Well, we know for sure it's not just "experience" and skill increasing (though that's part of it.
Higher level characters are definitely somehow MORE than lower level ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's purely a game mechanic. It doesn't really translate into any real world function, so I personally don't try to make it. Your character does more things, they get more powerful. That's all.
|
The answer really depends upon what game, or at the very least, what edition one is playing, and what hit points are supposed to represent within that system.
For example, in original D&D through 2nd edition AD&D, a 10th level character wasn't all that different from a 1st level character, except in terms of his skill level within his chosen class(s). Sure he is a bit tougher, and more resilient, but the disparity between his class abilities and hit points were not as extreme between 1st and 10th level as we see in 3rd edition, 4th edition, and Pathfinder...
Heck, going by the RAW, in 1st edition AD&D, having enough XP did not automatically mean that your character went up in level, he had to first find training, and how long training took was based upon how well the DM thought you as the player, portrayed your character.
Becoming more capable, becoming closer to my ideal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A necessary evil. I try not to think about it too hard, because it's one of those game elements which I find to be a very poor model of the real world (I feel similarly about hit points and alignment).
If I'm trying to persuade myself to 'get over it' I consider it to be an (admittedly clumsy) indication of increasing skill, although the fact you're tougher to kill phyically undercuts that interpretation.
If 'increasing skill' is your objective, aren't there games out there far better suited to it than those with actual levels?
I suppose so. I don't really have an "objective" though - that's just how I think about levels (which have no real-world analog) in games which use them.
I kind of like or admire the idea that the reality being modelled is fundamentally different from ours and that people actually 'evolve' to something qualitatively different when they achieve a level. I dont really want to tell that kind of story, but I think it would assuage my verisimilitude concerns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me it represents a new threshold of personal growth and development.
An arbitrary point at which the accrued learning from your activities translates into measurable improvements.
Cross posting from other thread:
And keep in mind, class levels are a way of gaining Hit Dice. You know the things that make monsters actually get bigger/stronger/tougher/more epic. You are actually becoming "more" of yourself, not just learning new skills and what not (though you do that to). A 12 level Wizard gets two attacks a round without ever having to study anything. A Level 5 Fighter only gets one attack despite having trained his whole life. The difference is level and it's a fundamental difference.
Oh, I get what you're saying. It's not that you're looking for a game that has 'normal' people who become more skillful, it's that normal people becoming more skillful is just how you interpret PF levels.
Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say you don't want to tell 'that kind of story' though? The process of leveling is usually pushed into the background in Pathfinder anyway isn't it?
I mean the kind of story where the heroes become almost a separate species. It was a response to your OP:
As far as I'm concerned, a level one and level ten person might as well not be considered the same creature. They're compatible in terms of reproduction and transplants, but the one has become so much more than the other.
I feel that interpretation does solve my "realism" objection to levels - by explicitly acknowledging levels as a real thing in the game world (rather than an abstraction used to model reality, as I generally view it). Under the assumption that levels are actual, real things there's an explanation for why it takes longer to boil the eighty-year-old world's best librarian alive than it does for the blacksmith's apprentice to succumb.
I play a variety of systems, but generally prefer to play all of them the same way - low level, low point count, gritty, resource-starved, restricted access to equipment, etcetera (depending on the game and genre). Unfashionable as it is, when we play pathfinder, my favorite play is levels 1-3.
Leveling is like a clogged artery.
At first level your arteries are 95% clogged. Every level you go up your arteries get a bit more clear. They move more blood, oxygenate more tissue, clear your mind. You are definately more capable at every iteration and that isn't just skill. You are physically and mentally capable of more and more just as though you opened your arteries a little bit more.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, it's whatever the system I'm in paints it as.
For example, in Pathfinder, gaining a level means a lot of things: no matter how you attained that higher level, you became tougher, increased the maximum potential you have for any given skill (as well as increasing your actual skill level in some of them), increased how much magic you can use in a day, and possibly even learned entirely new spells or gained access to magic in the first place. You became more resistant to magic and other hazards (but no better at dodging sword blows, unless you specifically trained for that), and you became less affected by HD-based spells (sleep, color spray, etc).
That's a lot of stuff.
By contrast, in 5E, gaining a level means you learned one or two new tricks or spells, maybe became slightly more adept at something you already knew how to do, and became a little tougher.
That's a lot less stuff.
