My premise is thus: Level is not an in-game character attribute, but an in-game player authority.
For example, higher level characters have more powers, more hp, more feats, and possibly paragon or epic features that all work toward creating a more functional, versatile or specialized, and capable character.
My initial thoughts include the following:
* no character receives a half-level bonus to anything
* the bonus for skil training is reduced to 3 (not 5)
* level is managed by DM fiat or by an accepted XP structure (probably DM fiat)
I want to consider this approach for a possible public game because it allows me to accept incoming players with level 1 characters without stripping them of numerical capacity to participate effectively.
Players which cannot attend each week would perhaps miss out on character growth through missing XP, but would not be hamstrung by the lack of a half-level bonus.
I would have to construct each monster for a level appropriate challenge, but that might be far easier to do. I can simply adjust the powers of a monster stat-block to give appropriate capacity for PC opposition.
The math of hit points, damage, and defenses could remain quite small.
I chose to reduce the training bonus from 5 to 3 in order to give more traction for feats that provide a +2 bonus to skills. They become a bit more impactful on the skill than simply creating a "i succeed even more!" effect from a trained skill receiving +5 and +2 from background and/or feat.
I think this would still allow the use of scaling weapon and armor bonuses. It would mean that any character acquiring a +1, +2, etc. actually gets that much bonus to their attack instead of counting on that to help their numbers 'keep up' with the scaling monster defenses.
I could shift monsters' defenses up and down to give an impression of the differences between their armor, hide, size, etc.
So, please discuss with me, ask questions, make suggestions, relate other games without levels.
I would like to gauge how this might be implemented and how such an implementation might function.
What are you hoping to gain through doing this?
Thats what I think he means.
Personally, I like going up in level and getting better at thing, despite the fact that monsters proportionately improve as well, and the whole affair is just me tricking myself into believing that I'm getting better. So I don't mind the system, since it accomplishes what it is meant to, and since I have no interest in reinventing the wheel, even though there might be a better one. There will be a different wheel in a couple years anyway.
My first question is: why?
What are you hoping to gain through doing this?
Okay, that is fair.
One reason I'd interested in exploring this concept is directly related to a custom campaing I'm running. I chose a public location to run my game where many other games are held. The venue requests a $2 donation for gamers to use the space. (I hoped the $2 donation would act as a bandwidth throttle on the number of participants--you've got to have $2 cash each week to enter). This has palced the private game in a public space for many potential gamers to consider.
As walk-ins for that game as well as initial participants have mixed, I've simply had everyone assume the same level as they join the group. As some initial participants have skipped or been forced to miss the weekly session, they are a bit lost and disconnected.
For the players that come each week, give me a fore-warning of missing a week, and keep in touch through email, I feel a much more generous attitude toward weaving a narrative for their characters, ensuring items reasonably suited to their characters, and introducing quests most attractive to their characters. This intrinsically means that walk-ins and casuals don't get as much inclusion and don't learn their characters very well.
As such, the idea of having everyone new, as well as everyone that rarely makes it, maintain a low-level character through routine attendance and participation, has been nagging at me. I don't like telling a walk-in or a casual they can have as much of a character in terms of powers, feats, and items as the regular attendees.
There may be many other solutions to the problem of this particular game, but it came to mind as a thought for a future game that might provide an easy blanket solution (i.e. level won't change the basic numbers, only the avaiable powers, feats, item, class/path/destiny features).
Another reason taht I'd like to consider this concept and explore it is for a personal game project that I've been working on. I'd like it to be a level-less game and want to open a discussion about removing levels or changing their impact. I'd like opinions of how the mechanics must change and both horizontal and vertical power structures for players would be altered.
