D&D 5E 5e: the demystification of monsters?

[RangerWickett]

Jesus, I'm on page 4 and I hope this bickering ends by the time I reach page 6.

One ogre can hit (and thus 'pose some level of threat,' albeit not much) to a 1st, 5th, and 10th level character in D&D Next. No, it's not going to be a mortal threat, but it's not going to be something high-level characters just laugh off as harmless.

I don't even know what the point of the argument is. Why am I reading this?!

 

[Steely_Dan]

Jesus, I'm on page 4 and I hope this bickering ends by the time I reach page 6.

One ogre can hit (and thus 'pose some level of threat,' albeit not much) to a 1st, 5th, and 10th level character in D&D Next. No, it's not going to be a mortal threat, but it's not going to be something high-level characters just laugh off as harmless.

I don't even know what the point of the argument is. Why am I reading this?!

Thank you, we're done here!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

People still seem to be stuck in the newish, 4e style mindset of "One equal-level monster per PC".

No? It's just a useful baseline.

I mean, if [MENTION=6694877]slobo777[/MENTION] had run the 3 1st-level Fighters against 2 ogres, they'd have just done better than his report states. There's nothing mandating that there be 3 ogres there.

Moreover, 4E, through minions, encourages having lots more monsters than players without bogging things down, and through elites and solos, much fewer monsters than players without making the action economy work too hard in the PC's favors.

Additionally, 3E had a baseline of one equal-level* monster per party, so I can hardly see how 4E was somehow the outlier in this case.

* Measured as CR.

That's not how classic gaming works, and it's not how most epic adventure fantasy works. D&D has drifted further and further into expectations of 50/50 fights and building set-piece encounters, which I think is a problem.

I don't think D&D has ever focused on 50/50 encounters (as in, 50% chance the PCs win, 50% chance the PCs lose). The PCs are, generally speaking, supposed to win the encounters they ... encounter. Every other combat being a TPK doesn't match any edition I've ever played, RC or 2nd through 4th.

That you can use tons of low-level enemies (not two or three, tons) against a high level group, and still have a chance of the group having some trouble. And the simplicity of "mook" monsters means you can even do it with a minimum of fuss.

But, this is not any different than tons of, say, basic kobold warriors in 3E, or even minion kobolds in 4E, against high-level players. At some point, you get to where you're rolling enough 20s that anything is a threat.

The whole point of bounded accuracy is that you aren't supposed to need an army shooting for nat-20s to threaten higher-level PCs with lower-level monsters.

 

[Steely_Dan]

At some point, you get to where you're rolling enough 20s that anything is a threat.

Are you suggesting that as your character gets to a higher level you're rolling more 20s?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

One ogre can hit (and thus 'pose some level of threat,' albeit not much) to a 1st, 5th, and 10th level character in D&D Next.

One orc warrior can hit (and thus 'pose some level of threat,' albeit not much, to) a 1st, 5th, and 10th-level character in D&D 3.5.

Isn't bounded accuracy supposed to accomplish something? Isn't the point to make monsters more broadly relevent? I mean, there's nothing stopping you from having a couple dozen orc warriors or even basic ogres show up against your 10th-level 3.5 party, but I don't think anyone would call them particularly relevent to the outcome on average.

Oh, sure, maybe once in a awhile the orc scores a x3 crit with his greataxe, but by and large? They just die in droves without accomplishing anything.

The goal for D&D Next is not that you can throw those lower-level monsters into a combat - there hasn't ever been anything in D&D, any edition, that stopped you from doing this; rather, the goal is is that, in D&D Next, you can throw those lower-level monsters into a combat and the players will have to react to them like they were a threat, because they are.

I don't see a +4 attack bonus ogre, regardless of his damage code, being particularly relevant to a 10th-level party's average defenses (because, as demonstrated, he's not particularly relevant to a single-character's 5th-level defenses).

EDIT:

To be clear, it's entirely possible that the ogre is a bad example, because the designers, while implementing their bounded accuracy "template," have decided that 10th-level is beyond the envelope of usefulness for a level 3 Elite monster, and that's fine. We just don't know, yet.

 

[Obryn]

At tenth level, you're fighting a bloody army of ogres. Ten-thousand ogres besieging the castle? Great, send the five 10th level PC's to hold the eastern wall.

I love the concept, but the logistics of running that battle just make me want to put my face in my hands and sob.

#1 The attack roll issue. If they have missile weapons, it gets ugly and I'm rolling stupid amounts of dice. Attack and damage.

#2 is the hit point issue. I don't want to track 10,000 ogres. I know there are ways to fudge this - like making a blob of HPs and every 30 or whatever drops one, with further fudging for Area Effects - but still.

Without actual mass combat rules that differ from normal skirmish-scale combats, that's not a fight I want to run!

-O

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I love the concept, but the logistics of running that battle just make me want to put my face in my hands and sob.

This, too.

 

[RangerWickett]

My understanding of bounded accuracy was that:

In 3.5, a 1st level PC with chainmail, a large shield, and a 12 Dex has an AC of 18. By 5th level he's traded up to +1 full plate, so his AC is 22. By 10th level he's up to +2 full plate and a +1 large shield, and he has a ring of protection +1, so his AC is 25. A +7 boost over 9 levels.

In 4th edition, a 1st level PC with the same stuff is AC 19 (chainmail is +6, iirc). By 5th level he's gotten a level boost and +1 full plate, so he's AC 24. By 10th level he's up to AC 28. A +9 boost over 9 levels.

And in DDN, or at least so I hope, a 1st level PC with the same stuff is AC 19. By 5th level he's got full plate, but no magic, so he's AC 21. By 10th level he's got magic armor, which is just +1, so his AC is 22. A +3 boost over 9 levels.

 

[Neonchameleon]

1) No, I didn't, I said "an ogre", no mention of exactly how many, you guys just ran with it, and a 10th level party could be three 10th level wizards all with ACs' under 14.

2) Not defending, just reiterating the facts.

1: You said "an" ogre. "An ogre" is one ogre. The very root of the word an is one. The usage is the same as 'a' which is used before singular, mass, or proper nouns. Ogre isn't a mass noun. And it isn't a proper noun. You were explicitely talking about one single ogre. And contrasting it with "a gang of drow" (mass noun). Under the rules of English you said how many ogres. One.

2: It could also be a party of hogtied and blindfolded adventurers with no protection spells at all. But then so would a single kobold. In any edition.

You won't be fighting one ogre at tenth level. You won't be fighting 3 ogres at tenth level. It's possible you won't even be fighting ten ogres at tenth level.

And that's a horrible amount of dice rolling - and the bookkeeping when the mooks have hit points is a nightmare. Which is one of the reasons numbers of monsters have come down over time (although I'd argue 3.X is far lower than 4e).

I love that this sort of thing can happen again. That you can use tons of low-level enemies (not two or three, tons) against a high level group, and still have a chance of the group having some trouble. And the simplicity of "mook" monsters means you can even do it with a minimum of fuss.

Why blame 4e then? 4e introduced mook monsters to D&D. And you really need at the very least Mooks and probably Swarms to make this anything other than a book keeping nightmare. (3.X introduced swarms but you explicitely couldn't use swarm rules for larger than tiny monsters). 4e is the edition that is best at what you claim to want.

 

[Mattachine]

Seems like this thread has entirely turned into something other than the OP's point.