How much stronger should you become when levelling up?

[Sheikh]

One thing that got me concerned is the latest update which describes the abundance of useful abilities all paladins will have when they start off. This brings me to think of something I like to call variety of scope. Simply one example is, do you become 20% or 200% more powerful when levelling up? If its the latter, theres the bonus of feeling more powerful when playing as your character and if you should ever meet enemies of similar power level to what you combated before your level up, this becomes very obvious and gives you a feeling of satisfaction, although ofcourse to keep the game challenging, more powerful enemies must be put forth eventually.

 

Icewind dale 2 struck a nice balance in this regard, whereas Diablo 2 struck somewhat of an extreme, which is not perhaps bad either. I dont want PE to have any less of it than IWD2, perhaps even a bit more. Including how much more powerful you become when you level up, get a new item, a new spell, a new party memeber, etc etc.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Sheikh

[Sacred_Path]

As a rule, leveling up should never be boring/ inconsequential. Unsurprisingly, most CRPGs fail in this department.

 

In Fallout 1 and 2, the only levels that I cared about were those that netted you a perk. Same for DnD 3+ games.

In AD&D CRPGs, the only levels that were fun to attain were those that unlocked a new spell level; leveling up fighters was completely boring.

 

This is only partly a question of power; arguably, for the level to count it has to impact the character's performance enough to make a difference. But it's more about versatility, about giving the player new options, than making him vastly more powerful. If I get a new ability, active or passive, I can use the character in ways that weren't possible before. If I can raise my stealth skill enough on one level up to turn from passable scout to promising assassin, that's good. If I can raise my bow skill enough for my character to become a passable sniper where before I could only hit things that were in my face, that's good.

 

Bottom line is, I'd rather get 10 levels where each level matters than 30 levels where things only get interesting every third level. I'm ok with diminishing returns though; say, 4-6 levels of bow specialization can turn my blind archer into a master sniper, and on the remaining levels I can only maintain that status.

[motorizer]

I'd like to see new abilities, perks, better critical chance etc...when levelling up rather than a load of extra hitpoints or something.

 

I wouldn't mind if the hitpoint/attributes were static or almost static. Id rather have the levelling up do something noticeable rather than change an arbitrary number which makes no difference to gameplay because they'd only make high level enemies stronger anyway to compensate

[Karkarov]

You should become exactly strong enough to feel like you made progress and gained something, but not strong enough to feel like the enemies you were fighting 2 hours ago are now inconsequential meat you can just steam roll.

[Diagoras]

It's important to also keep narrative sensibilities in mind - the standard D&D power curve results in insane rules that don't mesh with the P:E setting at all. I'd think something more like Epic 6 would be a better model: increase in power for a short time, but mainly leveling providing a increase in capabilities. A pistol shot to the head at close range will kill you like anyone else, but you have new capabilities that other people lack.

[Sheikh]

You should become exactly strong enough to feel like you made progress and gained something, but not strong enough to feel like the enemies you were fighting 2 hours ago are now inconsequential meat you can just steam roll.

I think the optimal choice would be something just between those two extremes you brought out.

[Sensuki]

Leveling up will probably be similar to Pathfinder/D&D4E. Static HP per level (which might be raised by an attribute similar to CON)

 

One new class ability (passive, modal or active) per level.

 

Talents are gained every 3 levels.

 

Accuracy might be +1 every level (or every 2 levels)

 

Defenses might be +1 every 3-4 levels ?

 

You'll gain new skill points

 

And every 5 levels? you might gain a new attribute

[Lephys]

I think the brunt of increases in damage-output-ish effectiveness should come from increases in tactical utility and ability repertoire, rather than passive bonuses.

 

What I mean is, if, at level 1, your attacks do 7 damage with a basic sword, then, at level 10, they don't need to do 50 damage. Why? Because at Level 1, you probably have 1 or 2 active abilities to supplement your "passive" normal-attack damage/frequency. But, at Level 10, you've got probably 7 or 8 different abilities at that point. So, maybe from minor "you're just better 'cause you leveled up" abstracted bonuses and better equipment, your base damage goes from 7 to 10 or 11 or something. But, now you can hit 7 or 8 different enemies with active abilities (or 1 enemy with 7 or 8 active abilities) instead of the 1 or 2 you had before that. And/or, you now have more per-encounter and "infinite ammo" abilities that were previously per-rest.

 

It's kinda like an archer with ammo. Let's say that, at level 1, you only get 3 arrows. Well, at level 10, you might get 20 arrows. So, if it took 3 arrows to kill something at level 1, and at level 10 it takes 20 arrows to kill something, then, boom. You didn't need it to take arrows that do 17 times the damage AND more arrows, both.

