Doing away with "Bigger Fish" problem.

[Mostlyjoe]

D&D has always suffered from a weird issue that is a byproduct of level scaling. We'll call it "Bigger Fish" as reference from the Darth & Droids Summon Bigger Fish joke, which is a great illustration of the problem.

The issue in a nutshell is: Foes don't scale with level, and neither do allies. The expections are that as the players level up they interact with stronger NPCs and foes. The Drow Scouts give way to Generals and Generals to Gods. Etc.

4E attempted to address this buy having the sliding scale of success on skill rolls and saves function based off of tiers, but the NPCs and monsters were all built with hard coded level expectations into them. 3.X's fix was character levels and or monster racial levels which added to complexity and didnt' always answer the problem of PC's over diversity of skill at higher level.

Basically we wound up with demigods and dragons being the only viable foes because the level 1 Orc they ran acorss years ago will never ever reasonably challenge them again.

One of the pieces that Monte/Mearls and Co brought up from the press conference that he flatter math of 5E will keep NPCs and Monsters more viable over levels and this is GREAT!~but...

But if the math was completely flat you could do the inverse. Have higher level foes be won over by the PCs even at the lowest of levels. Sure the odds of it happening are astronomical, but the hope still remains.

I'm not saying that some foes should be 'boss' level challenges, or far too complex to be taken out with a wild swing or spell casting. But it would be nice if the Drow General was as mortal as his Scout minions, just not as easy to get access too.

This could avoid the leveled NPCs from adventures seeming too weak or powerful based on their described role.

The catch is just how 'flat' does the math need to be to pull this off? How to you handle the force multiplier effect of PC skills and abilties? How do we avoid the 'Solo' monster templete and instead make that solo critter unique enough to pull on players? A lot of stuff I'm still trying to figure out in a game with levels.

FantasyCrafts take was interesting but problematic, mostly from mechanic bloat issues.

 

[TarionzCousin]

This "Bigger Fish" Issue? Link.

 

[ExploderWizard]

In earlier editions, you had the scaling issue but because defenses didn't scale nearly at the same rate as offensive power, lower level opponents in greater numbers were still viable foes.

Also the lower numbers of hit points combined with a system that didn't feature critical hits meant that better attack ranks and higher hp totals counted for a lot more.

Allies did scale up with the PCs in a certain way. A henchman earned XP at one half the rate of a PC. That combined with the reduced scaling effect made henchmen who might only be 5th-6th level, still useful to a part of 10th-11th level characters.

 

[howandwhy99]

Nice points EW. Also, if Henchmen were hired at campaign start and survived the entire campaign with the PCs, they would actually be 1 level behind with a 50% XP rate. At least with the logarithmic XP charts.

Plus, hirelings could be of any level. Hiring a hireling to train you meant they had to at least be of the level a PC was advancing into. They were simply more expensive than other kinds of hirelings. And it's not like blowing big money on a Ranger Lord wasn't a bad idea, if that's your plan. Men-at-arms would be cheaper, but there are heroes for hire if you can figure out their price (often not gold).

 

[Mostlyjoe]

Keep in mind that hirelings and followers could be considered part of the PC's own power base, even if only tangently and are expected to scale with them.

NPCs and critters not directly attached to the PC's however were in a void of development unless the GM took the time to rejigger the math.

You do make a good point about earlier editions allowing for large groups of minions and lower level critters still being a challenge.

A really, really good example of the issue coulde be 4E's Epic Minions. 1 hit to kill, but good luck getting that 1 hit in unless you were level 20+.

edit: TarionzCousin: That's the one.

 

[howandwhy99]

Basically we wound up with demigods and dragons being the only viable foes because the level 1 Orc they ran acorss years ago will never ever reasonably challenge them again.

ArchDevils, Ancient Dragons, and DemiLiches were the single enemy foes best suited to the highest level PCs in a one-on-one fight. 1 lone Orc is laughable at very high levels. But by then you're dealing with armies of them.

But if the math was completely flat you could do the inverse. Have higher level foes be won over by the PCs even at the lowest of levels. Sure the odds of it happening are astronomical, but the hope still remains.

