D&D 5E (2024) 2024 Gladiator: The Narrative Dissonance

[James Gasik]

Ah the Gladiator. How often I've used them as an example. I'm amused that most of the time, when I do, people tend to dismiss me, but here we finally have a thread about him (I'm not misgendering him, he's not a Gladiatrix, after all!).

That NPC's are built different is an unfortunate consequence of how the game functions. The hit points of the Gladiator aren't really the same as hit points for a PC- but are instead an abstract standing in for the superior gear (I mean, look at that AC. What high level warrior is going to have that weak of armor?), but the also any defensive buffs, temporary hit points, and other abilities (like say, Second Wind) a PC Fighter brings to bear that gives them similar endurance.

Similarly, the ability to add an extra weapon die to his damage is just subbing in for the lack of magic weapons, feats, fighting styles, and, of course, making up for the fact the gladiator is using a lousy spear (who uses a spear?).

Unfortunately, since no PC Fighter can get the power of "add another weapon die" to their damage (my God, think of all the Fighters suddenly using greataxes!), this level of abstraction, while healthy for the DM (who remembers having to scratch build humanoid opponents in 3e, and then realizing that they A) need gear to keep up with the PC's, but that B) said gear simply ends up being extra loot for the PC's- making you wonder why you're spending so much time on this), opens up a can of worms when trying to explain what your game world actually looks like.

That CR =/= Character Level makes it impossible to say how many individuals on par with the party's power exist in a setting. When a spellcaster with access to 9th-level spells is "moderate" encounter for a lone 18th-level PC (using the 2024 encounter guidelines) and a laughable encounter for four 12-level PC's, it calls a lot of things into question, if your brain is inclined to think about such things (as mine is).

What does this say about the power of high level magic? What does it mean to be high level? Why are there even problems for PC's to deal with?

And that's not even getting into "why does this guy, who is presented as being a person who lives in the same game world, have different powers than me?". Which could be easily answered, if there was any way a PC could get, say, resistance to damage from spells or the Brute ability (or hell, even the Brave ability- why is a Halfling or a Gladiator Brave, but not my Human Fighter?).

Like me, you have to stop thinking about it in these terms. Otherwise, every warrior NPC is going to have Action Surge and eat a hearty heroes' feast for breakfast, with the DM wondering if equipping him with +1 plate armor will unbalance his game.

 

[Sorinth]

It was the 3 spear attacks straight up that caused the reaction.

A PC can take PAM and get 3 attacks with a spear at level 5, so I'm not sure it should be all that surprising when an NPC does something similar. In the end the NPC statblock is simply a streamlined version of things. So sure maybe the 3rd attack should be a BA with a marginal damage difference, but since they don't have any other uses of their BA it's irrelevant almost all the time with just a few edge case scenarios.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ah the Gladiator. How often I've used them as an example. I'm amused that most of the time, when I do, people tend to dismiss me, but here we finally have a thread about him (I'm not misgendering him, he's not a Gladiatrix, after all!).

That NPC's are built different is an unfortunate consequence of how the game functions. The hit points of the Gladiator aren't really the same as hit points for a PC- but are instead an abstract standing in for the superior gear (I mean, look at that AC. What high level warrior is going to have that weak of armor?), but the also any defensive buffs, temporary hit points, and other abilities (like say, Second Wind) a PC Fighter brings to bear that gives them similar endurance.

Similarly, the ability to add an extra weapon die to his damage is just subbing in for the lack of magic weapons, feats, fighting styles, and, of course, making up for the fact the gladiator is using a lousy spear (who uses a spear?).

Unfortunately, since no PC Fighter can get the power of "add another weapon die" to their damage (my God, think of all the Fighters suddenly using greataxes!), this level of abstraction, while healthy for the DM (who remembers having to scratch build humanoid opponents in 3e, and then realizing that they A) need gear to keep up with the PC's, but that B) said gear simply ends up being extra loot for the PC's- making you wonder why you're spending so much time on this), opens up a can of worms when trying to explain what your game world actually looks like.

