So, I wrote a long analysis of how D&D characters get better at doing things as they level.

Basically, I mention three patterns:

1. You get better as you level up (HP, BAB).
2. You might get better as you level (skill in systems that sue skill points, abilities in 3e, 4e and 5e).
3. You don't get better (abilities in most of TSR-D&D).

What I realized is that I am not so sure of my favorite way of playing anymore. Most systems use pattern 2 for everything, but for D&D pattern 1 is really important because I have a hard time thinking of a character that ONLY improves HP and little else.

Specially, I don't like how your most of your saves don't get better in 5e.

That is why I'm more and more inclined to use something akin to 4e and the half-level bonus which, IMO, is a very "old school" concept IMO, since (from what Gronan et al. have said AFAIK) levels used to be the main gauge for anything a characters does. Not for 5e, but for B/X - like using saving throws for skills, for example.

What is your favorite method? Character gets better at everything, like 4e, few things, like LotFP, or some mixed version like 5e?

Hmm, seems like I saw something somewhere about how one could change the rules to improve saves in 5e.

From the title, I thought you were talking about how 5e improves as characters level.

I have to admit, not since AD&D have I played an edition that works reasonably well at high level, and 5e, while not perfect, at least functions.

Then there are games with no levels, and a few with not even any improvement from what you are. Aside from equiment upgrades and even that may not be a factor.

It should make sense for the setting or genre you are trying to run. You are thinking too much of D&D as a wargame.

What 3.X, Pathfinder, 4e did was treat each level as a package. Similar to a GURPS campaign where you allow the players to spend individual points of XP. But rather have them save up and buy say a 20 point package of attributes, skills,powers, and/or advantages.

In some games, like 4e, the focus is how effective the individual packages were in combat and what role they were to play almost to the exclusion of anything else.

That is pretty much assbackwards. The real question should be what does mean to be a 1st level Fighter in the campaign, a 3rd level Rogue, a 18th level wizard. And it should be a complete picture not just a collections of items and numbers. How would a 18th level mage look to me if I was standing right there.

Then you translate that into the mechanics that goes into each level. And if that means a 7th level Mage gets a bump in hit points and one new spell then that what it means. It will work because it will make sense in terms how the setting or genre works.

I guess something close to 3E, which I run exclusively in Microlite mode. So every level you gain bumps everything, and abilities bump every 3rd level (+1 to one ability).  It's rather vanilla, but I like the fact that level=power gain. We don't really invoke rules to train, so perhaps it's "unrealistic," but I feel like players enjoy the tangible advancement, even if it's sorta vanilla.

Quote from: Doom;856172Hmm, seems like I saw something somewhere about how one could change the rules to improve saves in 5e.

From the title, I thought you were talking about how 5e improves as characters level.

I have to admit, not since AD&D have I played an edition that works reasonably well at high level, and 5e, while not perfect, at least functions.

Saves in 5e could certainly be improved... Here is my 2c.

I like 5e, even at high level, but I am having a hard time understanding that thing where the 20th has a lots of HPs but is incapable of doing anything that is not tied to his proficiencies.

Quote from: Omega;856175Then there are games with no levels, and a few with not even any improvement from what you are. Aside from equiment upgrades and even that may not be a factor.

Sure - this "HP bloat" thing is a feature of D&D, almost unique among mainstream RPGs (other than pathfinder and other clones). Even levels are quite rare.

Most RPGs follow pattern 2.

There might be some that follow pattern 3 to everything (no improvement), but I cant think of any, certainly not on the mainstream (say, top 10 rpgs).

Quote from: estar;856195What 3.X, Pathfinder, 4e did was treat each level as a package. Similar to a GURPS campaign where you allow the players to spend individual points of XP. But rather have them save up and buy say a 20 point package of attributes, skills,powers, and/or advantages.

I agree with most of your post, and I like the idea of "level as packages" too.

This detail I'm curious about is how in 4e you get better at, basically, everything, while in 3.x, Pathfinder, you can be a 20th level wizard and is likely that you are almost unable to swim, climb, or sneak around (unless using magic, of course).

Some people HATE that about 4e... Lately, I have been thinking it is a feature, and I miss  saving throws getting better in 5e.

Quote from: Omega;856175Then there are games with no levels, and a few with not even any improvement from what you are. Aside from equiment upgrades and even that may not be a factor.

Sure - this "HP bloat" thing is a feature of D&D, almost unique among mainstream RPGs (other than pathfinder and other clones). Even levels are quite rare.

Most RPGs follow pattern 2.

There might be some that follow pattern 3 to everything (no improvement), but I cant think of any, certainly not on the mainstream (say, top 10 rpgs).

Quote from: estar;856195What 3.X, Pathfinder, 4e did was treat each level as a package. Similar to a GURPS campaign where you allow the players to spend individual points of XP. But rather have them save up and buy say a 20 point package of attributes, skills,powers, and/or advantages.

I agree with most of your post, and I like the idea of "level as packages" too.

This detail I'm curious about is how in 4e you get better at, basically, everything, while in 3.x, Pathfinder, you can be a 20th level wizard and is likely that you are almost unable to swim, climb, or sneak around (unless using magic, of course).

Some people HATE that about 4e... Lately, I have been thinking it is a feature.

5e is unique in that saving throws don't necessarily get better, which is something I dislike, although I like 5e better than 3 and 4.