Basically what you could do, is make up the dead levels with some math bonusses and be done. They would need a +1 to defenses and attack rolls per missing level, +1 per two missing levels to damage and skill checks, and their missing hit points. This means they don't get new powers or gear or feats (like you wanted) but they'll be able to function at a higher level (assuming the gap doesn't get ridiculous, like a 1st level character in a 25th level party) without having to learn any new powers and they'll still have to earn their stuff. You can give them bonus XP to make up the difference of missed sessions. That way you don't have to retool people who always show up, nor rebuild every monster and skill check in the adventure.
For the other issue of making a level-less game, I think it's more complicated and 4e is probably not the best thing to base it on, you might have more luck trying out similar but level-less games, like Mutants & Masterminds or maybe World of Darkness. 4e is entirely built around the level concept, and it really shows.
If you really want to make a level-less 4e... well I'll have to think about how to go about it without essentially designing a new game. Just let me know...
Hm, I think you are dealing with two problems that deserve a different solution here.
For the other issue of making a level-less game, I think it's more complicated and 4e is probably not the best thing to base it on, you might have more luck trying out similar but level-less games, like Mutants & Masterminds or maybe World of Darkness. 4e is entirely built around the level concept, and it really shows.
If you really want to make a level-less 4e... well I'll have to think about how to go about it without essentially designing a new game. Just let me know...
You might be missing a few sentences from my OP. I'm not going to make a change to the current public game. That game is not using any XP structure. Everyone plays at the same level at all times. Incoming players assume the level of the campaign (level 3 right now and for about three more weeks, plus or minus some group decision points). Everyone uses inherent bonuses to ensure that lack of magic items won't hamstring numerical expectations of 4e design. I lovingly construct each monster using the monster builder; I don't use monster straight from the book anymore (I can make sure the defenses and attack bonuses as well as action recovery are built in to my desired degree).
However, for a future game I'm intrigued at the thought of mixed levels. DMG2 has a nice section about mixed levels which I've considered implementing, but I also thought of removing the half-level bonus from PCs and the level bonus from NPCs.
Ciaran presents one topic of concern in removing that routine boost: it creates a sense of growth to see the numbers tick higher as the level increases.
You also present a troubling topic, this could mean that a level 1, level 8, level 16, and level 24 PC would be rolling with nearly the same +to hit and +to damage as well as nearly the same defenses. However, maybe they ought to have higher gaps.
the level 8 PC(s) are possibly ready to start making small raids and adventures in the Underdark, occassional incursions into the Astral Sea, Feywild, or Shadowfell. The level 16 PC(s) should be prepared to face the Elemental Chaos, the Abyss, and confrontations with devils, demons, elder dragons, angels, and much more. The level 24 PC(s) are prepared to confront deities, lords of hell, primordials, archfey, and other like challenges. Each could hardly expect a level 1 PC or a few level 2-4 PCs to handle the adventure of those sorts.
It seems to me that the group would have to be split at least at the point of tier, and probably twice per tier or so. I think that with a tiny bit of work, a homebrewed adjustment could accomodate a reduced number game for low-heroic (1-5), high-heroic (6-10), low-paragon (11-15), high-paragon (16-20), low-epic (21-15) and high-epic (26-30). If the entire group is within the 5 level range they can effectively work together without much trouble for the lowest level being incompetent nor the highest level being too potent.
I like M&M for that structure of level-less concept, but I've got friends that played through that and said that the PL of the game is very defining of what a group can or cannot confront. They seemed to believe and had experienced that even one PL of difference between PC and NPC was incredibly noticeable.
I haven't played enough or nor read enough of WoD to say anything about that. I do recall that it has a far different method of advancement, but I'm not prepared to analyze that myself.
I played in a homebrewed game of a friend that had no levels, but each skill or feat had to be trained independently using XP earned during a session. There was a constant flow of earning XP and expending XP to advance a character. Some of the defining features of that included a very flat HP design; a new PC and a moderatly developed PC and a highly developed PC all had nearly the same HP. I also noted that there was no standard designed for bringing a PC into a group of experienced PCs in such a way that it looked and felt equal to them in terms of skill training and feat acquisition; so, when a new PC was introduced, it spent a lot of time being incompetent amongst the others. This incompetence usually led to death; not death of that PC alone, but typically several PCs at once. Overall, I didn't enjoy the gameplay, but the design was still intriguing.