That CR =/= Character Level makes it impossible to say how many individuals on par with the party's power exist in a setting. When a spellcaster with access to 9th-level spells is "moderate" encounter for a lone 18th-level PC (using the 2024 encounter guidelines) and a laughable encounter for four 12-level PC's, it calls a lot of things into question, if your brain is inclined to think about such things (as mine is).

What does this say about the power of high level magic? What does it mean to be high level? Why are there even problems for PC's to deal with?

And that's not even getting into "why does this guy, who is presented as being a person who lives in the same game world, have different powers than me?". Which could be easily answered, if there was any way a PC could get, say, resistance to damage from spells or the Brute ability (or hell, even the Brave ability- why is a Halfling or a Gladiator Brave, but not my Human Fighter?).

Like me, you have to stop thinking about it in these terms. Otherwise, every warrior NPC is going to have Action Surge and eat a hearty heroes' feast for breakfast, with the DM wondering if equipping him with +1 plate armor will unbalance his game.

You have to either stop thinking of it in those terms, or you have to do the work to make NPCs make sense. My brain doesn't allow for the first option, much.

 

[Stalker0]

A PC can take PAM and get 3 attacks with a spear at level 5, so I'm not sure it should be all that surprising when an NPC does something similar. In the end the NPC statblock is simply a streamlined version of things. So sure maybe the 3rd attack should be a BA with a marginal damage difference, but since they don't have any other uses of their BA it's irrelevant almost all the time with just a few edge case scenarios.

your speaking to the choir (I am the DM).

All I can tell you that I had two different groups have the same reaction to the 3 attack gladiator. So clearly there is something about the 3 attacks that connects them to "high level powerful fighter"

 

[Distracted DM]

your speaking to the choir (I am the DM).

All I can tell you that I had two different groups have the same reaction to the 3 attack gladiator. So clearly there is something about the 3 attacks that connects them to "high level powerful fighter"

I guess tell them he's not a fighter- he's a warrior!
Maybe that's why it was so easy for him to get 15 hit dice :'D

 

[Stalker0]

What does this say about the power of high level magic? What does it mean to be high level?

This is addressed pretty directly in 5e's directive. The goal from the start was to reduce the scaling of levels and make monsters both higher and lower CR than the party more of a threat. It is why many of the "you need to be this cool to engage this mechanic" type attributes were removed from many monsters, and certain high level spells nerfed compared to their 3e counterparts.

A 20th level wizard is no longer supposed to curb stomp the world, you are cooler than pretty much any other wizard you meet, but a group of well-equipped lower level characters are supposed to be a serious threat to you.

We can debate if that is "desirable", but it is absolutely 5e working as intended.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't use the MM much, and for humanoids I usually do a quick stat up of monsters on the fly. For a 4 person 7th level party, I'd probably do 3 of these guys (blending some barb, rogue, and fighter abilities) and a ranged specialist, borrowing some rogue and monk abilities.

Gladiator
7 HD: 67 HP (4 + (7*6) + (7*3))
Prof: +3
S*: +4 D: +2, C*: +3, I: -1 W: -1 Ch: +1
Skills: Athletics, Performance, Medicine
AC: 19 (in stance)

Abilities:
BA: Focused Stance (1/sr): resist all b/p/s, +2 to AC while in stance. Lasts 10 rounds (1 min).
Action: 2 attacks, trident or net:
Trident: +8, 1d8+5. Extra 2d6 damage if target is restrained.
Net Throw: 5' radius, range 30', Dex save DC 15 or target is restrained. Action or attack to pick up net if no target is immobilized in it.
Rxn: Gladiator's Roll (2/sr): Make one trident attack after melee miss, then move 20', no OA. Or, after melee hit, take half damage, move 20', no OA.

Passives:
Trident Expert (+1 to atk/dmg with trident, use 1d8 for damage)
Net Specialist (Make Net Throw special attack)

 

[James Gasik]

You have to either stop thinking of it in those terms, or you have to do the work to make NPCs make sense. My brain doesn't allow for the first option, much.