 

Plus, you've got factors like armor penetration, etc, that increase the effectiveness of abilities without increasing their base damage. So, a level 10 creature might have 10 more points of armor than a level 1 creature, making it tougher, but maybe you've got abilities that allow you to penetrate armor BETTER, now that you're higher level and a more experienced combatant. Not to mention the better equipment, etc.

 

So, yeah, I'd like to see your power attack maybe do a little more damage per level, because you're simply getting better at using what you know. But, I'd also like to maintain the effectiveness-progression with more than increased base damage. It's pretty much just inflation, at that point. "You have more health now, but the enemies do more damage! But you do more damage, and the enemies have more health! And THIS sword does like 50 damage now, and the sword 5 levels above IT does 100 damage! 8D"

 

I don't think things need to be that steep.

[TrashMan]

Personally? Very little. In terms of raw stats increases.

 

I don't wanna see a HP inflation. No extra HP per level. Only if you spend attributes on CON or feats.

But skills? Yes.

 

The problem with your question is that "strong" is subjective. What is ones "image" of power?

Traditionally it has all been about pumping NUMBERS and getting higher NUMBERS so your NUMBERS are bigger than your opponents NUMBERS.

 

To me that is a very shallow portraly of power. Given that skills/feats increase the tactical applications of a character and his potency in combat, I really don't see the need to overdo it with stats.

 

In other words, tiny increases. I wanna feel more pwoerfull becuase the character is more SKILLED, not because he now has 10000 HP.

[Sensuki]

HP (Amount of Stamina) will probably be similar to the IE games.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Sensuki

[motorizer]

Personally? Very little. In terms of raw stats increases.

 

I don't wanna see a HP inflation. No extra HP per level. Only if you spend attributes on CON or feats.

But skills? Yes.

 

The problem with your question is that "strong" is subjective. What is ones "image" of power?

Traditionally it has all been about pumping NUMBERS and getting higher NUMBERS so your NUMBERS are bigger than your opponents NUMBERS.

 

To me that is a very shallow portraly of power. Given that skills/feats increase the tactical applications of a character and his potency in combat, I really don't see the need to overdo it with stats.

 

In other words, tiny increases. I wanna feel more pwoerfull becuase the character is more SKILLED, not because he now has 10000 HP.

This

[curryinahurry]

I agree with Trashman and others about hit points and relative damage. P:E will hopefully be more granular in leveling than 3.5, and less parabolic in the accruing of power.  

 

I also want to P:E to be balanced so that one on many fighting is always dangerous regardless of level disparity.  If  I'm level 10 I should still have to be very concerned about fighting a level one group of fighters and archers; especially in a clearing where they can flank, kite, etc.  Taking on a group like that should feel like as much of an accomplishment as defeating an Umber Hulk.  

[Sheikh]

I think one problem with having many skills/abilities is if many of them are prebuffs. Prebuffing the crap out of your party is lame and takes a lot of time.

 

Secondly, you could increase the value of having different skills/abilities by increasing the amount of different situations the player comes across as well as the disparity between these situations. So if a situtation leaves you really wishing you had a spell, then getting that spell is satisfying.

 

Other than that I dont see enough room for many different skills/abilities that are functionally different enough to want without crossing over to the realm of another character class.

[TrashMan]

HP isn't stamina.

[Jarmo]

I do want to see a significant progress. And definitely not the all the numbers are getting bigger progress of many RPG's.

 

But let's say a 1st level fighter.

Compared to a standard brigandine wearing brigand. I'd say the fighter shouldn't win that fight, but should win against a rag wearing stick waving looter.

 

Then a 10th level fighter.

I'd expect to wipe the floor with the said brigand, not even break a sweat. I'd expect to have a sporting chance against a whole brigand camp!

But that wouldn't arise from having as much HP as all the brigands combined, that'd come from hitting fast and killing with every strike, while not getting hit much at all.

 

Kind of be up there in skill with the nameless ronin of Yojimbo.

[Sensuki]

HP isn't stamina.

If you were referring to my post you misinterpreted.

 

The values of Health/Stamina will probably be in a similar range to D&D's HP.

[Chippy]

Using specifically BG1 as an example (because I played it almost constantly when it came out before any other IE game) and using a -1/level THACO class, I really appreciated the added chance to hit.  I noticed it.  Perhaps it was the low level enemies, and my brain tends to track the average in stuff like that.  Getting a +1 or 2 weapon was significant, and the added star in each prof was noticeable.