PC surviveability is another reason that the break between low- and high- tier would serve better than a completely flat and open design. The idea of bringing a level 1 or 2 PC along on a quest with level 16 or 24 PCs is that it simply doesn't have the HP to survive, even if the defenses are not far different. Environmental effects, auras, damage output, and healing would all work against the lower level PC(s) to drain the party and suck out the fun. Similarly, bringing along a high-level PC with a group of level 1 or 2 PCs would give so high a surviveability in terms of just HP that they might even threaten the party by goading them into far more dangerous situtations.
So, perhaps waht might serve is a bot if the following:
* remove 1/2 level bonus as a blanket rule
- PC employs inherent bonus as a blanket rule (this aids in separating high and low level)
- XP forms structure for advancement (rather than DM fiat)
- PCs less than level range (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, 26-30) have not advanced enough to keep up; DM fiat to falsely increase XP or player fiat to remove and create new PC of lowest level in range
- PCs greater than level range (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, 26-30) have advanced far beyond the party; DM fiat to remove or cause player to create new PC of highest level in range or player fiat to falsely ignore futher XP until other PCs will catch up
- campaign exists within only one level range until DM fiat increases level range of campaign
This still doesn't fix everything I'd like to see a change to. One original goal was to allow an incoming player, but restrict them to level 1 such that they must display the dedication and participation such that a DM trusts them with greater PC empowerment through powers, feats, and items.
The level range could potentially still be split better. It could consider the points where PCs gain ability score bonuses as break-off points instead. That would look more like:
(1-3) low-heroic
(4-7) mid heroic
(8-10) high heroic
(11-13) low paragon
(14-17) mid paragon
(18-20) high paragon
(21-23) low epic
(24-27) mid epic
(28-30) high epic
However, that would be more difficult on players that are present and participating enough to gain the most XP; they might far too often be pushing the level range cap and anxious to move on.
Also, this
This still doesn't fix everything I'd like to see a change to. One original goal was to allow an incoming player, but restrict them to level 1 such that they must display the dedication and participation such that a DM trusts them with greater PC empowerment through powers, feats, and items.
Sounds like something instantly solved by my suggestion of making up the difference in numbers. A 1st level player will feel a lot weaker then a 5th level, simply because he'll be down 2 feats, a daily, an encounter power and a few magic items, even if he can hit just about as accurately and has about the same HP. It'll only get worse over time, but you'll be able to put him fairly easily next to someone 8 levels higher and have him operate decently but noticably less.
It is the houserules and homebrew forum, Right?
So, maybe I could simply entreat you to stop looking at the, "Why Bother?!" in favor of, 'hmm, I can see some potential in this and possibly some merit; here are my thoughts.'
I'd like to hear if anyone else has considered a D&D without level being so ingrained in the mathematics of the game. Maybe it doesn't need to be such a grand determining factor.
I'd like to hear about anyone's experience playing a level-less game. How did character growth get portrayed? How much player empowerment was introduced as the PC developed? Was it easy to bring in new players with new characters?
I'd like to hear anyone's thoughts on what levels in D&D means to their gameplay and how it is identified through gameplay.
How might you feel to introduce a level 1 character in a group of a few level 8, a couple level 5, and a level 2? If all the attack, damage, and defenses were nearly the same, would you feel insulted that the DM doesn't just pull everyone to the same level, or impotent with the reduced number of choices?
if you've been playing for months alongside a group, but an unfortunate event causes the death of your PC, would you prefer to create a new PC at a restart level, the same level as the previous PC, or a level set to the average level of other PCs form the group (if you decide not to raise dead)?
