Falling from Great Heights

[fenriswolf456]

I don't find it unbelievable. No more than the fight the manticore exists. What I find it, is unappropiate. Because the game is about a group of heroes that do heroic things. If those things can be done by ordinary men, then the entire game is flawed. Why would the Baron pay 1000g to a group of adventurers, when 50 militia could do the job for 2g each?

Because the militia doesn't cost 2 gold each. They're all equipped, and armoured, and trained, and fed, all by this lord. Heck, leather armour and crossbows, we're talking 2,500 gold invested already. They're an investment in keeping order in the town. He can't have them traipsing off into the wilderness all the time.

And if that's the case, why hire 1st level adventurers to clear out a kobold den, when clearly 50 trained militia could? Because it's a game, and so the plot is developed to give a reason why. It doesn't mean that the 50 guards couldn't do it.

He could probably hire mercenary soldiers, perhaps, if any were around, for cheaper. But nothing says they have the skills or wherewithall to face down the threat. Maybe he's tried mercenaries and they failed, so he needs the adventurous PCs, and knows that their skills don't come cheap.

On the flip side, if the town guard can't fight off a couple of manticores, why is the town still around and not razed to the ground by them already? Something must be preventing them. Perhaps the acknowledgement that arrows can hurt and kill, especially when a lot are being shot at you.

Not really. You can *change* it so it fulfill the prefference of your group, but the *base* story is what it is. A bunch of people, low level, that fight orcs and goblins and run when they face anything else.

As an example:
You could say so. However, Tolkien did not. It was a *baby* Troll. Not even a full developed one.

Sure did. Notice he didn't say a baby D&D troll. While we can keep going back and forth, drawing parallels, the fact is that D&D does not emulate Middle Earth. Inspired in some ways, certainly, but that's about all. So why is your troll any more acceptable than mine?

And it's not a bunch of low levels. We even agreed that Gandalf is level 27 at least, and he's running from the low level goblins just as much as the others.

I don't want to really limit my game. I'd prefer access to levels and abilities. Obviously, a Middle Earth D&D would be a heavily modified version of the game. You could model it by limiting leveling, or you can redefine what the levels represent in respect to the world being modelled. You prefer the first method, I prefer the second, neither is wrong.

Aragorn couldn't defeat any dragon, ancient or not. (and by the way, the dragons remaining are the weaker ones. The stronger epic ones lived in the ancient era). Aragorn can't defeat a Giant.

Sure, but for game purposes, the dragons may as well be ancients. It's not like D&D can support a character like Feonor either, as even a level 30 character couldn't take on platoons of level 27 elites. But the First and Second ages are different scales. The balrogs then were likely paragon threats to Feonor's epicness.

But if they were 20th level, they would had smashed it without effort. And they wouldn't had run from the Balor either. The team was not able to defeat any high level threat. Just orcs, and a wight (barely). Everything else was beyond his scope.

Sure, if they were 20th, the kraken would be a fairly easy challenge, but not if they were say 12th. Then the kraken wipes the floor with them. And a Balor would have a field day with them at 20.

The only wight I can remember is the one the hobbits encountered. So yes, totally agree here. The hobbits are very low level, and needed a magic weapon and primordial elemental to help save them.

That's because you keep thinking 5-6 levels is "little" and 10-11 level is "normal". It is not. That's why you don't see why 12th level warriors kill 12 militia, because you think Aragorn is 12th level, and he is not able to kill 12 archers. But Aragorn is not 12th level in terms of D&D, not by far.

I do think it's little. My current 4E character has leveled up to 8 in less than a month game time. It's never taken a character of mine 10 years to go up a level. So why wouldn't I think a seasoned adventure of 50 years would have a good number of levels under his belt?

Why couldn't Aragorn kill 12 archers? He certainly kills multitudes of orcs, and we've been equating low level bowmen to low level orcs.

