the levels where it gains a new Minor Aura count as non-dead levels. The Wizard is still a 20-level class because it gains new spells every level.

What classes benefit from this the most? What is now possible due to levels with key abilities arriving sooner? Any broken combos opened up? Probably.

[Astralia123]

I guess the affected classes would be much fewer than one may expect.

Other than fighter, rogue is the only affected class in SRD (including core basic classes and core PrCs) - level 14 and level 20 are taken away. Nothing more.

[Fouredged Sword]

There is a WOTC web expansion that filled in the dead levels of most of the base classes. It is famous for the line about how Monk is the best designed class because of it's interesting and plentiful class features at every level.

[Westhart]

It is famous for the line about how Monk is the best designed class because of it's interesting and plentiful class features at every level.

You're kidding... right? :smallconfused:

[Fouredged Sword]

You're kidding... right? :smallconfused:

Nope. It's a real thing by a real person who wrote parts of 3.5.

[Red Fel]

There is a WOTC web expansion that filled in the dead levels of most of the base classes.

Two (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a), actually (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20070227x).


You're kidding... right? :smallconfused:

Sadly, not kidding. Quoting the first article I linked:


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

[Zanos]

Well, they didn't say the special abilities were good or synergistic. "Unique" and "Colorful" might be how I would describe the monk in pleasant company.

[Red Fel]

Well, they didn't say the special abilities were good or synergistic. "Unique" and "Colorful" might be how I would describe the monk in pleasant company.

Same way I describe a small child's more unusual bowel movements. So, actually somewhat accurate, here.

[Nifft]

Well they're not wrong. Monks do get a lot of colorful & unique abilities.

They just don't get enough powerful abilities.


Players do get lots of stuff to look forward to every single level-up.

They just also get disappointed by that same stuff.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Assuming that "increased spells/day" on a prepared/fixed-list caster still counts as a feature...

The Rogue shrinks two levels at the top; 99.9% of games don't notice.
The Marshal loses level 6, 10-11, 13, and 17-19. Little practical change; you still wind up with all the good auras after just a few levels in the class, and other bonuses remain disappointingly small.
The Fighter becomes an even better dip class, and I guess picks up a little more combat strength. You can at least get your schticks online early, I guess. Dungeoncrasher becomes impressively good, though-- 8d6 at 4th level is seriously scary.
The Swashbuckler loses 6 levels, but it remains a three-level class, since none of the later stuff is particularly useful even if it comes a bit early.


And... I think that's it, honestly. Truly dead levels are pretty rare. You might get a bit more mileage if you extended "dead levels" to cover levels where you're just getting +1 to something dull, but that would be harder to implement.

[ATHATH]

Wouldn't Fighter become an 11 level long class not a 10 level long class, since it gets bonus feats at even levels AND at 1st level?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Wouldn't Fighter become an 11 level long class not a 10 level long class, since it gets bonus feats at even levels AND at 1st level?
12 with Zhentim Fighter and Skill Focus at 3rd!

[Dr_Dinosaur]

And... I think that's it, honestly. Truly dead levels are pretty rare. You might get a bit more mileage if you extended "dead levels" to cover levels where you're just getting +1 to something dull, but that would be harder to implement.
You're right. Let's open the throttle up a bit. Two new rules:

"Class features" that only improve a scaling numerical bonus (Grace +2) or more uses of an ability (Rage 2/day) at certain levels don't count against dead levels except at level 20. If an improvement would come on a removed level, it instead is granted at the next remaining level. So for instance, Swashbuckler now has 12 levels, gaining improvements to Grace at 7th and 12th level and improvements to Dodge Bonus at 7th, 10th, and 12th. Barbarian is now reduced to a whopping 9 levels, gaining improvements to Rage uses, Trap Sense, and Damage Reduction at every level after 5th!
Invocations, maneuvers, and other similar non-spell, non-psipower progressions do not count against dead levels, you simply gain the lost instance at the next level you would gain them


I realize this will tend toward rocket tag, considering the Barbarian is now packing +8 Strength 6/day with no fatigue at 9th level, so if I ran a game using this variant I'd probably restrict it to e6 or e8 with fairly slow leveling, possibly Partial Gestalt to increase versatility to compensate for the slow, slow leveling to keep the power curve reasonable.

[Nifft]

The Swashbuckler loses 6 levels, but it remains a three-level class, since none of the later stuff is particularly useful even if it comes a bit early.


I've seen people take more than 3 levels, in conjunction with the Daring Outlaw feat.

[Techwarrior]

I've seen people take more than 3 levels, in conjunction with the Daring Outlaw feat.

Nah, what you saw was a Rogue who likes hitting and not dying to getting hit. Those 'Swashbucklers' are just rogues who traded 4 skill points a level for d10's and Full BAB.

