Should "levels" be a universal measure of power (i.e. a level 1 knight is on par with a level 1 dragon), or are they a representation of individual starting power and potential (i.e. a level 1 dragon is equivalent to a level 10 knight, etc)?
Levels
Should "levels" be a universal measure of power (i.e. a level 1 knight is on par with a level 1 dragon), or are they a representation of individual starting power and potential (i.e. a level 1 dragon is equivalent to a level 10 knight, etc)?
it's a genuine question, if it's the latter it makes you wonder why some systems even use levels in the first place.
It's the latter.
clearly not everyone agrees, it's not as clean-cut as you think.
First post best post
yeah we need more no-games coomerbait instead of actual discussions of game mechanics
If your TTRPG has a level scheme, it generally works out better to have all uses of it share a single numeric track, unless you have routine use of multiple such tracks per-entity. This is because it lets you apply game rules directly to this objective level scale so that you don't have to wrangle fiddly conversion issues. I direct you to the innumerable arguments about 3.5 effective character levels and the UA Bloodline rules being a complete dumpster fire for a case study in different level-qualifying things having different properties sending mechanics careening off a cliff.
That said, some uses of levels will almost inevitably be worth more than others, even if it's a summation of non-level-based progression mechanics, but the closer you get to consistency the cleaner level-querying mechanics will be.
I prefer the latter, personally. A level 1 dragon should start off as much better than a level 1 human anything. I would also argue attempting to balance humans and dragons (if both are playable) would miss the point of having dragons in the first place.
Not if the dragon's superiority touches level-based mechanics where being "level 1" is a significant disadvantage, because that can very easily spiral out into a clusterfrick of special cases. Just make the advantage be a matter of starting at a higher level so that extending mechanics in this direction doesn't cause you to bash your head into backfilling appropriately or fricking up the point by forgetting something.
>Not if the dragon's superiority touches level-based mechanics where being "level 1" is a significant disadvantage
Then don't use those mechanics or play a system without them. A dragon isn't going to play like a human anyways.
I don't think balance would necessarily be a big issue in the first scenario as long as monsters have a static level, or a lower level fluctuation.
for instance, all dragons could be considered "level 10", or a different level depending on type, age, etc, but you don't necessarily need to have a dragon for each level. I like this option because you can instantly tell how strong a monster is in regards to other monsters or character classes just by looking at the level.
the second scenario on the other hand only tells you about the creature in regards to itself, and otherwise gives you no basis for gauging its strength. like sure, that's a level 20 ghost, but maybe level 1 ghosts are weak as frick or something.
there should not be a "level 1" dragon. Dragons should just start as higher level, simple as.
Levels are a game mechanic not an in-universe thing, therefore it makes more sense to have the levels be equal across all creatures with stats.
And even where they interface with the "lore" like in Xianxia or LitRPG settings, it's still helpful to write them up as a single consistent approximate scale for the game mechanics so that you can avoid conversion awkwardness.
>therefore it makes more sense to have the levels be equal across all creatures with stats.
No it doesn't. Every time you level up your character advances a little, so your number of levels are a measure of how many times your character has learned new skills. It has nothing to do with how good your starting stats are. So a new dragon should start at level 1 like any other character (unless you're playing a high level one).
The former. It's just better for the sake of game clarity if the level is a more general metric for gauging power level.
If it's the case where one wouldn't want a setting where knights can be as strong as dragons, or the weakest dragon is on par with a veteran knight, then you simply introduce level caps and floors. Knights can only go up to level 5. Dragons don't have stats below level 10.
Whatever the case may be, that sends out a clear message about what the intended power of a level 10 dragon is.
Ideally, levels would be fairly universal indication things are supposed to go together. A level 1 dragon isn't necessarily equal to a level 1 knight, but its numbers should at least be sane and compatible with the knight.
I don't care what level someone is, they should never be totally on par with a dragon or certain other monsters even if their levels match. One of the few things I agreed with in certain MMO video games was there being sometimes a distinction between enemies of a certain level designed to be soloed, vs designed for a small group, vs designed for full group, or an entire raid of 20 - 40+ people that are the same level as the dragon.
so, levels as an individual gauge? maybe a further separation between playable humanoids and monsters?
also, what's the difference between 40 level 1 knights vs 1 level 40 monster? wouldn't they technically fit the same power gauge? or does teamwork factor in general power level?
