How much stronger should you become when levelling up?

[Gfted1]

As we know from old Kung Fu movies, that's not how it works. The numerous mooks will patiently wait and attack one at a time until they are all defeated.

 

Seriously though, I want to be tangibly stronger with each level up and I don't have a problem with one hero being able to dispatch many enemies at a time. This isn't the real world, its fantasy.

[Jarmo]

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.

 

 

I suppose not. But what kind of skill difference would succeeding in that require and what constitutes a decently capable?

 

My way of thinking would be that a world champion should be, levelwise, in single digits, real good but not above human standards.

A high level adventurers would start breaking those barriers of what's humanly possible.

 

So.. would a 6th level fighter beat 16 of 2nd or 3rd level fighters going 4 at a time? I wouldn't think so,

I'd say the fighter would have better odds than the boxer though. 

 

 

Guess the real question is:

How many low level opponents should the best swordsman in PE world be able to face (and win instead of dying horribly) at one time.

 

Is the answer 2 and he's overpowered facing 3 at a time? Or will he kill 300 spartans without breaking a sweat.

 

I'm suggesting a real world scenario, where a heavyweight champion meets 5 muggers (no knives of guns) in an alleyway.

I'd guess the boxer would have a decent chance of getting away victorious. But I'm not sure, havent tried it, no combat experience.

 

I'm further suggesting the fantasy game champion should have way higher level of capability than the best human in real life.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Jarmo

[rjshae]

I'm further suggesting the fantasy game champion should have way higher level of capability than the best human in real life.

 

Pretty much. If they were building a realistic, real-world, modern-day simulation then the advancement rate should probably be slower.

[lolaldanee]

i'd like to get only slightly stronger with levelups, but to get a ****load of new skills, that aren't always stronger than the old ones, but more diverse

[motorizer]

There is only one world heavyweight boxing champion (per sanctioning body...perhaps that's a bad example )

and no matter how much practice most people get, they will never get there.

I don't want to automatically end up as the most powerful person in the world as in skyrim etc... I think I'd actually enjoy the game more if there were characters/creatures who could easily beat me., that would make me think more about strategy and planning

 

I'd like it if a person was just a person...set health..minor stamina upgrades with fitness..and most of the gains in levelling up came from increased skills and perks

 

If you start the game as a weakling with 3 strength, it would be stupid if you could somehow become stronger than everyone else by levelling up

[Falkon Swiftblade]

For me the balance comes from a combination of useful ability's and how powerful each one is. I could care less how hard I hit versus knowing I have 3-5 ways to attack someone because I know I'll find better loot that will do damage. I think the best designs offer a variety of tactical advantages and play styles. If I have to play through and swing the same way as a default attack the whole game no matter what kind of weapon I wield as I level up then I feel like the developers failed in some way. I think power upon level up should scale in not only ability's and damage or buff, but in animations as well. 

 

I proposed a technique in the Kickstarter that would allow your stats to affect your hero's animations. So the higher your dexterity for example the more graceful they ran or their fighting style. Nothing blatantly game breaking, but someone with a very low dexterity may drag behind the rest of the party regardless of his tactical position or rank you have him set as. The more your intel or whatever magic skill would have more exaggerated movements. Further, alignment may make them seem more agressive. These all would gradually change as you level up or equip items to help show character advancement.

I don't think it's unreasonable in games like this to start off with several ability's. In these games it's not like you are a blank slate. You pick your class before you start. If you were a Dr. you still have to go to school to be a Dr. but you still know all the stuff the underlings know. Over time you may specialize in brain surgery  but starting out you still know a lot about medicine. If anything I think it makes more sense someone might know a little about a lot of things, then over time they would specialize in one or two areas. You would choose what those would be. Not all Dr.s do the same thing if you get my analogy.

 

[Jarmo]

There is only one world heavyweight boxing champion (per sanctioning body...perhaps that's a bad example )

 

That is, but that's still something that's humanly possible, so I was just using it as a benchmark to something after which you're definitely moving to fantasy.

Or to put it in another way, if a normal pretty strong guy (say STR 10) can lift 100 kg, I'm sure he can lift 200 kg (STR 20) after a couple of years of weightlifting practice.

 

But I'd be all ok if he'd put all possible stats into STR during the game and took strong back and impressive physique feats or whatever, he'd be lifting 500 kg by the game end.

 

Now if PE is going to be low fantasy game, I'm fine with the party and characters remaining within the same limits as other members of society,

so by the game end, the protagonist would still get kicked all over the place by the kings champion knight.

 

But if it's a high fantasy OMG the demon lord is attacking the capitol hill, you have to stop it ... then I'd rather not hear them continuing with

... or else we'll have to send in town militia, because they're all way more powerful and skilled than your ragtag bunch of meatshields.

