Unicorn thoughts: What does it mean to you to gain a level when playing Pathfinder?

[Unicore]

How much better should your character get when they level up?

(you can answer with a %, or a more qualitative statement about what they might be able to do that they couldn't do before).

How much of that should be determined by things you specifically choose?

(a lot of people will say everything, but does that include things like HP, saves, the ability to give the GM a list of equipment you want and expect to find it all without getting stuff you don't want and having to sell it off for lesser value?)

How important is your character's equipment to sense of who they are as a character, and how they improve?

Does leveling up need to feel balanced between all characters in the party?

(Do you want to play a game where some characters clearly improve much more from the beginning of the game to the end?)

Does level need to have a static meaning that works on a narrative level?

(If the party is level 1, do level 1 enemies need to be equal in power for general world balance? or is it ok for the party to exist as a special exception to the rest of the world?)

I have my own ideas about all of this but I will wait a couple of days to see what people say before adding my own input.

[Isaac Zephyr]

I'll address this the way it comes to me, and answer kind of overall.

So the overall answer to everything, for me. I have to look forward to that level for it to be good.

My current active game is Starfinder with PF2 starting this Tuesday, though I am GM in the latter. In my Starfinder game, level 1 was fine. Level 2, I got a cool new ability though not much changed. Level 3 I was super amped because it was a level with 2 big feats and an ability. Level 4... Was a wash. I got one ability that won't really matter until level 6. Level 5 though is going to be another big exciting level with ability boosts, a feat, and new abilities.

Essentially for me, dead levels are the worst. If I level up and the only things that change are some numbers get higher, that's just not a fun level up. I'm going to be just waiting for the next big level down the line. If a character is stuck feeling the same for long stretches, particularly stretches where the enemies are ramping up in difficulty, that's not good.

To look at a different system without levels though. In Scion, you don't gain levels but instead gain experience to spend on new abilities. It's a game where you can still feel your character's power increasing but you have direct control over whether you're going to wait a while for an expensive upgrade that may increase your threshold overall, or peppering small boosts around until you run out of little things.

So to me, gaining a level means becoming stronger and being able to do more or better things. When the bulk of that is missing, and I'm not hyped for the next level, I think things could be improved on.

[GM Rednal]

1) About 40% better overall seems to be the mathematical sweet spot here.

2) Ideally at least half. You need some fixed stuff to have a class-based game at all - otherwise, just play a class-less one - but I like to have options whenever possible. The dreadful lack of them in 5E (compared to PF1) is why I have no interest in running it, despite playing in it since it's what my friends want to run. I'm especially fond of the free-form Spheres systems. I'm still deciding how I feel about PF2's focus on feats.

3) Equipment depends on the character. Some of mine barely notice it, others are entirely themed around a piece of gear. I prefer one iconic item to a suite of mismatched but statistically-effective things. This is relaxed for totally gear-based characters, like Occultists and some types of Rogue.

I think it's hard to totally get away from equipment for some concepts. Most fighters want their weapons, for example. Also, I don't think we should exclude the possibility of gear-focused classes.

4) Leveling does not need to feel perfectly balanced, but levels should always be at least somewhat exciting. Dead levels suuuuck, as do those with abilities that are too situational. I think characters should not feel like they are unable to contribute effectively with the class they've chosen, but they don't need to be the same in all ways. Otherwise, there's no point in having a class-based game instead of making everyone the same.

For more detail, I've looked at the Cleric in 5E - and their Destroy Undead ability is about all they get at many levels. It is terrible. It is entirely reliant on the GM providing large numbers of specific weak enemies. That may never even happen in a game - and when it does, it's basically the GM saying "Okay, I'll let you use this". You have no real choice. I absolutely despise that power. Anything so niche should be an option for players, not a central part of the class. Mandatory abilities should be general improvements useful throughout the game. Niche abilities should be options you can take for games focusing on certain things (like an undead-heavy game, where Destroy Undead would probably be far more useful).

5) Level's presence in the narrative is basically optional, but I think the way levels are used should probably be reflected in world. There is, for example, a testable and observable difference between people who can cast third-level spells and those limited to second-level spells. In-universe, people should recognize this. Same with spells per-day. People can test this, and in-universe, they should. They might be a little fuzzy about the higher levels because of a lack of test subjects, but they should darn well understand that some people have more powers - and better powers - than others.