D&D 4e did this and it was shit.
4e had a lot of good concepts that suffered from them trying to fit everything into the same exact framework.
Filtered.
If a Level 1 X and a Level 1 Y have radically different power levels and are not directly comparable, then the measurement of levels is worthless and should be overhauled until it is. I don't fricking care if your malformed autistic sense of what a proper fantasy system tells you otherwise because you've been huffing WotC farts for 20 years.
>Should "levels" be a universal measure of power
This.
Though unless a hatchling or something, a dragon shouldn't start at Level 1. They are monsters, not player characters. It's more effective to have the GM be able to judge how strong an opponent will be against a player group.
A better example would be a knight vs a mage. both are playable characters. What's the point in even having a level system if the mage is umpteen times more powerful than a knight at the same level. Instead, levels should be roughly representative of effectiveness in a party, and XP requirements to level up should scale accordingly.
The 1-20 level system is shit. I think a better gauge of power and what sort of game you would want to run would be something like a tier system.
In this set up, none of your class abilities are locked behind levels and you can develop sideways by either adding more stuff via feats or buffing what you already have.
The Different tiers would add extra stuff or extra functionality that is of appropriate power for that "tier" so you can succinctly set a power level for the game you want to run.
Mostly I just hate that the entirety of my class is hidden behind levels I may never actually obtain in game and their power doesn't always warrant being where they are.
just don't factor horizontal improvement as a measure of general strength. you can't hold a power tier system if you're comparing, for instance, a fighter who maxed regular attacks and defense vs one who knows many techniques and miscellaneous skills at the weakest level.
you don't need to lock skills to higher levels, but you still need some sort of guarantee that character advancement won't leave some characters far weaker than others because they chose to upgrade horizontally instead of vertically. like maybe all fighters get better at fighting but you also get a skill point per level to dump in weird techniques and unique quirks.
You mean levels with less granularity
Levels are a gauge of experience, with most mortals capping at 5 which is a lifetime's worth in most cases.
Traditionally in most D&D, level isn't given unless an encounter explicitly has class levels, because that kind of thing leads to endless nitpicking trying to figure out how to make what by all rights is at most a level 2 fighter a challenge to a level 10 party, though level adjustment for monster PCs implies what the level of their respective encounter is.
most moronic thread on the board
Levels indicate the power within a particular class or race and outside of computer games like World of Warcraft, do not usually relate to different classes or races in most RPGs. A level 1 (inexperienced adult) tiger or dragon in most rpgs is usually way more powerful than a level one sheep or fly. Look at the real world and see how most creatures are 'imbalanced', because they have evolved to prey on those weaker than them.
Also, if you did try to level everything, how would you take into account different abilities, prefered environments, etc? How would you account for a level 5 shark being a certain power in water, but easily defeated by a level 5 fisherman on land? How about a level 5 rogue in an alley at night behind a level 5 fighter? How about the tow figthing in a dual in an arena? Because of this, levels in RPGs tend to only reflect power within that class or species and are not relatable. 5e tries to with it's 'balanced' encounter approach (similar to computer games), but it rarely works as it doesnt take into account all the variables of race, class, ability, favoured environment and player innovation.
>DUDE WHAT IF THE SHARK MONSTER IS A BLIND DEFORMED SHARK FETUS WITH AIDS, AND YOU FIGHT IT IN SPACE??
damn dude I guess balance is a myth
You are entirely moronic.
Haven't you ever played 3.5? In that game, a creature like a tiger or shark is going to be level (hit die) 6-8 by default. A level 1 tiger would be a tiny cub.
Does that work for all creatures? A level one mage is a baby sitting in a pointy hat? How well would a human baby do in a fight against a cub tiger or baby elephant do you think? How well would a fly laevea do against a human baby?
Why would you default to assuming that Level 1 = Baby?
...The point is that the tiger cub is approximately worth comparing to 1st-level mostly-young-adult PCs. While CR 1 might be a bit of a stretch (not as much as you'd think), a full HD instead of fractional isn't.