[Lephys]

This isn't a debate about whether to adhere PURELY to reality, or to stray from it and enter the realm of fantasy.

 

I don't mind fantasy, but, if in the world, there are people who work as blacksmiths all day every day, and they're 45 years old, and they have a Strength of 20, and your character has the potential to gain 10 points of Strength over the course of his adventure (which could, but most likely doesn't, involve as much as the 30-or-so years of constant, every-day blacksmithing that blacksmith has been laboring through) when he started with 20 Strength, that doesn't make any sense. The fantasy world, itself, is declaring that inconsistent and unbelievable, not reality.

 

Not to mention the other problem: Sure, Strength changes a bit over time, but other attributes pretty much don't (not once you're a functional adult), like Intelligence, or Dexterity, or Perception, for that matter. At the very least, they DEFINITELY are not as prone to change as something like Strength or Endurance, by any stretch of the imagination. And if you are actually claiming to be modeling all those potential changes, then you're stepping more closely to a simulation of reality than you are by just leaving them static, in a way.

 

I'm not saying any of this to say "WE CAN'T HAVE ANY ABSTRACTION OF STAT PROGRESSION, WHATSOEVER! STICK TO REALITY!" But it's valuable to consider when deciding how far we can feasibly stray before reality doesn't even function as a basis for this fantasy world any longer.

 

Plus, like I said, there's the whole "what exactly are we representing with these stats?" aspect to consider. If you're representing inherent, static values of potential in a person (i.e. You have 20 Strength, even when you're a newborn, but that just means you're at the peak of newborn strength at that time, as compared to other newborns. When you're 6, you're stronger than all other 6-year-old boys, but still weaker than adults with even lower strength. When you're an adult, you're among the strongest adult people in the world), then having these things increase at all is a bit contrary to their very design. If you're simply representing the exact rating of a given attribute at a given point in time within a given set of circumstances (i.e. as a 6-year-old boy, you have maybe 5 Strength. At age 10, you have 8. At age 14, you have 15. At age 19, you have 20), then you're now dealing with a plethora of possible effects and changes upon this value, beyond just "oh, you've developed some, so you get to pick a point."

 

I think the main reason the pick-a-point-every-so-many-levels system was implemented was simply to provide a means of progression for the groupings of factors that the stats affect. There are other ways to handle this, in the game, without providing the overkill progression of a character's core aptitude in a fantasy world.

[Jarmo]

Well I agree if the stat scores represent potential, then they probably should remain largely what they are. That's not how I see it though.

 

But as for the other arguments, no.

And yes, if we take D&D scores and 18 is the most dexterous anyone can naturally be, then I'd still be all happy to see the score go higher with XP or other things.

Maybe someone learns a new way to train acrobatics and gains up to 20 and maybe you can do it just by adventuring.

 

I'd be willing to accept a cap of some kind, if necessary. Say... 20 (or 24) is the highest anyone can ever be.

But that'd not be necessary for me, I'm happy to see adventurers go beyond normal abilities, so a characters in the teen levels would be above everybody else.

 

Now depending on how the world is built, there might or might not be other people of similar levels and stat levels.

Maybe the kings champions or high priests would be higher still, completely outclassing all common people.

 

There now, I think I've stated my position now as well as I can.

I understand the position of those who want lesser and those who want higher stat progression.

There's no winning where it's all down to opinions, even if my opinion is clearly the most correct one.

[Lephys]

There's no winning where it's all down to opinions, even if my opinion is clearly the most correct one.

There's never any winning in a discussion. That's not what they're about.

 

Mutually-heightened understanding, however...

[Kjaamor]

I think the IE D&D games had a nice progression in this regard. Big enough boosts to make you excited, some levels providing more rewards than others. Somewhere in that ballpark is fine for me.

 

As a mild tangent from the initial post, can we level up as individuals rather than as a party? Recently been playing NWN2 and complaint number 57 with that game is the way everyone levels up at once. Aside from it being nice to spread out the joy of levelling, it's also nice when a mage levels and suddenly becomes much more key to the party than he was ten minutes ago.

[jamoecw]

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.

yojimbo couldn't beat too many people at once, he had to use tricks and tactics in order to beat superior numbers, if two people attacked him and he relied on just speed and such to win he probably would win, but 3 was pushing it, 4 was out of his league for sure, yet he was able to take on a whole town full of bandits, and beat them all.

 

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.

it is less for the most part, there are certain levels of certain classes that gained a huge boost to power, easily doubling in the right circumstance.  it is widely considered a failing point of DnD (hence pathfinder).

