A Dungeoneering Fan, but a Total Gurps Newbie

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by phayman53

EDIT: It also means your level 20 character should have about 1,215 points! Definitely powerful.

The D&D experience tables aren't linear. Or rather, the first ten or so levels are exponential, and the levels above them are linear. In these versions of D&D it's generally expected that once you become name level your advancement levels off and slows down. I would reflect this in GURPS by slowing the rate at which you gain character points after about 500.

Also, in most of those early versions, level 14 or 15 was insanely high for a character. Levels above this weren't even considered until the D&D Companion and Masters Sets came out, which went to level 36, and assumed that 36 was the maximum possible human achievement. Beyond this you had to become an Immortal to advance. If we call that "godlike" in the GURPS scale, that's "over 1,000 points." So "veteran of a few battles" at 75 points to "freshman Immortal" at 1,000 points.

D&D didn't start taking level 20 as a stopping point until AD&D Second Edition, and so far as I know this wasn't a point easily described by something specific. By this time the various editions were splitting far apart in what power levels they supported.

I'd hazard a guess that a D&D Third Edition fighter level 1 was about equal to a GURPS 150 point character, but that's just the flimsiest of guesses.

[Boomerang]

I'm a fan of Pathfinder, it has a really strong community that supports the product really well. But the rules are like a overly complex straight jacket. It is difficult to take a character concept and accurately reflect that concept mechanically. There is tonnes of pointless duplication, for a simple example the traits reactionary and elven reflexes both grant a +2 bonus to initiative, why have both?

Gurps has more options than Pathfinder but they are expressed more simply and logically. If for example you want to be an excellent sword fighter in Gurps simply increase sword skill to the appropriate level, done. In Pathfinder you have a number of parameters to consider: BAB through class selection, attribute bonuses, feats, traits, racial bonuses and class features. What should be simple is a convoluted mess.

[mr beer]

My biggest issue with D&D is that the combat system is dull, abstracted and kind of silly. It's not really fixable either because it's baked in at the ground level. A big factor with switching to GURPS was that its immensely better for combat.

[AlexanderHowl]

I am one of those few people who started with GURPS and then expanded to other systems (White Wolf, Shadowrun, etc). Pathfinder is a fine system, the archetypes give the classes a lot of flexibility, but it is only one way of playing. GURPS allows you to play a hero from day one, which is one of its best features.

[phayman53]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

The D&D experience tables aren't linear. Or rather, the first ten or so levels are exponential, and the levels above them are linear. In these versions of D&D it's generally expected that once you become name level your advancement levels off and slows down. I would reflect this in GURPS by slowing the rate at which you gain character points after about 500.

I wasn't necessarily talking about the rate of growth, but just equivalent power. The fact that a 20th level D&D 3.5 character can take on some truly powerful foes solo (such as some dragons in the Wyrm or Great Wyrm category--depending on their type) indicates to me that a 1000+ point character in GURPS is definitely not out of the question--though I have never run a combat against on of the dragon templates in GURPS, so I am not sure how many points in combat abilities would be required to take one on solo.

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Also, in most of those early versions, level 14 or 15 was insanely high for a character. Levels above this weren't even considered until the D&D Companion and Masters Sets came out, which went to level 36, and assumed that 36 was the maximum possible human achievement. Beyond this you had to become an Immortal to advance. If we call that "godlike" in the GURPS scale, that's "over 1,000 points." So "veteran of a few battles" at 75 points to "freshman Immortal" at 1,000 points.

D&D didn't start taking level 20 as a stopping point until AD&D Second Edition, and so far as I know this wasn't a point easily described by something specific. By this time the various editions were splitting far apart in what power levels they supported.

I was working under the assumption that we were talking about later versions of D&D, I did not start playing computer game versions of it until 3rd and pnp at 3.5. I am almost completely unfamiliar with the power levels and assumptions of earlier versions, though I do recall being told that "balance" or consistency of character levels between classes was not something that was really important until later editions.