Not true. The real Illiad book was written when Achilles was not invulnerable. The story about his skin being impossible to be pierced was actually built several centuries later. By the time Homer wrote about Achilles, he was NOT invulnerable. He was just the most badass warrior of all times. His only "power" was his anger. His anger was high enough to divert a river. That, and a huge martial skill that allowed him to fight entire armies and never be touched.

However, I was refering the movie to give you a visual example of a high level fighter facing dozens of regular mobs in a belieavable fashion and not being concerned about it. Achilles was not supernatural in that movie. I could give you other examples, as Leonidas in 300. High "level" fighters (or rogues for that matter) don't fear mooks. Aragorn might do, but that's because Aragorn is not a high level fighter. Hector the Tamer of Horses (talking about the Illyad here) would beat Aragorn any day of the week. And he can't even *touch* Achilles.

My comments on Achilles were in relation to the movie rendition as well. Hence my comments that if a character has never been hit before (as the movie Achilles is presented as), then sure, he wouldn't be concerned by the bowmen.

But PCs have been hit and hurt by arrows likely a dozen times over, maybe even brought to near death by them. Why shouldn't they then still be concerned about bows?

Hrm ... I seem to remember Leonidas and Co. being concerned about the rain of arrows on them, else they wouldn't have bothered with shielding themselves. They also weren't expecting to survive, it was a matter of stubborn honour and of how many enemies they could drag down with them.

Again, I'm not saying that higher level PCs should go running and crying when some guards point bows at them. All I'm wanting is for there to be a perception that this is a dangerous situation. If all the characters are cocky badasses, then sure, the guardsmen aren't a concern. For a grittier kind of mindset, like say LotR or 300, the characters should be going into things feeling like it could be their last.

Maybe not everyone's cup of tea, but it's the D&D style that I prefer playing. It's not likely something to be fully achieved in D&D, since in the end 'save or die' and insta-deaths are usually not fun.

 

[JamesonCourage]

But, the other issue here, with the idea of the archers vs monsters, that's a LOT trickier. That gets into all sorts of knock on effects. If the playing field is so flat that 12 archers=1 Dragon/giant/whatever, that has enormous effects on campaign design. It doesn't make much sense that a large settlement would be realistically threatened by giants (for example) if giants are that weak.

There's all sorts of other issues bundled up here as well. If 12 NPC archers can challenge my 15th level character, why can't my 3rd level party mug a 15th level NPC and steal his stuff? So on and so forth.

I can't speak for others, but in a world where I want it more gritty, I want these knock on effects. I want the PCs to be able to rob a 15th level NPC if they can manage it. I want monsters with low damage reduction to be threatened by groups of crossbowmen. I want people to look at heavy armor and see the obvious benefit of wearing such a thing (despite the obvious drawbacks).

Now, we know that they're going for "flatter math", but we're not sure what level of "flat" that math that is yet. Depending on how easy it is to hit a giant as a level 3 creature in the base game, it may or may not be a problem (a giant that has AC 17, but more hit points than average, for example). If that's the case, a group of level 3 warriors could hit its AC and could threaten it (if it doesn't have a way to reduce that damage, like damage reduction from its thick giant hide or from thick armor).

If the math isn't as flat (the giant has an AC of 24, and the level 3 warriors can't hit it), then there needs to be another solution. A cumulative penalty to being attacked, for example. This means that the giant will eventually get hit, but his thick plate armor might mean he's not damaged whatsoever. It just depends on what the final mechanics are, and just how flat the math is.