Also, the "why" is the most important question. Rules for the sake of rules are simply always bad because there's no reason for them to be. That's why my first attempt when someone wants to change the rules is always to figure out why they want to, so that I can help them find a solution to their actual problem, not the one they think they are solving with their rules.
As for my experiences playing level-less, I only have Mutants & Masterminds experience (all the others were one-shots, so there was no real growth) and growth was mostly portrayed by picking powers and feats based on actions done in the last missions. If anything, it was really good at modelling this thing because everyone just grabbed perks related to what they did during the last missions. It was far more organic then most level based system.
As for level in my groups; it's mostly a measure of bad-ass and sets the size of the quest. Higher levels means there's more at stake, the enemies are more amazing and the characters themselves are more awesome. It's mostly identified in how easily the characters deal with threats below their levels, and how powerful the enemies seem they are currently taking on.
I would personally never introduce a level 1 character in a diverse group with higher level characters, because that's simply not as much fun. The game is about being a capable adventurer, and being incompetent is the opposite of that. It's why I always keep everyone at the same level, and did so in 3e as well.
As a result, if anyone dies in my campaigns, they come back with a new character of their previous level, since everyone's the same. I'm not at all interested in having people with different levels, and I doubt any of my players are interested in player a lower level character and just hiding behind a rock for 25 battles until their level catches up and they can finally hit something.
It's supposed to be a fun game, I'm not going to worry about things like "punishing people for dying" or "you didn't show up, so you'll be a lower level". Missing a session is punishment enough, and if you don't consider missing a session a punishment, why are you showing up for the next one?
I am not seeking a solution. I'm trying to spur discussion.
If I wanted to solve a problem, I'd use one of the options from DMG2 to create a balance between levels or create companion characters.
True, I'm frustrated by the irregular attendees and the walk-ins. I'm also frustrated by the casuals who don't spend a minute of time on their characters outside of game sessions and don't know their powers and feats.
But, these aren't problems I'm trying to solve by brainstorming about what levels mean to the D&D franchise and how they could be altered. I'm just trying to have a discussion.
Pluisjen actually gave some pretty interesting input, based on his story regarding his play with Mutants and Masterminds, it just takes a bit of mining to get to that ;) With my experience with FPS (first person shooter) computer games -- let's say, Doom 1 -- "level" progression comes in two forms: the toys you have, and the challenges you face. Sure, you might get the uber [temporary] HP boost from time to time (I think that was in Duke Nukem [not the recent one]), but most of the time it's gritty, hell-bent face-off between you and the armies of hell, basically.
So what does this have to do with Pluisjen's post, and the homebrew topic in general?
This:
growth was mostly portrayed by picking powers and feats based on actions done in the last missions. If anything, it was really good at modelling this thing because everyone just grabbed perks related to what they did during the last missions. It was far more organic then most level based system
So, how do we go about this in a 4E-ish system? Well... effectively speaking, everyone will stay at level 1 forever ;)
This isn't all too bad, mind you: even within the trappings of the current system, all you have to do is grant players better and more powerful equipment, with all the benefits tied to each of them.
"But how about character progression?", you ask? Here's where the homebrewing portion comes in: the only reason EXP would be tracked at all would be for three things: feats, powers, and features [for essentials-style classes]. So what happens is that at the end of your campaign you could have a newbie human with two feats, 3 at-wills, 2 encounter power, 1 daily, and a bunch of +4 equipment borrowed from his companions, and a veteran with 20 feats [including those granted to him by his class and maybe paragon path too], 3 at-wills, 5 encounter power, 3 daily, 5 utilities, with a bunch of +6 equipment, and the accuracy difference between the two would be as low as +2.
Although I'd probably limit equipment to mundane types, utilize Divine Boons and the like instead [especially Divine Boons, that go away after several adventures], and have players utilize their skills and powers more
Again:
* Everyone would be level 1. No HP progression, no defenses progression, no accuracy progression, no stat progression.