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

I'd hazard a guess that a D&D Third Edition fighter level 1 was about equal to a GURPS 150 point character, but that's just the flimsiest of guesses.

In re-thinking this since my earlier post I think I would have to agree. In 3.5 the elite array for stats, which represented a 25 point buy (supposedly what the system was designed around), was 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8. While stats do not translate that well across systems to GURPS, that is clearly well above average just in physical and mental abilities, with the exception of two stats, without any class abilities at all [Monsters were apparently designed with a base array of 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10 before racial modifiers). I expect that to translate this to GURPS with other basic abilities for the level 1 class would require something like 150 points to start with, though maybe it could be done with fewer.

[Micahel Silverbane]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

I'd hazard a guess that a D&D Third Edition fighter level 1 was about equal to a GURPS 150 point character, but that's just the flimsiest of guesses.

I wouldn't say that's too far off, but with the caveat that in 3rd edition (and in Pathfinder, which is closely derived from 3rd edition) the fighter is one of the least powerful classes, so other types of characters would likely require more points, even at very low levels.

There is also the notion (which may not be entirely accurate, across all classes) that in 3rd edition D&D, every two character levels represents a doubling in the power of the character. So point totals for characters above first level will escalate rapidly.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Micahel Silverbane

I wouldn't say that's too far off, but with the caveat that in 3rd edition (and in Pathfinder, which is closely derived from 3rd edition) the fighter is one of the least powerful classes, so other types of characters would likely require more points, even at very low levels.

It's only a very rough estimate, a bit like "150 points, give or take 25 points." It's basically in the middle of the "heroic" power level given on Campaigns, page 487, rather than at the lower end of "exceptional"/upper end of "competent," which is about where I put original D&D and AD&D veterans. Even D&D Third Edition classes of the same level don't deviate from each other in power THAT much.

[scc]

OK on the comparison of GURPS points to D&D levels, the DF line codified it at 50 points to a level.

As for starting points, GURPS 3rd ed set it at 100 points, when GURPS 4th ed came around and many abilities increased in cost that was upped to 150 points, and when the DF line was launched with its 250 point templates that seems to have became the default standard, because it allows the characters to actually do things.

For someone coming coming from D&D, GURPS' magic is better balanced so that monsters don't need to be given protections against magic because it's inherently self-limiting, this means that psi and other powers aren't effected by anti-magical effects, so a ninja isn't stopped by anti-magic.

And I'd advise using the Ritual Magic rules from either page 242 of Characters or page 200 of Magic, their the same either way. The key point is that they allow you to cast spells without knowing them, but at a penalty, which is great for new players and GM's, because that way if you forget to include a spell it isn't a major problem.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by scc

As for starting points, GURPS 3rd ed set it at 100 points, when GURPS 4th ed came around and many abilities increased in cost that was upped to 150 points, and when the DF line was launched with its 250 point templates that seems to have became the default standard, because it allows the characters to actually do things.

Umm, yeah, 100- and 150- and even 75-point characters can actually do things when played in settings appropriate to them.

And 250 points is not the "default standard," unless you don't pay attention to anything outside of the preconfigured genre series. The third edition definitely assumed a 100-point default, The fourth edition doesn't assume any default, but it has been said that the old 100-point default is now approximately equal to 150 points. See page B487 for the discussion on "power level."

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by phayman53

I was working under the assumption that we were talking about later versions of D&D, I did not start playing computer game versions of it until 3rd and pnp at 3.5. I am almost completely unfamiliar with the power levels and assumptions of earlier versions, though I do recall being told that "balance" or consistency of character levels between classes was not something that was really important until later editions.

Well, one thing is that in at least some of the pre-3rd editions the relation between your XP total and your character level depended on your class. I'm not sure whether the idea was that characters should be used at around the same XP totals, around the same level, or what...