 

 

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.

 

 

I suppose not. But what kind of skill difference would succeeding in that require and what constitutes a decently capable?

 

My way of thinking would be that a world champion should be, levelwise, in single digits, real good but not above human standards.

A high level adventurers would start breaking those barriers of what's humanly possible.

 

So.. would a 6th level fighter beat 16 of 2nd or 3rd level fighters going 4 at a time? I wouldn't think so,

I'd say the fighter would have better odds than the boxer though. 

 

 

Guess the real question is:

How many low level opponents should the best swordsman in PE world be able to face (and win instead of dying horribly) at one time.

 

Is the answer 2 and he's overpowered facing 3 at a time? Or will he kill 300 spartans without breaking a sweat.

 

I'm suggesting a real world scenario, where a heavyweight champion meets 5 muggers (no knives of guns) in an alleyway.

I'd guess the boxer would have a decent chance of getting away victorious. But I'm not sure, havent tried it, no combat experience.

 

I'm further suggesting the fantasy game champion should have way higher level of capability than the best human in real life.

 

in real life a special forces unit can take on any number of opponents, the question isn't numbers, but force density.  if you need to reach a certain spot and the enemy have formed a low density line through a city, you could fire a burst, knowing that they will suppress and maneuver around to flank you.  instead of staying put after the first shot, you pull back and circle around to hit the forces shifting positions to cover the new gap you can win easily and quickly, then proceed to suppress and move through the gap, then you can move quickly to either reach a new position or to reach your objective.  if you had to kill everyone, you would reposition to ambush the forces trying to keep you from reaching whatever they think you are going after.

 

if everytime you level up you get some new way of doing something you could feel like you double in power every time you level up, while only gaining 10%.  think of it like a lvl 5 fighter using a sword and shield gaining the ability to shield bash to stun his opponent very briefly, now if he faces an opponent that uses agility in conjunction with armour to keep from getting damaged you can shield bash him which isn't diminished by armour, which stuns (removes dex to AC) long enough for you to get in a good hit with your sword, almost like you were much better at swinging a sword, but instead you just had a different option up your sleeve against that type of opponent.  against a light and nimble thief it wouldn't really be all that helpful (low chance to hit), so you are just 10% better upon leveling up against that opponent, unless you pick an ability like grapple or something.  so sorta like the ranger's favored enemy thing, but specific to an enemy per se, just something to alter the tactical situation.

[ravenshrike]

For all the people wanting minor increases, please remember that this is high fantasy where the amount you are in tune with your soul directly effects how badass you are and how much cool **** you can do and punishment you can take. It ain't Iron Kingdoms or Warhammer RPG.

 

 

 

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?

 

After about level 3 in D20 it makes much more sense to compare against the dice in question. So every 4 levels the barbarian, fighter, ranger, and paladin  gains 20% to hit; monks, rogues, clerics, and bards 15%; and Sorcs and Wizards 10%. This doesn't include their other abilities of course, but still.

Edited June 30, 2013 by ravenshrike

[JFSOCC]

Ideally, levelling up should make you only marginally stronger, but offer you more ways to solve problems.

 

So fighter level 1: 10 Awesomepoints and can fight an enemy in fair melee

Fighter level 2: 10.5 awesomepoints and can fight an enemy in fair melee, or alternatively can kick at his shins, dealing less damage, but affecting his opponent's running speed.

He's marginally stronger, but he's gotten another way to solve problems.

 

The challenge is only marginally easier to overcome for an unskilled player, but a skilled player will make the best of his new options.

[Lephys]

I think a main consideration here is that betterment isn't restricted to raw power. A Wizard can learn a new spell that's significantly LESS powerful than his previous repertoire, and it can still make him a much more effective Wizard.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I want the designers to decide what is best for their game, in regards to the power increase upon leveling. However, I would prefer for it to be reasonably consistent, so that going from level 1 to 2 is roughly the same amount of change from level 20 to 21. IMO, it seems that high-level level-ups blur together in a lot of games, and aren't as interesting/exciting as low-level level-ups.

[Sensuki]

Josh stated that they have intentionally designed leveling up to feel chunkier.

 

The advancement system they are designing is completely homogeneous besides the style of abilities that classes get (passive, modal or active). Since all classes will have equally increasing accuracy and defenses it makes the most sense to increase accuracy and defenses at a similar rate, if not at exactly the same rate and interval.

 

From what we already know

 

The level cap will be between 10-12

Three class abilities at level 1 and one per level thereafter (not sure whether they are automatic or 'choose from a pool')

One talent every 3 levels (unsure about starting talents)

Unsure of the rate of increase in accuracy or defenses but "chunkier" probably means every 2 or 3 levels ?