* EXP grants you feats, powers, and features. Rather than creating an EXP-cost system for feats, powers, and features, simply track EXP as you normally do now, and whenever they reach the amount of EXP required to reach levels 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 30, give them an extra feat; When they reach the EXP required to reach levels 3, 7, 11, 13, 17, 21, 23, and 27, they get new encounter attack powers or upgrade/replace their existing ones, just like how the current system works. Etc. etc. etc.
Note that in this system, monsters are generally level-less too, so build them as if they were level 1. Feel free, however, to make tough enemies have high CON [e.g. give them 50 CON and make them solo, that's easily 200 + 2 * role modifier HP, which at level 1 takes quite a bit to whittle down], and have memorable monsters have more devastating powers.
I like chaosfang's idea if you are looking for something that will allow for broader spreads, i.e. actually letting that level 24 and level 1 be in the same party facing the same things. I think it -greatly- changes the flavor of the game, as you go from epic characters from being practically god-like and able to more or less ignore typical mortals to being extraordinarily skilled and needing to apply that skill well to survive. I.e. an epic PC is less like Hercules and more like special forces. (You wouldn't want to face them 1:1, but they wouldn't want to try and solo an army.)
If you're doing this though I would add that you should probably skip scaling on feats (i.e. expertise is still +1 at level 30) and make magic gear outside heroic tier extraordinarily rare. (When the party is level 30, they should still be happily using +2s for most stuff, with temporary possession of a +6 something being possibly a plot relevant happening.)
It may be best, too, to skip attribute bumps. Or you can let them happen to give a bit of slow divergeance.
Foxface and I and some others had a discussion on a somewhate similar idea a while back. Kind of died out because no one was ready to actually run such a campaign though.
In that version we were going to keep HP/damage scaling though, as part of the idea was for there to be badass monsters that could be taken down by typical mortals (but would have an overwhelming advantage), as I was looking at something closer to a Call of Cthulu type setting.
Meh, I already did a class-less D&D 4E, might as well try a level-less D&D 4E
Pluisjen actually gave some pretty interesting input, based on his story regarding his play with Mutants and Masterminds, it just takes a bit of mining to get to that ;) With my experience with FPS (first person shooter) computer games -- let's say, Doom 1 -- "level" progression comes in two forms: the toys you have, and the challenges you face. Sure, you might get the uber [temporary] HP boost from time to time (I think that was in Duke Nukem [not the recent one]), but most of the time it's gritty, hell-bent face-off between you and the armies of hell, basically.
So what does this have to do with Pluisjen's post, and the homebrew topic in general?
This:growth was mostly portrayed by picking powers and feats based on actions done in the last missions. If anything, it was really good at modelling this thing because everyone just grabbed perks related to what they did during the last missions. It was far more organic then most level based system
So, how do we go about this in a 4E-ish system? Well... effectively speaking, everyone will stay at level 1 forever ;)
This isn't all too bad, mind you: even within the trappings of the current system, all you have to do is grant players better and more powerful equipment, with all the benefits tied to each of them.
"But how about character progression?", you ask? Here's where the homebrewing portion comes in: the only reason EXP would be tracked at all would be for three things: feats, powers, and features [for essentials-style classes]. So what happens is that at the end of your campaign you could have a newbie human with two feats, 3 at-wills, 2 encounter power, 1 daily, and a bunch of +4 equipment borrowed from his companions, and a veteran with 20 feats [including those granted to him by his class and maybe paragon path too], 3 at-wills, 5 encounter power, 3 daily, 5 utilities, with a bunch of +6 equipment, and the accuracy difference between the two would be as low as +2.
Although I'd probably limit equipment to mundane types, utilize Divine Boons and the like instead [especially Divine Boons, that go away after several adventures], and have players utilize their skills and powers more
Again:
* Everyone would be level 1. No HP progression, no defenses progression, no accuracy progression, no stat progression.