Level 1 is as strong as a level 1 player.
Anything that's not a player is "leveled" according to how strong it is compared to a player.
If levels measure overt power and are recognize in-world then it needs to be pretty broad strokes. Class advancement should exist as a concept in-world, but not levels, if we weren't playing a game then no one would ever "gain a level" they would just get incrementally better over time.
>fighter wakes up
>"damn I can attack twice as fast now"
>wizard wakes up
>"wtf I just learned 2 more spells"
levels are moronic
he doesn't just "wake up" moron he learns that shit in the downtime between encounters.
then just make them learn through direct practice and study. the "assume you're developing your skills every time you're doing nothing" is a nice theory but in practice it isn't a guarantee you're getting any time off aside from MAYBE (also not a requirement) rests, which you share with sleeping, resting, keeping watch, general roleplaying, etc.
Wizards do that too.
nothing in my post says it doesn't
yes but you're acting like here's a couple free, vs the gold and time spent on learning from other scrolls and books doesn't exist.
levels don't require any of that, you literally just get auto-upgraded once you reach a certain XP threshold. the fact that there are other options to learn new stuff is irrelevant to the point. in fact, those are good templates to how most progression should look like.
but the level is just general survivability, it provides a shorthand for increases to keep the game flowing. Mechanically it's the same for Wizard 1 and Wizard 2. Narratively it's up to Wizard 1 and 2 to decide if it is magics coming under their control, strengthening body and mind or exposure to artifacts or that bath in dragon piss or just simply a eureka moment on magics they've been pondering on.
so yeah
>players do in the downtime between encounters
not in 5e, no, this is not a requirement.
>In practice when you complete one adventure there's a good deal time until the next
yet you instantly level up the moment you get the exp, which usually happens as soon as the adventure ends, not during the downtime you get after that. you can literally spend the entire level range fighting and you still get the level up, even if you don't rest, milestone or not.
>idk just make it up how you got those skills lol
nice RPG ruleset you got there
>so yeah
forgot to finish the sentence:
so yeah, you can literally make anything up or nothing at all, because there are no required rules for how level progression works except "you get the EXP so you level up I guess".
You get levels after completing an adventure or an encounter at which point there's plenty of time to come up with an ingame explanation for how you learned your new skill the fact that you think ttrpgs work like a video game or you have a group that can't roleplay doesn't change how they actually work.
>what is an XP point
>what is(/are) Challenge (Ratings)
>what is monster level
Ironic for you to call somebody else nogames when you ignore that discrete progression mechanics are in fact a thing in LITERALLY every edition of D&D. Maybe D&DOne will move to milestone as default, but it isn't out yet.
>discrete progression mechanics
Monsters dont progress. They have fixed CRs that can be adjusted by the DM via removal or adding of powers and abilities. There is no leveling for monsters.
Only PCs engage with the leveling system. There is no level 1 dragon, there is only the CR 1 Dragon Wyrmling, which only means its a fair fight for a level 1 party of 4 adventurers.
Now if we were talking about PF2e, where monsters use level, even then the monster isnt actually that level. Instead, its merely the same CR system relabeled. So a level 1 dragon in PF2e is just a fair fight for party of four level 2 adventurers
See
>You get levels
The point being responded to was rather explicitly in relation to progression itself. Not the grading of the monsters, but the improvement of the players.
>then just make them learn through direct practice and study.
which players do in the downtime between encounters
>the "assume you're developing your skills every time you're doing nothing" is a nice theory but in practice it isn't a guarantee you're getting any time off aside from MAYBE (also not a requirement) rests, which you share with sleeping, resting, keeping watch, general roleplaying, etc.
In practice when you complete one adventure there's a good deal time until the next.
Back in the TSR days, the "expected" rules had whole weeks of downtime for
The problem is that this leaves the dragon with only one level to lose, so it dies instantly facing spiritual damage that causes level loss. Whereas under 3.X's fallback to RHD directly correlates its survivability with levels available to drain, at the "cost" of setting its effective level appropriately.