 

Again, maybe it was the type of enemies encountered and the layout of the game, but I've yet to see that sense of gradual fighter progression duplicated.  TOEE did a great job, but as with other games it was hard to tell becasue one minute you were fighting skeletons, and possible a few hours later much higher AC enemies - which was also great, but not specific to this reply.

[TrashMan]

Numbers should be huge advantage.

I don't care if you're lvl 99. If 100 lvl pesants attack you , they should MURDER you.

 

 

There 's one other reason why I advocate small difference and normalization fo power - it makes exploration more viable. It means that with a bit of luck and skill, even early on you could tackle some more difficult encounters.

[Failion]

Numbers should be huge advantage.

I don't care if you're lvl 99. If 100 lvl pesants attack you , they should MURDER you.

 

 

There 's one other reason why I advocate small difference and normalization fo power - it makes exploration more viable. It means that with a bit of luck and skill, even early on you could tackle some more difficult encounters.

Idk man I heard a armored horsed medieval knight can take on 50 peasants. Personally I liked 2nd dnd handled it. Your attacks more easier to land as you level and you can have more. I think this system is best for tactical gameplay. You can give a class dozens of abilities to use and focus on balancing them then having to worry about balancing stats like strength, constitution etc, and how they are scaling. Dragon age origins failed miserably how they handled stats, At later levels practically every stat became a dump stat. The only useful one was the classes primary one.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Failion

[Utukka]

One thing that got me concerned is the latest update which describes the abundance of useful abilities all paladins will have when they start off. This brings me to think of something I like to call variety of scope. Simply one example is, do you become 20% or 200% more powerful when levelling up? If its the latter, theres the bonus of feeling more powerful when playing as your character and if you should ever meet enemies of similar power level to what you combated before your level up, this becomes very obvious and gives you a feeling of satisfaction, although ofcourse to keep the game challenging, more powerful enemies must be put forth eventually.

 

Icewind dale 2 struck a nice balance in this regard, whereas Diablo 2 struck somewhat of an extreme, which is not perhaps bad either. I dont want PE to have any less of it than IWD2, perhaps even a bit more. Including how much more powerful you become when you level up, get a new item, a new spell, a new party memeber, etc etc.

Diablo 2 did increase quite a bit but consider this....you went from level 1 to 99 and is quite different than BG or IWD. What you think of Diablo 3 and that ridiculousness?

 

As for power level...I would love for it to be similar to BG/BG2. Absolutely loved that series. Loved D1/D2 also but again, bit different in my mind.

[rjshae]

If your character's overall capabilities improved by an average of 15% every level, then you would double your capability every 5 levels. I'm guessing that's roughly the improvement rate in D&D when you take into account BAB, hit points, saves, skills, feats, special abilities, and equipment. Of course, magic is the exception to the formula.

[TrashMan]

15% on each level? Too much.

 

You should start as someoen who already has some skill, not a incompetnt n00b. Regardless, there's a very finite amount of just how much better one can be than another human being.

[Jarmo]

No. Even realistically you can be a lot better than another human being in whatever you do.

 

If you take up weightlifting, a normal person can double or triple the amount he can lift.

Take something like archery, go to range and compare your scores to that of a master archer.

Go to the ring with the world heavyweight boxing champion and as someone to estimate how percentage he's better than you.

 

And that's even without anyone clubbing 1700 people to death with cruel pointy things and sucking out their life experience in some magical fashion.

[rjshae]

15% on each level? Too much.

 

You should start as someoen who already has some skill, not a incompetnt n00b. Regardless, there's a very finite amount of just how much better one can be than another human being.

 

I don't think so.. As an example: a 3.5e D&D fighter going from level 5 to level 6 gets a +1 BAB increase on top of their existing +5. That's roughly a +20% improvement in the combat department. The hit points increase by a comparable proportion; other capabilities perhaps not as much. I'm just saying why not use an exponential improvement scheme?

Edited June 27, 2013 by rjshae

[rjshae]

No. Even realistically you can be a lot better than another human being in whatever you do.

 

If you take up weightlifting, a normal person can double or triple the amount he can lift.

Take something like archery, go to range and compare your scores to that of a master archer.

Go to the ring with the world heavyweight boxing champion and as someone to estimate how percentage he's better than you.

 

And that's even without anyone clubbing 1700 people to death with cruel pointy things and sucking out their life experience in some magical fashion.

 

There are other ways to measure such things. Can that world heavyweight boxing champion simultaneously take on sixteen decently capable boxers, say, four at a time? He might take down half of them but eventually he's going to succumb to all the pounding.