If we don't want a group of low level NPCs to be able to face down monsters, put in a morale or fear check on obviously dangerous things. A dragon shows up, they might run (some or all). A giant that crushes a house to kills two men in one swing might cause a rout. A manticore that skewers a few guys and flies back up into the air might make the local militia flee, or retreat. And, once the PCs act and start cutting them down left and right, they might fail their check and take off. Until then, the PCs don't look monstrous (probably), and they're just another group of guys in armor and robes. Pointing crossbows at them (and making them dangerous) seems like it can be handled. Though you're not wrong about the knock on effects in certain cases. As always, play what you like

 

[Elf Witch]

I
A 15th level fighter can beat the long jump world record while wearing a full plate. He is beyond normal humans possibilities. He is not concerned about jumping a 30' chasm in full plate, while should he be concerned about killing 12 peasants with 2 weeks military drill and a simple weapon?

You seem to be fixated on this point that we are talking about yokels with crossbow being a threat and we are not.

We are talking about well trained archers who train and keep their skills up.

And that being confronted by these archers should at least give the PCs pause. As someone else pointed out the PCs know that getting hit can kill or injury because they have seen it happen.

There is a big difference between you are confronted by a group of crossbow men. They look like farmers and their hands shake a little as they aim at you.

And you approach the city, on the walls ready to fire stand the famed archers known throughout the kingdoms for their skill.

 

[Hussar]

Elf Witch - I think the issue here is that you scale your opponents (something I heartily agree with). Your "highly trained city guard" aren't 3rd level fighters. They're 10th level fighters (or whatever would make them a credible threat). And this is a perfectly acceptable way of doing it. This is exactly how 4e suggests you do it.

3e doesn't usually take this route, since it wouldn't make any sense for even a city to have that many high(ish) level characters around. If you follow the 3e campaign design guidelines, even a metropolis won't have more than a handful of double digit level fighters in the entire city, let alone dozens in the city guard. A 3rd level fighter, in 3e, IS a famed archer, known throughout the kingdoms for their skill.

At least, that's how 3e presents the world. Like I said, 4e says, "Hey, what will make your game more interesting? Higher level archers? Go for it and world simulation can go cry in the corner."

I can see why some people might not like that approach.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

There are a couple of ways that this sort of modularity can be built into the game, creating the options for the exact same 15th level fighter to either laugh off a fall or lava, to worried about it, to scared of it, to auto-lethal.

One idea is to scale hit points... max hp {3e} vs Healing surge {4e} vs SW Saga VP/WP vs Elric {Com = hp}

An idea to handle the lower level threats is to build tiers into the game and you get one exploding dice per tier. This way the 50 archers can be scary as every once in a while you get a spike in damage.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], in my experience 4e has said 'that nasty master archer you faced at first level? now that you are 15th level he is still a threat but easy to beat ...because he is a minion now. My campaign has the PCs facing archer platoons, literally hundreds of enemies, as epic level swarms. The rules let you model the sort of threat the creatures are to the PCs, not define the creature. YMMV, of course.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] , in my experience 4e has said 'that nasty master archer you faced at first level? now that you are 15th level he is still a threat but easy to beat ...because he is a minion now. My campaign has the PCs facing archer platoons, literally hundreds of enemies, as epic level swarms. The rules let you model the sort of threat the creatures are to the PCs, not define the creature. YMMV, of course.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. This is exactly what I meant. Like I said, you scale the threat based on the needs of the situation at the time, not the needs of the setting.

Again, I can see why there are people who don't like this.

 

[pemerton]

being confronted by these archers should at least give the PCs pause. As someone else pointed out the PCs know that getting hit can kill or injury because they have seen it happen.

But do the PCs also know they can dodge or deflect any arrows that come their way?

And if the answer to that is "no", then what is the game mechanical model going to be? Save or die?

In which case, if the DC is high enough, the nature of the game will change quite a bit. You'll be into the territory of a crit/wound system for combat resolution.

Or if the DC is low enough that only a 1 fails, you'll probably have similar play to presently, but 1 in 20 times the players will be irritated by that roll of a 1.

 

[Elf Witch]

Elf Witch - I think the issue here is that you scale your opponents (something I heartily agree with). Your "highly trained city guard" aren't 3rd level fighters. They're 10th level fighters (or whatever would make them a credible threat). And this is a perfectly acceptable way of doing it. This is exactly how 4e suggests you do it.