I know it's fashionable to mock reversed "To Hit" rolls (THAC0), but this is basically what it did. Combat ability advancements were virtually nonexistent, but they did span the top end of the d20 roll. You may only need a 2 to an unarmored or by 10th level as a fighter, but you still could miss. Missing (and hitting) was always a possibility no matter what an attack was made against. But 5% was never the minimum to hit either, check it out. Another d20 was rolled or a percentile depending on penalties to hit effectively placing an AC under 0.

The catch is just how 'flat' does the math need to be to pull this off? How to you handle the force multiplier effect of PC skills and abilties? How do we avoid the 'Solo' monster templete and instead make that solo critter unique enough to pull on players? A lot of stuff I'm still trying to figure out in a game with levels.

Tough questions. Flatness really depends upon the die rolling method the game uses for the results under scrutiny. Bonuses are going to be low, yet powerful. Solos in these games need to be able to give a challenging fight to a large number of characters.

Keep in mind that hirelings and followers could be considered part of the PC's own power base, even if only tangently and are expected to scale with them.

Hirelings really aren't henchmen, so all followers never needed to scale with the PCs. There are high level monsters in the world and some of them are humans in cities. For the right price, they could be hired (and for a time be part of the PCs' power base)

NPCs and critters not directly attached to the PC's however were in a void of development unless the GM took the time to rejigger the math.

That depended upon the DM. Some DMs advanced the NPCs too when they increased a level. That means monsters in the dungeon when they kill your lackey.

 

[Mostlyjoe]

THACO did some interesting things to flattening the to-hit match, but I'm curious how you could reconfigure 4E's minion rules to avoid epic minions, but keeping the heroic tier deadly into Epic levels with a large enough number of them. Scale bonuses?

 

[Astrosicebear]

I agree there is always a bigger fish, and there may be better ways of handling the issue.

But, I also warn that making the system too flat will have more serious repercussions. In a pre-4e game, the party at lvl 1 found a lvl 3 hedge wizard in the starting town and thought he was the bees knees. By lvl 5 he was a sham. By level 15 he was forgotten until they had to return to him for knowledge. Even many levels below, he still could prove valuable. While at level 1-5 he was a great ally to the party in some battles, at level 15 the party now needs to protect him.

If we flatten this out, it takes away from the PC's being special. If everyone in the world scaled to the PCs in relative strength throughout a large swath of levels, then everything is the same. Post 4e, you could have the same effect, but it was much easier to scale NPCs and monsters to fit your needs.

Flattening it out too much results in a stale world. Leaving the power curve grow exponentially results in a degenerative world.

I'd say 3e was about a 3 level gap of power. Any more or less than 3 levels from a character level and the fight was inconsequential or impossible. 4E was about 5. I'd hope that in a 20 level system of 5E that gap remains the same, but in a 30 level system raises to about 6.

If the system flattens out too much where say a 10th lvl party fears a 1st level orc, then we have game degeneration. Unless they add a way to 'con' enemies, lol.

DM: You see an orc ahead with a large bow, aimed at you,
Player: I dive for cover and 'con him'.
DM: He's grey.
Player: Its ok guys, hes a grey, he wont aggro unless you touch him.

 

[Sunseeker]

Every time someone mentions "level scaling", my mind goes straight back to Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. If anyone has played it, you're familiar with the problem that level-scaling mechanics brought about. At low levels you'd run into packs of wolves, maybe a bandit. At higher levels, the world was practically FILLED with roving packs of powerful necromancers and there was rarely a moment you weren't being attacked by a who troop of some of the most powerful beings in the world.

Level as a representation of power is also a representation of rarity(not to be confused with MLP), there aren't many 20th+ level things in the world. There's one or two liches, a handful of dragons, and maybe a dozen adventurers of similar power to you.

If the townsfolk, the town guard, that wizard who sold you your lvl1 wand for way too much, that band of orcs in the hills all level with you, then either you're not gaining much power, or somehow everyone is managing to gain equal power to you. Either system makes progression rather silly, the former, you're really getting nowhere. The latter, no matter how far you get, you're still at risk of being bested by the same guys you already beat.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand the attraction of "flat" systems.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I don't understand the issue, either. I reread the OP and don't see any explanation of the actual problem, just that there's some issue that needs to be resolved.