D&D 5E Low CRs and "Boring" Monsters: Ogre

[MostlyDm]

I don't want to be rude to your GM (or you, if that's mostly you . . .) - but that sounds like boring scenario design.

I look at it differently - high level PCs deal with different sorts of things from low level ones. Eg when paragon PCs deal with hobgoblins, they're phalanxes (statted up as swarms), not individual soldiers.

It was an impression based on reading the monster manuals the publishers of the game put out.

None of my 4e campaigns actually made it past about 8th level or so, so it never really came up in actual play.

I like your hobgoblin phalanx approach. That seems cool. The most epic 4e battle I ran (when I embraced the fiction as much as I was willing, probably the most over the top gonzo game I've ever run) I did something similar. Fighting through the raging battle (two armies) to the enemy commander was a skill challenge that cost surges, and then the final battle had lots of interactive terrain that was actually the Melee around them.

It worked fairly well.

 

[MostlyDm]

Seems like most computer games (Diablo, Oblivion et al) and even in a Gygaxian megadungeon you'd have 1 hd orcs on level 1, 10 hd infernal orc legionnaires or similar on level 10. My Classic BECM D&D PC group (ca level 15) are currently in a high level 1e AD&D published dungeon from 1981 (The Nine Doctrines of Darkness pt II - using it for the Master of the Desert Nomads' base) and it's got hordes of mook Fighter-7 & higher; last session the PCs waded through the temple guard cohorts killing a total of 25 Ftr 7, 6 Clr 9 and 4 Clr 12 on their way to facing the Clr 30 Master BBEG.

Of course those 15th level BECM PCs do have the choice of going hunting 1 hd orcs, and I would probably play it out, whereas in 4e I'd probably handwave it, or else convert all the standard orcs to minions 8 levels higher, the elite orcs to minions 12 levels higher.

That wasn't my experience. But I think mostly just a consequence of XP costs to level getting so high that people rarely made it past the very low double digits, so it had a sort of accidental bounded accuracy.

My favorite 3.X edition is E6.

And my complaint about 4e is that the world felt too leveled.

And 5e is my favorite edition yet.

I feel like there's almost a pattern here or something.

 

[S'mon]

That wasn't my experience. But I think mostly just a consequence of XP costs to level getting so high that people rarely made it past the very low double digits, so it had a sort of accidental bounded accuracy.

My favorite 3.X edition is E6.

And my complaint about 4e is that the world felt too leveled.

And 5e is my favorite edition yet.

I feel like there's almost a pattern here or something.

I think 5e may be my favourite too. And I do have issues with 4e, especially across the full 30 levels. In my Loudwater game set in the Gray Vale the first 20 levels were fine but after defeating the frost giant armies, the Epic Tier stuff didn't work so well for a campaign centred on the mundane world. I think 5e is far better for keeping things grounded, eg my Wilderlands game had PCs up to 15th-17th still in the general starting area of the Ghinarian Hills, with no more issues than I'd see in 1e.

Re "XP costs to level getting so high", BECM has half the needed XP of 1e/2e at high level, and in BECM and the RC Mentzer & Allston recommend 5 sessions to level, and including enough gold that the PCs will level at that rate. I tend to increase non-gold XP rather than have 100,000gp+ drops every session, but either way it means progression is fairly steady, and if the Fighters & Thieves are levelling 1/5, then the Cleric is levelling even faster, around 1/4. And we play weekly so after nearly 2 years of play the group are pretty high, 11th-15th level.

 

[S'mon]

This prompted a tangential thought - there are a lot of high level fighters in Gygaxian towns and cities: per Appendix C of the DMG, about 2% of day encounters and 1% of night encounters are with "well-dressed fighter-types of 7th to 10th level (d4 + 6) with 1-4 friends of the same abilities", and 2% of day encounters and 4% of night encounters are with "2-5 young gentlemen fighters of 5th to 10th level (d6 + 4)." That's a lot of serious fighting talent hanging about! (Or maybe they're all the same people, and the PCs just keep bumping into them, as a running gag?)