Unsure of the rate that we get skill points or if we get bonus attribute points at all.

 

Here is my 'rough guess' at advancement

 

Level 1: 3 class abilities, one talent, class-specific starting bonuses to accuracy and defenses, X skill points

Level 2: +1 class ability, +1 to accuracy and defenses

Level 3: +1 class ability, +1 talent, X skill points

Level 4: +1 class ability, +1 to accuracy and defenses

Level 5: +1 class ability, +1 attribute point, , X skill points

Level 6: +1 class ability, +1 talent, +1 to accuracy and defenses

Level 7: +1 class ability, , X skill points

Level 8: +1 class ability, +1 to accuracy and defenses

Level 9: +1 class ability, +1 talent, , X skill points

Level 10: +1 class ability, +1 to accuracy and defenses, +1 attribute point

Level 11: +1 class ability, , X skill points

Level 12: +1 class ability, +1 talent, +1 to accuracy and defenses

 

You will also gain extra talents through quests and exploration too apparently.

 

Of everything I would say my guess at skill points is probably the most off as the time between say level 5 and level 7 might be a quite a few hours in game so skill points may end up being every level. I just put it on the odd numbers to make it so that characters got something at level 7 and 11 besides an ability.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Sensuki

[TrashMan]

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

 

Defeine "a lot"

 

 

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.

 

You won't be going agaisnt babies. The difference between the weakest and strognest human is really big, but the weakest human wont' be competing out there.

So it won't be "total n00b" vs "archer master".

[TrashMan]

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?

 

 

Because exponaential anything sucks.

 

 

 

 

Seriously though, I want to be tangibly stronger with each level up and I don't have a problem with one hero being able to dispatch many enemies at a time. This isn't the real world, its fantasy.

"It's fantasy"?

So why not have a face on our ass? Because it's fantasy! No reason to hold to any sense or realism.

 

 

 

I'm further suggesting the fantasy game champion should have way higher level of capability than the best human in real life.

 

Hell no.

[Gfted1]

 

Seriously though, I want to be tangibly stronger with each level up and I don't have a problem with one hero being able to dispatch many enemies at a time. This isn't the real world, its fantasy.

"It's fantasy"?

So why not have a face on our ass? Because it's fantasy! No reason to hold to any sense or realism.

 

 

Exactly! Were finally making some headway.

[motorizer]

Turning into an awesome superman who can just wade through hordes of enemies without taking a scratch just sucks the fun out of the game, most RPGs are more fun (for me) early on when you are more vulnerable and have crappy equipment.

 

The exception to this, and therefore in my opinion the way to go is gaining cool abilities and perks that are fun to use

 

You should be a better fighter(or wizard or rogue) because you can use your abilities and skills to gain an advantage, not because you can soak up damage and hit things for 10 zillion HP

 

something that adds fun rather than numbers

 

And I don't want a low level bandit to cease to be a threat just because he is stuck on 10 hitpoints and you have 100

I'd rather he could still do you some serious damage if you don't use the blocks, dodges, special attacks, spells etc that you have gained and he hasn't

drawing on your experience in other words

Edited July 1, 2013 by motorizer

[Gfted1]

Can someone please provide an example where in the IE games of yore, the inspiration for PE, there are HP sponge enemies and where you never have to use skills or talents to win battles?

[motorizer]

It didn't really work like that, it was more of a pointless escalation of hitpoints and weapon damage on both sides, which led to you being able to swat lower level enemies like flies, despite the fact that they were supposed to be armed and armored men

 

but generally the numbers get bigger but nothing really changes, with the exception of the new skills and abilities

 

so why bother making the numbers bigger?

 

It is a few years now since I played an IE game, but that's kind of how I remember it

Edited July 1, 2013 by motorizer

[Gfted1]

Why bother advancing past level one? If all things are going to scale to equality then what's the point?

[motorizer]

New skills and abilitites is the point, I much rather mow down the low level grunts because I have a new attack that decapitates one whilst bashing another with my shield, or an armor piercing stab (or whatever) than because I now do 20 damage and they are still on 10 hitpoints, and I'd rather shrug off their attacks with blocks and dodges that just stand there taking them because their swords hardly  make a mark any more, they should still be dangerous if they manage to hit you.

 

It would work both ways, you would have more chance against a higher level foe if he didn't have the huge hitpoint increase that you don't have yet

 

What does seem pointless is just constantly upping the numbers of both health and weapon damage, for me getting a perk or ability is what makes the satisfaction of levelling up, hitpoints I couldn't care less, increasing attributes just lead to overpowered characters (though limited increases would be fine)