3e doesn't usually take this route, since it wouldn't make any sense for even a city to have that many high(ish) level characters around. If you follow the 3e campaign design guidelines, even a metropolis won't have more than a handful of double digit level fighters in the entire city, let alone dozens in the city guard. A 3rd level fighter, in 3e, IS a famed archer, known throughout the kingdoms for their skill.

At least, that's how 3e presents the world. Like I said, 4e says, "Hey, what will make your game more interesting? Higher level archers? Go for it and world simulation can go cry in the corner."

I can see why some people might not like that approach.

Maybe that is part of the issue so many people go you are doing it wrong it goes against world building to scale them this way. And using 3E world building is not the way it is done.


To bad there is so many things about 4E I can't stand because this scaling from mook to minion sounds just like what I do.

I don't mind this approach because levels is just a metagame concept. It solves the issue of PCs who can run all over a highly trained militia without breaking into a sweat.

 

[Elf Witch]

But do the PCs also know they can dodge or deflect any arrows that come their way?

And if the answer to that is "no", then what is the game mechanical model going to be? Save or die?

In which case, if the DC is high enough, the nature of the game will change quite a bit. You'll be into the territory of a crit/wound system for combat resolution.

Or if the DC is low enough that only a 1 fails, you'll probably have similar play to presently, but 1 in 20 times the players will be irritated by that roll of a 1.

I think the best answer is to scale the archers. After all they are not sitting on their tushes knitting while the PCs are out fighting goblins. So it makes sense that they level too.

I know that DnD is not going to get rid of levels and go to a system like Hero or Shadowrun. And because of that the PCs will always be gaining a lot of power as they level.

To be honest I have yet to see a high level game that lasts long before the DM gets frustrated at the sheer amount of work it takes to challenge a party at this level. After awhile the world stops making sense. As high levels the PCs can destroy entire kingdoms. You have to ask why they are not running the world. And what you challenge them with you have to wonder why these bad guys or monsters have not destroyed the world yet but sat around waiting for a high level group to come around and challenge them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the best answer is to scale the archers. After all they are not sitting on their tushes knitting while the PCs are out fighting goblins. So it makes sense that they level too.

I know that DnD is not going to get rid of levels and go to a system like Hero or Shadowrun. And because of that the PCs will always be gaining a lot of power as they level.

To be honest I have yet to see a high level game that lasts long before the DM gets frustrated at the sheer amount of work it takes to challenge a party at this level. After awhile the world stops making sense. As high levels the PCs can destroy entire kingdoms. You have to ask why they are not running the world. And what you challenge them with you have to wonder why these bad guys or monsters have not destroyed the world yet but sat around waiting for a high level group to come around and challenge them.

Eh, there are plenty of reasons. High level PCs probably ARE the big wheels in their area of influence. OTOH they may well not want to be running things or destroying kingdoms. Beyond that, no matter how powerful you are, you can only influence what is in range of your sword in the long run. The same goes for monsters. Most of them probably aren't interested in destroying the world. Many of them probably have entirely other agendas. Often they have no agenda at all, they just exist.

Personally I have no big problems with high level play. It is just different and has different things going on. Actually, while it generally gets a little more complicated it hasn't proven to be that bad in 4e. The main issue has really been limited support for epic play. Still, we have had fun with it and it didn't seem any more absurd than any other level of play.

While I may well scale opponents it is more for simplicity and fun than because of some desire to put the PCs in their place. It is just a lot easier to have 20 minions running around than 20 low level standard creatures. If the PCs are going to be going around worrying about the city guard at 20th level then its going to be the city guard of the City of Brass or something. The last thing I want is a game where 20th level feels almost the same as 1st level did. Variety is the spice of life and I find that most players really enjoy the chance to be big semi-invincible heroes as much as they like slogging through the low levels worrying about orcs.