Then you're insisting on difference for difference's sake, at the knowing expense of mechanical depth and simplicity? Because you can do A LOT of things more easily with a shared level scale. Even if there's no overt mechanics referencing it, it'll still be useful for encounter-building.
>another episode of inane question that's an excuse to post a slop image
I miss when it was just soft core porn
i think this is an interresting topic actually.
Some games do it that way, 4e kinda does it but it sitll differentiates between monsters and PCs very hard.
3.5 does some thing with monster PCs having level adjustments because they start stronger
Level means power level. There is no such thing as a level 1 dragon unless you mean the egg. Dragons simply start life at the level most adult humanoids cant even imagine, etc.
>Should "levels" be a universal measure of power (i.e. a level 1 knight is on par with a level 1 dragon), or are they a representation of individual starting power and potential (i.e. a level 1 dragon is equivalent to a level 10 knight, etc)?
Also how should gear an equipment work? Should an unarmed level 10 human be as strong as a level 10 knight in full armor?
Should a knight lose levels when he takes off his armor?
Human and Knight aren't classes. Is the Unarmed human a fighter? A monk? Are they being denied some presumed aspect of their abilities that got them to level 10 in the first place? Because what you're asking isn't a smart question.
>If a guy who has been weakened or denied strength on par with someone fully equipped?????
Fricking moronic. Do you even play any RPGs?
not him but his question is entirely reasonable and nothing you said debunks his points in any way.
>weakened or denied his strength
even if you're assuming a character's level takes into consideration a standard set of equipment, his point still stands.
his idea that level might fluctuate depending on equipment makes complete sense, because a level 10 knight with regular weapons is undeniably weaker than the same level 10 knight with god-level equipment. and if they're not, it's because those levels factor in equipment and therefore, while wearing the same gear, the first knight would be far stronger than the latter. this is the question he is proposing, it's like you missed the point entirely.
This only makes sense if you assume the level needs to cover EVERYTHING the character mechanically "has", rather than just their internal/assured capabilities. Which is bullshit under very nearly any system because it is not far from here at all to end up having your "level" reduced by a wide variety of random short-term debuffs.
The core purpose of the typical D&D-based level system is to represent the "grade" of attainment in a given sphere, such as a 6th-level Wizard having reached the 6th general "stage" of accomplishment as a Wizard. To bundle external growth anyone can pick up into THAT style of "level' is virtually impossible in such systems, hence gold-for-XP and wealth-by-level being one-way relations.
It would require either a very strange flavor of gamist system where the in-universe and experiential factors are ignored to make "level" as binding as possible, or an unusual kind of narrativism using this to tie loss of gear as stakes to clear mechanical signals. Neither will particularly well resemble what people think of by "levels", because of the thoroughness of the convention that gear on-hand is tangential to the XP track.
Level is not tied to equipment, but basic equipment is so assumed that it is given for free as part of every level 1 character's creation process. Take the wheels off a car and it goes much less fast, but that doesn't mean it isn't capable of going fast if you use it correctly and as intended.
so by all intents and purposes it does count, then. I have no problem with the idea that it's expected of a fighter to have at least an average or standard weapon and armor, but I would also see nothing wrong if a system did tie equipment to level in some way. it's easier to see this if you apply it to monsters/enemies since their levels would ideally need to represent a more tangible level of threat, i.e. you wouldn't stat a goblin npc as level 1 and then have him decimate the level 5 party because "oh well he's wearing armor that ups his stats by 1000%".
I'm just saying this logic makes sense, not that this would be my ideal way of handling a game.
>so by all intents and purposes it does count, then
It's an exception that proves the rule. A level 10 character doesn't lose levels because his hands are tied behind his back. You don't count a CR20 monster as being several levels weaker if you find it sleeping. A wizard isn't considered to be a different level if he's used all his spells for the day. That's just not how it works.
>It's an exception that proves the rule
are you talking about knights being expected to wear armor? how is that an "exception" and what rule does it prove?
>That's just not how it works
my point is that it would make sense if it did in regards to armor and other equipment, because are taken under consideration by default. you keep making up scenarios where characters are gimped because of specific conditions or because they've exhausted their resources but that's not what we're talking about, and you completely ignored my example where monsters would absolutely fall under level reduction or increase depending on what equipment they have access to, even in something like D&D.