[ATHATH]

Nah, what you saw was a Rogue who likes hitting and not dying to getting hit. Those 'Swashbucklers' are just rogues who traded 4 skill points a level for d10's and Full BAB.
And at that point, why not go all the way and be a Sneak Attack (ACF? Variant? I don't remember) Zhentarim (because why not) Fighter?

[Grod_The_Giant]

And at that point, why not go all the way and be a Sneak Attack (ACF? Variant? I don't remember) Zhentarim (because why not) Fighter?
Daring Outlaws get better skills (start with Rogue for the 8+Int, the Swashbuckler list is better than the Thug Fighter's, and you have an Int secondary) and a much better setup for non-Str-based combat (free Finesse and Int to damage). All for the low cost of, like, one point of BAB and a couple hit points.

[Astralia123]

So this erasing doesn't help much in most really weak classes...only those not only weak, but also "badly written" that they have many dead levels in them (like the two non-casting basic classes from CW).

[Astralia123]

Assuming that "increased spells/day" on a prepared/fixed-list caster still counts as a feature...

The Rogue shrinks two levels at the top; 99.9% of games don't notice.
The Marshal loses level 6, 10-11, 13, and 17-19. Little practical change; you still wind up with all the good auras after just a few levels in the class, and other bonuses remain disappointingly small.
The Fighter becomes an even better dip class, and I guess picks up a little more combat strength. You can at least get your schticks online early, I guess. Dungeoncrasher becomes impressively good, though-- 8d6 at 4th level is seriously scary.
The Swashbuckler loses 6 levels, but it remains a three-level class, since none of the later stuff is particularly useful even if it comes a bit early.


And... I think that's it, honestly. Truly dead levels are pretty rare. You might get a bit more mileage if you extended "dead levels" to cover levels where you're just getting +1 to something dull, but that would be harder to implement.

Let's look at the positive aspect - does that mean weapon specialization now only require 3 fighter levels. and greater weapon specialization requires 7?

*False smile on the face*

[Westhart]

Nope. It's a real thing by a real person who wrote parts of 3.5.


Two (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a), actually (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20070227x).



Sadly, not kidding. Quoting the first article I linked:

Wow, that is... I don't even know... did she/he play the game at all?

[Anxe]

This seems really similar to what Pathfinder did to the classes.

[Fouredged Sword]

Wow, that is... I don't even know... did she/he play the game at all?

3.5 was playtested by people who had... assumptions... about what the game would play like that didn't actually pan out very realistically in the system they actually wrote. 3.5 was designed with the beatstick fighter, squishy rogue, tanky cleric, blasty wizard party levels 3-12 in mind. If you play it like that, the tier system more or less disappears and a lot of what the game designers talk about actually makes sense. The problem is that if you actually step back and LOOK at the game as written, that is FAR FAR from most effective party.

[Westhart]

3.5 was playtested by people who had... assumptions... about what the game would play like that didn't actually pan out very realistically in the system they actually wrote. 3.5 was designed with the beatstick fighter, squishy rogue, tanky cleric, blasty wizard party levels 3-12 in mind. If you play it like that, the tier system more or less disappears and a lot of what the game designers talk about actually makes sense. The problem is that if you actually step back and LOOK at the game as written, that is FAR FAR from most effective party.

Hmm, I'd have to disagree with you about tiers disappearing 3-12...

[ryu]

Hmm, I'd have to disagree with you about tiers disappearing 3-12...

He also specifically noted everyone playing basically as close to a theoretical optimization floor as a thinking being could possibly get. When everyone is awful differences are less noticeable.

[Eldariel]

He also specifically noted everyone playing basically as close to a theoretical optimization floor as a thinking being could possibly get. When everyone is awful differences are less noticeable.

I'd say it's less "awful" and more "playing the wrong game". If everyone has 10+ years of AD&D experience and thinks they're playing AD&D but the game is actually running with 3.X rules, you'd get close to what they did; you only use what you're allowed to do in AD&D and ignore what works in 3.5, instead favouring obsolete tactics that were good in AD&D such as blasting and in general, playing Fighter-like classes. If Natural Spell doesn't exist, you really can't use it, for instance.

[ryu]

I'd say it's less "awful" and more "playing the wrong game". If everyone has 10+ years of AD&D experience and thinks they're playing AD&D but the game is actually running with 3.X rules, you'd get close to what they did; you only use what you're allowed to do in AD&D and ignore what works in 3.5, instead favouring obsolete tactics that were good in AD&D such as blasting and in general, playing Fighter-like classes. If Natural Spell doesn't exist, you really can't use it, for instance.

Reasons for being awful are useful, but don't make the tactics presented not awful even compared to enemies just doing precisely what it says they do.

[Psyren]

This seems really similar to what Pathfinder did to the classes.

Yeah, I would suggest just backporting the PF classes to 3.5, and if there's any non-core ones with dead levels that you're interested in, apply a similar design philosophy to boost them up.