Yeah, I find this caused versimilitude problems in 1e (one F8 rake could take out the town's entire F0 guard contingent) but those sorts of demographics work ok in Classic (no training costs to worry about, low levels are somewhat effective vs high levels, baseline mooks are F1, etc). In my Northern Reaches Gazetteer (PCs just arrived in this area) I see that Rolston says 2% of the population are F11+ (and 10% F3-F10)! Would be crazy in AD&D but in BECM/RC it actually works fine for a Heavy Metal Vikings feel.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I liked several things about 4e, but the leveling world was definitely a huge downer for me.

Like running 5e without making rulings, it also wasn't how 4e was designed to be used.

At level 5 all doors you encounter are made of wood and orc minions are all Level 5 Orc Shmucks. At level 18, doors are made of iron and orc minions are level 18 Orc Badasses. And at level 29, doors are made of adamantine and orc minions are level 29 Infernal Orc Legionnaires.

The game made it clear what could challenge a party at various levels. If the DM wanted a door to be an obstacle to an 18th level party, he placed an iron door, if he didn't, it might have been wood - if he wanted it to be impassable, adamantine. That was no different than it ever was, or is now. In 5e, if the DM wants an impassable door, he narrates it as such, for instance, because bounded accuracy requires narrating success/failure when you want it - the system virtually always leaves some chance of success at an impossible task or failure at a trivial one.
4e just gave clearer guidelines and scaled dramatically enough that trivial was trivial and impassable, impassable, without resorting to fiat (or, really, while presenting an illusion that setting a DC wasn't, in itself, DM fiat/judgement/rulings-not-rules).

This had been an issue in 3.x as well, but it seemed to become even more exaggerated in 4e.

The point you're trying to get at is that 4e had dramatic, consistent, and even somewhat balanced, scaling with level. 3e, in contrast, had very dramatic, imbalanced & inconsistent scaling, while 5e has somewhat consistent, quite muted ('bounded') scaling (of d20 bonuses and DCs - hps/damage scale quite dramatically). And, of course, the classic game scaled dramatically and very inconsistently, with a quixotic attempt at balance over the long run.

Among the various editions, 4e & 5e are actually the most similar in this regard, because they are the two most consistent in their scaling. If you were to run 4e very close to the guidelines in a 'scaling world' kind of way, you'd get a result very similar to that delivered by 5e bounded accuracy if one were to simply roll all the time. Similarly, if you exercise DM judgement 'well' in deciding when to narrate successs/failure and when to roll in 5e, you could get a result very similar to that of 4e's dramatic advancement/relative-balance. Ultimately, both editions keep everyone more or less 'on the d20' (that is, a roll that one PC can fail on a 1, the 'worst' PC at the same thing can generally make without needing a natural 20) when checks matter. 5e, unless you exercise DM judgement to narrate success/failure (which, dammit, you're meant to do), also does that for everyone/thing (a roll a 20th level character might fail on a 1, a Kobold might get lucky and make without needing a natural 20), shattering any illusion of advancement. While, contrarily, 4e, unless you willfully level the world with the PCs (which, dammit, you're NOT meant to do), does not.

That wasn't my experience. But I think mostly just a consequence of XP costs to level getting so high that people rarely made it past the very low double digits, so it had a sort of accidental bounded accuracy.

My favorite 3.X edition is E6.

Prettymuch 'bounded accuracy,' right there. Also similar to 'sweet spot' (~3-8, IMHO) play in AD&D. Relatively little advancement, thus avoiding shifts in tone, and (again, IMHO) more importantly, the radical imbalances outside that range.

And my complaint about 4e is that the world felt too leveled.

Your complaint is invalid - or, more accurately, your complaint is based on what you felt based on a misperception. You perceived the tools that gave the DM the option of presenting neatly-balanced challenges to PCs at any level, as defining a world in which everyone was presented only with neatly-balanced challenges, at every level. 4e did not define a world, at all, and the same tools that allow a DM to craft a neatly-balanced challenge allow him to create a very challenging, unwinnable, or trivial one, as well.