The world does not - and probably should not - perfectly match the characters. Sometimes you'll see a group of goblins when you're Level 10 and scare them off by shaking your fists. Sometimes you'll see an Adult Dragon at Level 5.

The reason players tend to fight things at their level is for narrative purposes. To put it another way, they tend to run away from things they can't actually beat, a kind of self-imposed level limitation. It's not especially fun to feel like you're in a high-stakes boss fight every single battle.

Also, level is best understood as a general indicator of power, not something for perfect balance. Sometimes players just have terrible compatibility with a monster, like a heavily-armored, low-Dex warrior fighting a ghost that uses touch attacks and Strength Damage. Compatibility can make things much harder (or easier) than they'd otherwise be... and that's okay!

[Matthew Downie]

41.42135623730950488016887242097%

[Lord_Malkov]

Reasonable set of questions. Here you go:

Unicore wrote:

How much better should your character get when they level up?

It really depends on the system in question and the frequency of level advancements. I think the goal is to ensure that a character feels a noticeable advancement in the areas they care about in comparison to the environment of the game. They should improve mechanically so that the next encounter/obstacle/opportunity which concerns their choices of advancement feels more likely to succeed than before.

Unicore wrote:

How much of that should be determined by things you specifically choose?

Ideally everything, but there are many systems which assume that certain statistics like hitpoints are so essential, that they are ultimately uninteresting non-choices (i.e. you are going to take this choice anyway, so it may as well advance automatically since its also not a particularly interesting or character-defining decision)

A level should offer some amount of character building resources that can be spent by each player to advance or build upon those elements of the character that they deem most important, interesting or defining. This allows each character to feel more unique as they progress. A good leveling system should offer a chance for the expression of a character which mirrors and/or informs the non-mechanical roleplaying expression.

Unicore wrote:

How important is your character's equipment to sense of who they are as a character, and how they improve?

Ideally not at all unless that character decides to make it so. A character may want to define part of their story through a magical ancestral blade or a utility belt of clever wondrous items, but that should not be required. A game that requires you to have a host of magical baubles in order to be effective actively diminishes the relative power of the character using those items. (i.e. without them they are weak and ineffectual)

The expenditure of character building resources could and perhaps should extend to items. It could be an interesting choice whether to become more proficient with all swords, or to spend you character resources on a magical sword. The benefit of the latter may be more powerful, but could also be more limiting. Elric is an interesting character, but perhaps you prefer a Conan type who doesn't need a magical sword.

Unicore wrote:

Does leveling up need to feel balanced between all characters in the party?

Yes and no.

Everyone should get the same amount of 'character bucks' to invest in the parts of their character that they want to advance.
That does not mean, however, that regardless of investment, all characters should be equal or balanced in all things... it means quite the opposite. I believe in a balance of resources and opportunity, rather than a forced balance in effect. The character who dabbles in spellcasting should feel no injustice at the thought that the dedicated wizard has more powerful magic. They could have spent their resources (class-levels, feats, ability scores etc.) to also be a dedicated wizard. They instead chose other options that the wizard does not have, and that is as it should be.

Unicore wrote:

Does level need to have a static meaning that works on a narrative level? (If the party is level 1, do level 1 enemies need to be equal in power for general world balance? or is it ok for the party to exist as a special exception to the rest of the world?)

This is really two different distinct questions.

To the first: It does not need to be a special abstraction. It can be a measure of skill and experience and nothing more. e.g: soldier A has been on 4 campaigns and fought in dozens of battles while soldier B is a new recruit. Soldier A has more experience, and is likely of a higher "level". That experience translates into the opportunities for growth, but that does not means that soldier A is necessarily better at all possible things than soldier B.

To the second: Monsters or enemies of equal level can be worse or better. Level in this sense is just an abstraction used for guiding us toward creating compelling encounters. The party can be a special exception or it can be right in line... it really depends on the game you want to play. Perhaps you are building a world of over-powered high-fantasy superheroes, or perhaps instead you want something more gritty or realistic. This is all very setting-dependent.