Scaling: How many level 1 characters should it take to defeat a level 10 character?

[Kingreaper]

DDN is supposedly flattening the power growth of PCs, so that you don't get as much +to hit, defence, damage or hp as you have in earlier editions.

The question is, what do you want the end result to be in terms of scaling:
How big a difference between level 1 and level 10?
Between levels 11 and 20?

EDIT: As others have said, compare like-for-like. If the level 10 is a fighter, how many fighters, etc.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The concept does not compute. Character level is only a single factor regarding combat power. A 5th level B/X fighter could stomp all over a 10th level thief in a straight up fight because the fighter was better suited for such activities.

Character level is a measure of competence across the social, exploration, and combat pillars.

 

[Kzach]

A level 1 should be able to kill a level 10 in single combat however it should be much more likely that the level 10 will win due to having greater options and slightly more power.

 

[SensoryThought]

I think a better comparison based on 4e is a level 1 vs level 11 (start of heroic tier vs start of paragon tier). In 4e I would say a level 11 could (depending on the class) take on at least 20 level 1s.

I personally think that higher levels should come with exponential and not linear increases in power. This should reflect they have gone from goblin slayers to dragon slayers!

I don't think a level 1 should conceivably be able to beat a level 11 without 'underhanded tricks' (poison, killing in their sleep). I also don't think class should affect power level that much either. Why play a thief or mage if you know you can't reliably beat a fighter half your level? For me all characters should have ability (albeit different specialties) within a 3 'pillars'.

 

[Mercurius]

The concept does not compute. Character level is only a single factor regarding combat power. A 5th level B/X fighter could stomp all over a 10th level thief in a straight up fight because the fighter was better suited for such activities.

Character level is a measure of competence across the social, exploration, and combat pillars.

Come on, don't be difficult. Imagine a neutral context: a single 10th level character of a specific class vs. X-number of 1st level charactes of the same class, in an open field.

A level 1 should be able to kill a level 10 in single combat however it should be much more likely that the level 10 will win due to having greater options and slightly more power.

I'm guessing you don't play D&D?

 

[Mercurius]

I'm open to a relatively wide range, but I suppose I like the idea that 8-12 (or about 10) 1st level characters are about equal to one 10th level, and then this is halved after ten levels so that ~5 10th level characters are equal to one 20th, and 2-3 20th are equal to one 30th.

Of course you translate all of that to 1st level characters, it gets a bit ridiculous:
10th level = ~ 10 1st level
20th level = ~ 50 1st level
30th level = ~ 100-150 1st level

But I suppose that makes some kind of sense - imagine Aragorn, a 20th level (or so) ranger, fighting off and defeating fifty orcs (assuming no major flanking issues and him retaining mobility).

 

[ExploderWizard]

Come on, don't be difficult. Imagine a neutral context: a single 10th level character of a specific class vs. X-number of 1st level charactes of the same class, in an open field.

Ok then if we are talking an all fighter situation, with everyone using only normal equipment (being a test of skill rather than wealth) then perhaps 8 or so 1st level fighters should be a good match for a 10th.

I do think being outnumbered should matter far more than it does in D&D.

 

[Minigiant]

A level 1 should be able to kill a level 10 in single combat however it should be much more likely that the level 10 will win due to having greater options and slightly more power.

Disagree.

Just by the increased HP of the 10th level character, the higher level one would be able to drain the lowers HPs before his is drained. Only luck would let weaker one win.

As for how many. A 10 level difference should grant a 25% shift in success at least. The level gap is just too big. I prefer a 60% base chance of success for an average character doing what they are good at so the 1st level PC has a 35% success rate to the 10th level. The 10th level guy has a 85% rate against the 1st level.

The survivability issue. By 10th level, a character should have a way to OHKO a newbie. Whereas a newbie, IMHO, with proper tactics will have to a 1/7 chance of success.


Class doesn't matter as the 10th level character that can hit 5 guys in a turn usually dies 5 times faster. So overall the combined number of attack of the 1st levels will be the same number of attack as the 10th level.

So the 1st levels will roughly need 20 attacks to win (~1/3 success vs 1/7 survivability). At the same time, the 10th level guy will kill 16 level 1 guys (4/5 success of OHKO with 20 attempts).

~35 level 1 guys are needed to defeat a level 10 guy.

 

[kitsune9]

I do think being outnumbered should matter far more than it does in D&D.

Me too. PC's should fear mob (in)justice regardless of level for that dose of realism.

 

[Mengu]

I don't like this question because level 1 characters aren't going to be fighting level 10 characters (at least, not in my game). How many goblins a level 1 character can take on, versus how many goblins a level 10 character can take on would be a more helpful way to look at levels. Even then, the answer would largely depend on how they define level 1, whether it is more of an apprenticeship level or a heroic level, and it would also depend on class design, resource structure, etc.