The very concept that a guideline might actually work can be hard for a long-time D&Der to reconcile himself to, lying so far outside decades of practical experience.

And 5e is my favorite edition yet.

I feel like there's almost a pattern here or something.

That follows from your preference for E6 - 3e's version of bounded accuracy. If I may be judgmental for a moment (and, I think with your willful provocation in re-hashing edition war misinformation, you've earned it), I would have to say that it's clear your preference is derived from the failings of earlier editions, in which high-level play tended to be problematic and coping meant sticking to the sweet spot (mid levels in 1e or E6 as the most robust case of 3e), leaving you unwilling to accept an edition that resolved those issues.

Well, I mean, or you're just trolling like a champ. In which case, a round of applause, and may you never take fire or acid damage.

 

[MostlyDm]

Like running 5e without making rulings, it also wasn't how 4e was designed to be used.

The game made it clear what could challenge a party at various levels. If the DM wanted a door to be an obstacle to an 18th level party, he placed an iron door, if he didn't, it might have been wood - if he wanted it to be impassable, adamantine. That was no different than it ever was, or is now. In 5e, if the DM wants an impassable door, he narrates it as such, for instance, because bounded accuracy requires narrating success/failure when you want it - the system virtually always leaves some chance of success at an impossible task or failure at a trivial one.
4e just gave clearer guidelines and scaled dramatically enough that trivial was trivial and impassable, impassable, without resorting to fiat (or, really, while presenting an illusion that setting a DC wasn't, in itself, DM fiat/judgement/rulings-not-rules).

The point you're trying to get at is that 4e had dramatic, consistent, and even somewhat balanced, scaling with level. 3e, in contrast, had very dramatic, imbalanced & inconsistent scaling, while 5e has somewhat consistent, quite muted ('bounded') scaling (of d20 bonuses and DCs - hps/damage scale quite dramatically). And, of course, the classic game scaled dramatically and very inconsistently, with a quixotic attempt at balance over the long run.

Among the various editions, 4e & 5e are actually the most similar in this regard, because they are the two most consistent in their scaling. If you were to run 4e very close to the guidelines in a 'scaling world' kind of way, you'd get a result very similar to that delivered by 5e bounded accuracy if one were to simply roll all the time. Similarly, if you exercise DM judgement 'well' in deciding when to narrate successs/failure and when to roll in 5e, you could get a result very similar to that of 4e's dramatic advancement/relative-balance. Ultimately, both editions keep everyone more or less 'on the d20' (that is, a roll that one PC can fail on a 1, the 'worst' PC at the same thing can generally make without needing a natural 20) when checks matter. 5e, unless you exercise DM judgement to narrate success/failure (which, dammit, you're meant to do), also does that for everyone/thing (a roll a 20th level character might fail on a 1, a Kobold might get lucky and make without needing a natural 20), shattering any illusion of advancement. While, contrarily, 4e, unless you willfully level the world with the PCs (which, dammit, you're NOT meant to do), does not.


Prettymuch 'bounded accuracy,' right there. Also similar to 'sweet spot' (~3-8, IMHO) play in AD&D. Relatively little advancement, thus avoiding shifts in tone, and (again, IMHO) more importantly, the radical imbalances outside that range.

Your complaint is invalid - or, more accurately, your complaint is based on what you felt based on a misperception. You perceived the tools that gave the DM the option of presenting neatly-balanced challenges to PCs at any level, as defining a world in which everyone was presented only with neatly-balanced challenges, at every level. 4e did not define a world, at all, and the same tools that allow a DM to craft a neatly-balanced challenge allow him to create a very challenging, unwinnable, or trivial one, as well.

The very concept that a guideline might actually work can be hard for a long-time D&Der to reconcile himself to, lying so far outside decades of practical experience.

That follows from your preference for E6 - 3e's version of bounded accuracy. If I may be judgmental for a moment (and, I think with your willful provocation in re-hashing edition war misinformation, you've earned it), I would have to say that it's clear your preference is derived from the failings of earlier editions, in which high-level play tended to be problematic and coping meant sticking to the sweet spot (mid levels in 1e or E6 as the most robust case of 3e), leaving you unwilling to accept an edition that resolved those issues.

