Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;856395Looking 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").

Thanks! Always looking for feedback to improve my writing.

I agree, there are many ways to go deeper in this analysis.

XP before 3e is an interesting one, not only because it differs by class, but also because XP-per-level it has an interesting progression. The XP needed to next level doubles until level 9... Then it gets easier, but you get less HP per level... Although you can still get extra spells and attacks, etc.

This 3e feature is very interesting too, since some skills will advance way further than saving throws, but STs still maintain a "minimum" resistance.

Quote from: S'mon;856284I 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 think this is a good, simple solution too.

I prefer little or no mechanical improvement, prefering advancement be in-game stuff like equipment, resources, reputation, etc...
Still, I've pretty much made my peace with class/level games... at least the ones with slow advancement that maintain the dangers of low level stuff (a pack of wild dogs should always be a potential threat to an unarmed/unarmored man).

Quote from: Eric Diaz;856433Granting proficiency in all saves fixes this problems, IMO, and you still have good differentiation through abilities, advantage, etc.

Yup, it's a very simple fix to give 5e PCs broad proficiency, and the numbers are small enough it doesn't break anything.

Quote from: Simlasa;856442I prefer little or no mechanical improvement, prefering advancement be in-game stuff like equipment, resources, reputation, etc...
Still, I've pretty much made my peace with class/level games... at least the ones with slow advancement that maintain the dangers of low level stuff (a pack of wild dogs should always be a potential threat to an unarmed/unarmored man).

In my 5e game last night, three 7th-8th level PCs (plus a couple NPCs) were worried about fighting a local lordling and his eight guards - it was the prospect of fighting eight guards that unnerved them. I really love this about 5e D&D, you don't really get that in any other edition.

I like characters to improve at everything, but have in-character choices as to their improvement. This creates an issue.

If you have choices as to what you improve as you improve/level up/whatever, then I like those choices to have meaning to the character. They improve X because they're specifically training to get better at X. In the fantasy world I'm running, no-one would be training to improve their perception. I'm not saying it can't be done, it just isn't something that anyone would be looking to do - it's anachronistic. But I like more characters to improve at perception, hence perception (and saves too) improve automatically without the character doing anything.

Hence the game is skill based (gained through XP), but every so often you gain a level purely for the purposes of perception / saves.

I don't see what the problem is with not all saves increasing by level, due to no proficiency with most of the saves (you only get 2 by default).
If you want to increase the saves you're NOT proficient in (based on 5E), just take the "Resilient" feat and BAM...   you get proficient in another save and they'll improve.

Generally the save DCs are pretty low anyway, it's sort of baked into the system to be like that and I hated in RPGs like PF where the PCs are virtually invulnerable at 11+ level.

Quote from: danskmacabre;857122If you want to increase the saves you're NOT proficient in, just take the "Resilient" feat and BAM...   you get proficient in another save and they'll improve.

- Hi Bob. Not seen you for a few days, been a bit busy working on my Sword play ready for our assault on the Castle of Evil. What have you been up to?

- I'm taking the Resilient Feat.

- You're stealing some feet? Are they magical?

- No, FEAT, with an A. I'm working on being more Resilient.

- Ah, I see. Still having difficulties coping with Jane dumping you for that Paladin. I told you, a warrior shrugs these things off and moves on.

- No I'm err... I err... It's kinda difficult to explain. I'm glad I didn't take the Lucky Feat.

- I've got one of those, a Rabbit's Foot.

- Arrgghh!

Quote from: danskmacabre;857122I don't see what the problem is with not all saves increasing by level, due to no proficiency with most of the saves (you only get 2 by default)...

Generally the save DCs are pretty low anyway, it's sort of baked into the system to be like that and I hated in RPGs like PF where the PCs are virtually invulnerable at 11+ level.

Agreed. 5E characters have some definite strengths and weaknesses, and that, to me, is just fine. I do have some qualms with the holy trinity of saves, DEX, CON, WIS, in that I wish they were spread out a little. However, in the 5E group I'm playing in, I've actually used my sorcerer's Charisma save a couple times, which was a pleasant surprise.

Perhaps we'll see more non-holy-trinity saves whenever we get a 2nd monster manual or fiend folio or whatever. If not, I guess we could always do some minor re-skinning.

Quote from: cranebump;857140Agreed. 5E characters have some definite strengths and weaknesses, and that, to me, is just fine. I do have some qualms with the holy trinity of saves, DEX, CON, WIS, in that I wish they were spread out a little. However, in the 5E group I'm playing in, I've actually used my sorcerer's Charisma save a couple times, which was a pleasant surprise.

Quote from: Saplatt;857146Perhaps we'll see more non-holy-trinity saves whenever we get a 2nd monster manual or fiend folio or whatever. If not, I guess we could always do some minor re-skinning.

If you're looking for a "middle of the road" approach, why not used Reflex/Fortitude/Will?