>how is that an "exception" and what rule does it prove?
Because going out of your way to put a character in a specifically disadvantageous position is not reflective of the way levels and character power actually works. I don't know how many more ways to explain it to you. If you deny a character any way to use the tools associated with their abilities, it doesn't mean they aren't whatever level they are, it just means they've been debuffed or otherwise put at a disadvantage.
We fundamentally agree, but you're coming to the conclusion that a character's level should change or be considered lower if they are disarmed. Monsters are different because they aren't built like player characters. They are built specifically in relation to the estimated power player characters are expected to have based on level.
If you take a monster's stat block and remove several of their abilities which are used to calculate their CR, that only means you've lowered their CR by making them a weaker challenge. Kill a CR 10 monster, but you've otherwise disabled all its attack options, doesn't meant it's suddenly a CR 5 monster worth less XP, but at the same time, if you drop an armless, legless, blind-deaf-and-dumb CR20 dragon in front of them, you have neutered the intended challenge and they should not be awarded XP for killing it.
listen man we're arguing in circles here, to break down my only point is that I wouldn't be mad if for instance a system came out with a universal level system that was a combination of a character's stats, abilities and equipment, much like we already do with monster threat level, and I wouldn't consider this system "moronic" on principle.
if balanced correctly, it could come with its own benefits, like a more precise way of measuring power between same level characters who get broken magic items and those who get nothing. it's even in spirit with "competitive" D&D of old, even if that's not the goal. it's all theory of course and I'm not proposing anything as an overhaul of how it should be done by systems everywhere, nor am I saying every possible condition and scenario should dictate level, I'm simply open the idea proposed at the start of this reply chain.
>Should an unarmed level 10 human be as strong as a level 10 knight in full armor?
yeah, unless they both have the same abilities and one happens to be missing his armor
>/slop/ image
>shouldshouldshouldshould turkey
>no system
Yes, levels should be a universal measure of power. We're talking about a game here. Having levels for non-playable monsters only serves the purpose of making it easier for a GM to run encounters.
Although, by this metric, there would never be a level 1 dragon. Maybe if it's a hatchling or something.
This picture is literally Dark Souls levelling.
>LEVEL 1
Basic b***h knight wearing the default set
>LEVEL 21
He's found the Way of the Dragon covenant and can now transform into a furry to dunk on basic b***h knights
>LEVEL 100
Has mastered the convoluted flow of time and is wearing Chester's set from the past.
A level 1 dragon should be about the size of a raven (lizard logic, since they crawl out of their eggs fully formed, and get bigger as they get older) and should be about on par with level 1 anything else.
Depends on the game. Implying that an abstract mechanic like "levels" should be universal across all board games and RPGS is the kind of thing only a nogames troll would do. But if that were the case, that would mean everyone in this thread is only pretending to discuss game mechanics when what they're really doing is seething and shitposting.
...uh oh!
The use of "universal" is clearly contextualized as "applying to all in-game entities", not "applying to entities across all games". As in, is it better for levels to be relative to the entity's kind or objective between kinds of entity.
>Depends on the game
>"mages are fricking dumb"
>"WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "MAGES"? WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "DUMB"? WHAT SYSTEM? DEPENDS ON THE GAME!"
holy autism
>But if that were the case, that would mean everyone in this thread is only pretending to discuss game mechanics when what they're really doing is seething and shitposting.
Uh oh!
nice headcanon, try reading the thread.
If we take levels as a starting point then no, levels should be different. A level 1 human compared to a level 1 dragon would be nonsense, a dragon at its most basic level will always be much stronger than the average human. You'd have to start having creatures who start well above level 1, making the concept of a level meaningless, or negative levels, which are just moronic.
>You'd have to start having creatures who start well above level 1, making the concept of a level meaningless
Do we need to take levels as a starting point?
how are creatures starting above level 1 "meaningless"? there's no clearer way to gauge power level, so if you don't want to have low level dragons just bump them up to the next tier.
>negative levels
presumingly, everything below 1st level has a negligible power level. you don't need to gauge the power of a human baby or a farmer, depending on where level 1 starts.