Well, I mean, or you're just trolling like a champ. In which case, a round of applause, and may you never take fire or acid damage.

Not trying to troll. I'm surely being a bit of a smart-ass with some of the hyperbole, but on the whole I'm sincere about the overall comments I've made. And I think that your response is incredibly insightful. It shows that you've played and understood 4e quite a bit. I agree completely that one of the 4e things I see in 5e is that it has more consistent scaling.

I'd only disagree that my preferences are born out of frustration with problematic high-level play. I think that 3.X was the biggest s***-show in terms of high level balance, by a wide margin. And yet it's also probably the edition I engaged in the most high level play... largely just due to my age, as I was in my free-time prime when 3.X was first released. By the time 4e rolled around I had already scaled back dramatically due to work and stuff. I really enjoyed most of the 3.X high level play I personally experienced, warts and all, because I understood the system and my players and it was ultimately still manageable. At the time, my friends really enjoyed the stories we told, but they sometimes fell flat for me.

Which is why I actually think my preferences are a lot more specific than you've suggested. They come from a desire to be able to tell less gonzo, somewhat more real-world-feeling kinds of stories with my players. I like the game to be more heavily grounded in realism... or more accurately "realism" that is achieved by tone and feel and smoke and mirrors and willful suspension of disbelief. If I wanted true Realism, I would not play D&D... but even so I like it when even the great heroes feel fairly mortal, and have something to fear from regular men with crossbows. 4e doesn't really support that past the first tier, unless you do the sort of nonsense I was making fun of above, where the epic heroes are threatened by (Level 28) Regular Men (From Gehenna) with (Demon-Steel) Crossbows. See the Elder Scrolls: Oblivion videogame for this kind of thing, where once you hit high levels all the bandit shlubs have epic-tier weapons and armor.

I agree with you that 4e does support balanced high level epic play, where you fight huge demons and whatever else your group finds exciting. The most successful 4e game I ran was probably on track to do stuff like that one day, before it died for unrelated work/scheduling reasons. Ultimately, I have found it's just not for me. I think, ultimately, 5e may well be too powerful and "epic" for me when I get a party into the higher levels. But so far, bounded accuracy has kept it feeling much more mortal and "realistic" with quotes, even into levels that previously didn't quite work for me. So I am optimistic.

Easiest way to sum it up, I think is that I'm mostly a fan of horizontal, rather than vertical, advancement.

Just edited for typos.

 

[MostlyDm]

Additional thought: People talk about the 1e-3e "sweet spot" of levels 3-9 or whatever. Often times it's discussed as the time when the game is the best balanced.

That was never really my concern. I liked the "sweet spot" because the level of power attained by the PCs put them in the zone I talk about in the post above this. It lets them be heroes, but still very mortal and... understandable, is maybe the word I want.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That wasn't my experience. But I think mostly just a consequence of XP costs to level getting so high that people rarely made it past the very low double digits, so it had a sort of accidental bounded accuracy.

My favorite 3.X edition is E6.

And my complaint about 4e is that the world felt too leveled.

And 5e is my favorite edition yet.

I feel like there's almost a pattern here or something.

I think my favorite edition for roleplaying is AD&D 2nd edition; but 5E has combat features that I quite like. 5E is kind of a nice compromise between 2nd edition (interesting ecologies, creatures, spells and magic items) and GURPS: Martial Arts (interesting fights) with the added bonus of being easily accessible in gaming stores, etc.

 

[Glenn Fleetwood]

Use the optional combat rules, overrun people, pick up large rocks and throw them, grapple...

Ogres can be nasty is played with tactical acumen.

 

[Schmoe]

I actually like the fact that an ogre is tactically simple. I appreciate the simplicity when running encounters, and I feel like there are plenty of flavorful options that are not based on a stat block if I want to spice up a particular ogre encounter.

I absolutely like some creatures that have unique, interesting abilities, but I think it is a little silly or far fetched when everything is unique. I want some variety between complex and simple encounters, and after all, an ogre is still just a big dumb ogre.