I've found tremendous wisdom in the original D&D approach.

Character types with particular specialties encourage cooperation and give players 'niches' without hindering them too much. (Total niche security is nigh impossible in any system unless you've got a very small campaign.)

From Homer to Howard, the hero is foremost a warrior par excellence, felling foes for which lesser mortals are no match. The apparatus of monsters of various levels means there's always something tougher even though you can sweep away inferiors in droves.

That sort of thing is harder to justify in other fields, in which competence tends to make the question one not of 'can' but of 'should'. Anyhow, competence at undertakings common to adventurers, from rappelling on a rope to sailing a sloop, tends not to be much of an issue in the fiction that inspired the game.

That fighting power should depend mainly on levels and treasures follows from the nature of the game, as those are what players acquire by dint of play rather than having handed to them by pre-game luck. Turning it into The Shopping Game tends to be counter-productive of the adventure that gave it appeal in the first place.

Hit points and spells are frangible resources. Using them up, thereby losing for a while the main advantages of level, is part of the game.

Any character, whether so weakened or simply low level to begin with, has a chance to survive and succeed. It's just a matter of choosing a strategy that either does not depend on hacking or blasting opposition, or else uses implements of destruction that the environment provides.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;857126- Hi Bob. Not seen you for a few days, been a bit busy working on my Sword play ready for our assault on the Castle of Evil. What have you been up to?

- I'm taking the Resilient Feat.

- You're stealing some feet? Are they magical?

- No, FEAT, with an A. I'm working on being more Resilient.

- Ah, I see. Still having difficulties coping with Jane dumping you for that Paladin. I told you, a warrior shrugs these things off and moves on.

- No I'm err... I err... It's kinda difficult to explain. I'm glad I didn't take the Lucky Feat.

- I've got one of those, a Rabbit's Foot.

- Arrgghh!

Sure, you can make anything sound stupid with a player character named Bob.

Bob should be describing the training to improve his resilience rather than the result -- like training with a guru at walking barefoot on hot coals for Constitution, or joining a troupe of acrobats and jugglers and learning from them for Dexterity. Same as you would explain a +2 ability increase.

Quote from: rawma;857247Sure, you can make anything sound stupid with a player character named Bob.

I'm not sure I could, but I'll try!

Quote from: rawma;857247Bob should be describing the training to improve his resilience rather than the result -- like training with a guru at walking barefoot on hot coals for Constitution, or joining a troupe of acrobats and jugglers and learning from them for Dexterity. Same as you would explain a +2 ability increase.

Does anyone ever say "I join a troupe of acrobats and jugglers to improve my dexterity"?

If they do and the feat/improvement in question becomes a popular choice, then suddenly I have a world where it's normal for everyone to go and study with acrobats, which just seems weird as I'd expect only trainee acrobats to do that.

It's a very minor quibble, just an aspect of character improvement that slightly jars with me. It all starts to feel too "character sheet first".

Quote from: JoeNuttall;857272I'm not sure I could, but I'll try!
It's a very minor quibble, just an aspect of character improvement that slightly jars with me. It all starts to feel too "character sheet first".

Seeing as the thread title is "Getting better with level - D&D"
It's a discussion of a perceived weakness in the DnD game mechanics, so I pointed out how IMO, that it's not really. The rules allow you to cover weaknesses in saves.

I would have answered your post earlier, but it seemed sarcastic, negative and generally a snarky comment, so I ignored it as I've got better things to do that reply to negative comments like that, but seeing as someone has already replied, I decided to answer anyway.

FWIW, when I'm ACTUALLY running an RPG, I DO like to put in roleplaying justifications for gaining abilities etc (although you didn't know that and just blindly assumed otherwise, given the tone and meaning of you post).
But this discussion wasn't in that context. It's a game mechanic discussion.
Sure, go ahead and expand it out to cover the actual "Roleplaying" aspect to an RPG, but you might get a more constructive response if you behave less like a jerk about it.

Quote from: danskmacabre;857275I would have answered your post earlier, but it seemed sarcastic, negative and generally a snarky comment, so I ignored it as I've got better things to do that reply to negative comments like that, but seeing as someone has already replied, I decided to answer anyway.

It was simply an attempt at humour.

I said

Quote from: JoeNuttall;857027I like characters to improve at everything, but have in-character choices as to their improvement.

And you said

Quote from: danskmacabre;857122I don't see what the problem is with not all saves increasing by level just take the "Resilient" feat

So I simply made a humorous point that taking the "Resilient" feat wasn't an in-character choice.

Thinking I was "blindly assuming" stuff that I wasn't is itself "blindly assuming" stuff.

Quote from: danskmacabre;857275you might get a more constructive response if you behave less like a jerk about it.

Sorry you didn't find it funny, but that's a bit of an over-reaction. Shrug.