I'm sorry to hear that, because that path is a lot harder to work with. I played d20 (3e and Pathfinder) for two decades and encounter building was such a chore. I basically had to stop using humanoid foes entirely because it was much more work to build them and gear them than it took my players to dismantle them, lol, at which point, their gear was now treasure I had to account for (many, many masterwork weapons dumped into the world as a result).

Not to mention, that approach was just as bad from a world building scenario, like when my party started griping about "5th-level bandits", lol. Even the old adage about "well, 20 guys should at least crit once every turn" gets turned on it's head when players can negate crits, force rerolls, have defensive actions, and of course, can use Whirlwind Attack or Fireball to obliterate those 20 guys!

If I used characters closer to the players in level, the chances of a potential TPK became closer to a coin flip, and if I used stronger NPC's, then I couldn't use as many opponents, which meant I got burned due to action economy- I despise Legendary Actions on principle, but getting a single dragon to survive two combat rounds against a party of PC's is downright difficult!

If games were more about exploration than slaying monsters and taking their stuff, these issues perhaps wouldn't be as prevalent, but since exploration has devolved to "roll an ability check that certain classes are built to trivialize" or "cast a spell that can be recovered with a nap", games inevitably boil down to combat.

I've recently started running Tales of the Valiant, and I'm starting to find combat ever so tedious. While I'm having to juggle multiple basic monsters who have, at best, a single trick, my players seem to have endless toys they can use to make me wonder what the heck I'm even doing- the Fighter can force disadvantage on the first attack each turn, on top of his 20 AC and I feel like I have to roll ten attacks against him just to inflict a paper cut, lol.

I am so tired of rolling that many dice! No wonder so many DM's opt to go digital.

Anyways, enough of that tangent. Again, I just feel like it's go abstract or go insane. I find myself missing 4e, where I can select a monster, raise or lower it's level as needed, and drop it into play. Sure, it's an abstract stat block that rarely explains how or why it does things, and it can be armed with a twig and still do appropriate damage, but it makes prepping and running the game so much easier than trying to figure out "ok, so maybe my party could survive a fight with one CR 5 and two CR 4's...".

 

[James Gasik]

This is addressed pretty directly in 5e's directive. The goal from the start was to reduce the scaling of levels and make monsters both higher and lower CR than the party more of a threat. It is why many of the "you need to be this cool to engage this mechanic" type attributes were removed from many monsters, and certain high level spells nerfed compared to their 3e counterparts.

A 20th level wizard is no longer supposed to curb stomp the world, you are cooler than pretty much any other wizard you meet, but a group of well-equipped lower level characters are supposed to be a serious threat to you.

We can debate if that is "desirable", but it is absolutely 5e working as intended.

I get that. But like I said, if I want to even pretend my campaign world makes sense, it becomes hard to justify where all these high level threats keep coming from, and why they always tend to show up in my party's path, lol. I know D&D is a game, and that's just how things have to be, but it does make it hard to take the game world's seriously- to me, roleplaying means imagining the world is real. Which I find difficult sometimes when I know I'm an actor on a stage and the dragon I'm fighting is just three guys inside a paper mache prop.

 

[Stalker0]

I get that. But like I said, if I want to even pretend my campaign world makes sense, it becomes hard to justify where all these high level threats keep coming from, and why they always tend to show up in my party's path, lol. I know D&D is a game, and that's just how things have to be, but it does make it hard to take the game world's seriously- to me, roleplaying means imagining the world is real. Which I find difficult sometimes when I know I'm an actor on a stage and the dragon I'm fighting is just three guys inside a paper mache prop.

and yeah I completely understand that. That is my classic counter to the "the dm can always add in another dragon".

Yes we can....if we don't want to maintain the believability of our world. Nothing wrong with a game where the world is secondary to the adventure and you just bring out what you need to make the game work. That's a perfectly fine kind of campaign.

But if your building a campaign that does have a more plausible, consistent world...than yeah at a certain point of challenge it gets to just throw in another high level guy.