I like 1 and 3, not so keen on 2 which leads to the charop minigame.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;856205There might be some that follow pattern 3 to everything (no improvement), but I cant think of any, certainly not on the mainstream (say, top 10 rpgs).

First thing to my mind is always Traveller, which, in many (but not all) editions has effectively no skill/ability advancement for characters.  (Yes, there are rules for it in every edition, but the rules often come down to something like "to improve a skill, take 4 years off from adventuring", which is slow enough that, in most campaigns I've seen, it's effectively equivalent to retiring the character.)  They get better gear and more contacts/influence in the setting, but that's about it.

I believe that many Fate-based games shun actual "improvement" for characters, instead just letting you shuffle your skills/aspects/stunts around without ever actually gaining anything new.  (e.g., "I have Skill A at 3 and Skill B at 4, so I'll change them to A at 4 and B at 3.")  But I don't play Fate, so I could have misunderstood or misremembered.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;856169Specially, I don't like how your most of your saves don't get better in 5e.

A couple of issues with this:

1) Which saves get better as you level is mostly decided by the player. Every class gets periodic chances to raise their stats and the player chooses what to raise.

So if your CHA is still crappy at level 18 it is because you CHOSE to leave it crappy.

2) Many saves are already easily made. DC for effects are kind of on the lower end. If all saves raise automatically then no effect that allows a save would be worth using.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;856205I like 5e, even at high level, but I am having a hard time understanding that thing where the 20th has a lots of HPs but is incapable of doing anything that is not tied to his proficiencies.

Well, that does seem to be the central conceit of the game. You get a certain number of things that you are heroically competent at, and the rest, you are as good as every other person trying to do something they have no background in using natural talent. Once you gain a competence, you suddenly become as good at it as your overall competence factor. Unrealistic? Yes, but no more than gaining a level in fighter and suddenly knowing how to fit horseshoes (1e/2e proficiency system). Roughly as silly as the level concept in general.

QuoteSome people HATE that about 4e... Lately, I have been thinking it is a feature, and I miss  saving throws getting better in 5e.

The problem is then spell saving throw DCs also creep upwards (with level of spell, at least in 3e, I really don't know 4e), so it theoretically washes. I think they probably would have stayed with this, if it didn't invite the whole character optimization mini-game thing that people had been complaining about.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;8562362) Many saves are already easily made. DC for effects are kind of on the lower end. If all saves raise automatically then no effect that allows a save would be worth using.

I give my 5e PCs Proficiency in all saves, level 5-8 currently so +3. The players definitely still seem scared of anything that forces a save. Last session 2/3 of them failed the first save vs Gorgon petrification breath and were 1 save off turning to stone.

I guess if they had a save-boost from Paladin, Bard, Inspiration (I rarely grant it) etc then the game would work about right with no Proficiency bonus, but as-is I'm really glad of this house rule, which has several times prevented TPK.

I've gone back to using RAW for monster/NPC saves though, the Warlock is a bit weak already in combat and making his two spells less effective would be punitive.

Looking at the blog post...Interesting though I think the numbering (1a, 2b, etc.) makes it harder to follow.

I think analyzing the progressions further you'd also need to look 'behind the scenes' a bit.
For one thing, levels themselves are earned at different rates in different editions - higher levels being gained faster in 3E through 5E for instance.
For another, the context makes a difference. An sandbox setup makes numerical advancement more meaningful, for instance, while an 'encounterdized' setup can be a numbers treadmill where the expected-CR monster is dishing out proportionally more damage or hitting more often, and so effectively makes advancement in those numbers imaginary. Or In some cases (4E skill challenges, maybe 5E saving throws) actually results in negative advancement.

Another thing I thought of is that some progressions may change for specific classes or special abilities. Maybe spells would be a case of this since many bump up a character from 'no ability' (or low ability) to a level-dependent number - with actual likelihood of owning any given spell increasing with level (indirectly correlated). Or some classes have built in ability increasess (like the AD&D cavalier, or the 3E war hulk) making their stats scale with level. Or 3E has a few abilities where a character can perform a skill check in place of a saving throw (changing them from "1a" to "2a").

Quote from: Exploderwizard;8562361) Which saves get better as you level is mostly decided by the player. Every class gets periodic chances to raise their stats and the player chooses what to raise.

So if your CHA is still crappy at level 18 it is because you CHOSE to leave it crappy.

2) Many saves are already easily made. DC for effects are kind of on the lower end. If all saves raise automatically then no effect that allows a save would be worth using.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;856249Well, that does seem to be the central conceit of the game. You get a certain number of things that you are heroically competent at, and the rest, you are as good as every other person trying to do something they have no background in using natural talent. Once you gain a competence, you suddenly become as good at it as your overall competence factor. Unrealistic? Yes, but no more than gaining a level in fighter and suddenly knowing how to fit horseshoes (1e/2e proficiency system). Roughly as silly as the level concept in general.

I have no problem with this system "per se", realistic or not. What I find odd is that is very non-traditional D&D. Saves get better in all editions but 5e.

This also becomes a problem in 5e because at high levels the characters will fail most of their saves very often, which doesn't happen in low levels, while BD&D is usually the opposite.

Non proficient, high level saves usually suffer from two problems: no proficiency and low abilities. One of this would be enough, IMO, to establish a difference between characters.

At high levels, if the whole party must save, DCs are either so low that some members will always succeed, or so high that some members will always fail.

Granting proficiency in all saves fixes this problems, IMO, and you still have good differentiation through abilities, advantage, etc.