I would posit, then, that leveling up is a fundamentally different event in Pathfinder than in 5E, and in turn different than some other systems.
Character advancement.
If you ask in Pathfinder, then wrongly scaled character advancement.
Wrongly scaled in what way?
Differences between levels are too drastic for how often you are meant to give levels. The world is not consistent in how dangerous it is or isn't and APs especially have hard time manage the escalating powers because they are of so many different styles, they fail to keep the universe consistent.
Also this too: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/mastery/nPCGallery.html
Getting stronger... ANIME STYLE
You are the heroes of said game. Leveling is the road from point A to point B. Somewhere along the way you get more power, you learn new things, you learn to survive. And depending on the road crew, you may find some treasure on the way.
A new chapter or even new book in your character's adventures.
An arbitrary point at which the accrued learning from your activities translates into measurable improvements.
This.
Leveling up is when everything "clicks". All that weight training, practice sword-swinging, and athletic endurance building finally add up to the fighter being able to hit more accurately, take more punishment, and survive longer. When the wizard finally cracks the code and has that "Eureka!" moment where s/he figures out how to access that next circle of spells. When the cleric comes to that next level of greater understanding of his/her faith and is rewarded by their god/dess for their increasing piety and devotion. When the rogue gets that knack for a certain skill, proper twist of the knife, or perfect balance of position and stance juuuuust right and that makes everything just add up. And so on and so forth for every other class and class combination out there.
The time between levels is building up to that point. Learning the skills, mastering the talents, training your abilities and your techniques, and working toward that next "aha!" opportunity where everything finally fits all the puzzle pieces together.
|
|
Leveling to me is a bit different, as I run 2nd edition AD&D, and use the optional training rules for level advancement.
I like the description Orthos gives on leveling, but I would say (for me, as again, I require training in order to advance in level) that when a character has earned enough XP to advance in level, then that character has learned all that he can during the time he spent "between levels" and is now ready to learn new skills and abilities from someone more knowledgeable than himself.
Yeah I've never much seen the appeal of the "must train to level up" bit, as I've always seen the space between "reach level X" and "reach level Y" as doing that training. But to each their own =)
I don't know about 2nd edition, but in AD&D you don't need a mentor - it is just more expensive/difficult without one. So you can still use training rules even if the peak of NPC achievement is low or mid levels.
|
|
I don't know about 2nd edition, but in AD&D you don't need a mentor - it is just more expensive/difficult without one. So you can still use training rules even if the peak of NPC achievement is low or mid levels.
I've never had an issue with having NPCs of higher level than the PCs in my settings. In fact, the druid and monk class require there to be NPCs of a higher level than the PCs, as these two classes (at higher levels) require the PC to seek out and challenge sometimes the single NPC of the level that the PC wishes to advance to, and then defeat that NPC in personal combat (though hardly ever to the death).
Regardless, the 2nd edition rules governing training does not allow for training without a mentor, but I allow it in my games. The benefit of self training equals a reduction in the over-all cost, but it does take much longer without the help and instruction of a mentor.
In fact, the druid and monk class require there to be NPCs of a higher level than the PCs, as these two classes (at higher levels) require the PC to seek out and challenge sometimes the single NPC of the level that the PC wishes to advance to, and then defeat that NPC in personal combat (though hardly ever to the death).
Although that would be the usual thing, presumably it's not actually required? I mean, if the Grandmaster of Flowers dies peacefully in his sleep or something it doesn't mean there'll never be another, does it?
For me, it depends on class.
For a Wizard, leveling is often "figuring out" new secrets of magic, and some of that knowledge infuses and strengthens them.
For an Oracle, a level might be their divine patrons literally giving them more power.
For a Fighter, it could be their skills and bodies physically developing, perhaps absorbing ambient energy to help fuel their growth past human limits.
In my main games, it's the characters RECOVERING power, since they'd had it before but lost it. XD
So... yeah, it varies.
|
|
Although that would be the usual thing, presumably it's not actually required? I mean, if the Grandmaster of Flowers dies peacefully in his sleep or something it doesn't mean there'll never be another, does it?
The rules seem to indicate that when that kind of thing happens, the "title" is highly contested, which indicates to me (and thus how I would handle it), is that the title, while open, still needs to be fought for, so the contestants in this particular case would be between two or more individuals of the same level, and that the winner would be the one to advance in level and thus be the one to claim the title.