* EXP grants you feats, powers, and features. Rather than creating an EXP-cost system for feats, powers, and features, simply track EXP as you normally do now, and whenever they reach the amount of EXP required to reach levels 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 30, give them an extra feat; When they reach the EXP required to reach levels 3, 7, 11, 13, 17, 21, 23, and 27, they get new encounter attack powers or upgrade/replace their existing ones, just like how the current system works. Etc. etc. etc.
Note that in this system, monsters are generally level-less too, so build them as if they were level 1. Feel free, however, to make tough enemies have high CON [e.g. give them 50 CON and make them solo, that's easily 200 + 2 * role modifier HP, which at level 1 takes quite a bit to whittle down], and have memorable monsters have more devastating powers.
+1, this exactly what you should do. This way all the change is really on your end (changing the monsters) Anyone can drop in and play.
And like Istaran hinted at, I would suggest limiting magic items to +1 per tier and finding a way to limit ability score creep, maybe make it cost a feat or just +1 to 2 scores per tier.
I've been thinking about doing something very similar for my next campaign. I also plan to have fairly static hit points based on size not level.
Thus, level really just becomes a mechanic to determine what feats, features and powers a character gets.
@Istaran,
did you and foxface get the chance to try out the ideas? It looks to me that is precisely what I've been musing. However, I can't imagine it is easy to test without a long-term campaign to watch the development of characters over time.
i do want the attribute bumps to represent character growth. It is unfortunate, since I'd like to push level into the realm of defining only player access to increased horizontal empowerment, yet I can think of no other way to easily integrate a bit of character access to vertical growth.
I mean horizontal to describe access to additional powers, feats, and eligibility for items. I mean vertical to describe improved stats that directly lead to more success in accomplishing tasks.
in addition, level often defines resistances which helps PCs ready themselves for more threatening environments and opponents. If the group has too large a level spread, those expectations would necessarily change. It might reduce the treadmill feel of the game becoming harder in accordance with the PC's stats, but could also reduce the chance to enjoy a wildly new location for adventure.
On the other hand, changes to the environmental effects as well as the progression of fantasy creatures could produce a more acceptable tone for planar locations. For Example, the underdark, Shadowfell, and Feywild are great locations for paragon adventures. Yet, when a PC comes from such an origin and starts a career of adventuring as a PC, those nice starter levels are not really appropriate for those locations any-longer; the suspended disbelief in me gets strained to accept that an eladrin, drow, or shadar-kai came from their homeland where they adapted quite well to the dangers and threats, yet as the campaign begins, they are suddenly far too weak to return home.
If the level expectation of location based adventures belonging to certain tiers gets flattened, it becomes less of a chore to explain how a PC comes from a dangerous place at only level 1 as a PC. The environmental effects could be reduced or removed to provide for a group to move anywhere they feel is needed to fulfill a quest.
Next by saying what you describe is not removing levels, but simply levels having less effect.
But now on to the more constructive. I have done similar though I took it much further and redesigned the entire system into something that is compleatly difrent however the root of your issue is that levels impact the game to much.
Simple fix is to remove the 1/2 level from skills and BAB, this limits the pluss to defences and AC to around 10 making it so a lvl 1 char could still hit a lvl 20. maybe cut the damage and HP in half if you think there will b a larger lvl gap.
Over all though reduceing the hit and defence bonus from leveling would make a large difrence in and ov itself in removing much of the effects from leveling
Level doesn't really change anything but:
· What kind of accomplishments you can achive (save the person/town/country/world/universe)
· Class advancements (PPs, EDs)
· Customization (items, feats etc.)
· What monsters can be encountered.
Rest is just variations of the same numbers. The target ac is always 18+level and the target basic attack is always 4+level. Which means you can just as well skip the level bit and say "You have a +4 bonus to hit with melee attacks".
Now I'll go ahead and read the rest of the thread ^^