Falling from Great Heights

[fenriswolf456]

They can't be considered a threat thanks to Mike Tyson experience in real world.

The same goes for the country bandits facing a high level PC.

I still fail to see how something that even 0 level peasants wouldn't consider to be a threat equate to a group of armed and practiced people. There's nothing to suggest that an unarmed child is a threat in any way (except maybe to get your ankle bitten). Weapons in the hands of skilled enemies is a credible threat.

But he is not, and luck, chance, fate means nothing: this will happen every time the monk happens to be bitten by this colossal dragon.

Now, you can't dismiss my examples taken from the game rules with "this is ridiculous": what I'm showing you is that the game has an internal consistency, that you are throwing out of the window asking for a dozen country bandits with crossbows to be a serious threat.

The high level PC monk knows that he can face the colossal dragon, and he knows he can slaughter the country bandits, just like Mike tyson knows he can defeat the 4 years old kids: they both know it thanks to their life experience.

You said it too.

I'm not dismissing your example. But I can still think it's ridiculous. I accept it because I know that in order for a game to be fun, there has to be some balance and consistency, but that doesn't always work with expectations. Really, there should be no clamping bite attacks or swallowing effects. They should be saved for when characters go down. I would be very hard pressed to come up with any concievable reason for why an unarmoured, unresilient otherwise normal mortal being could survive being crunched in a ancient dragon's jaws.

But I accept it because that's how the rules have written the creature, and they wanted it to do something different than just claw/claw/bite/breath. I can still think the ability is poorly implemented.

But I'm still not seeing how facing a monstrous threat in any way means that any mundane threat is now a cakewalk. By the mechanics and numbers, I can see, but from a character's POV, I'm just not seeing it.

Who's to say that all those bandits aren't of equal level to the PCs? Unless the PCs have seen these exact people in action and know that their aim is crap and their tactics very basic, there's nothing to say that they wouldn't be pincushioned.

They have also seen that mooks die even if hit in their arms, stomach, legs, and so on.

But they have also seen that they (the PCs) can be hit several times in their arms, stomach, chest, legs, whatever, even on their heads, and they don't die.

That's their experience.

Hoping this is hyperbole, but if not, I can see why our experiences and expectations are different. I would never have a mook die because of an arrow to the arm. A killing blow is a killing blow, so such hits would strike vital areas; arrow through the neck, driven deep into the chest or gut, throw the eye, etc.

If your PCs are taking shots to the head with any regularity, then things are on a very different perception scale. If I have a PC take a solid arrow hit to the head, they're going down and bleeding, if not dying outright. Grazes and near misses are entirely different.

Which is why my characters can believe that a bow in the hands of a trained marksmen is dangerous, because they've seen the death and injury arrows can do.

Nope, unless these PCS are so stupidly lucky that every single hit in their career has always hit their arms.

Not to mention that seeing how many crossbows bolt a high level PC can sustain, they also should know that they are different from common people, cause no country bandit could sustain being hit 20 or 30 time by crossbows bolts, even if they are always hit in their arms.

PCs are incredibly lucky, and skilled. I'm not saying that a PC shouldn't be dodging arrows, or only being nicked by them, or having them bounce off shields and armour. But at the same time, every arrow shot isn't going directly into the heart either.

And that's the crux for me. HP are not a giant sack of meat points. If your PCs are pincushions of dozens of arrow shots, then I can see that mindset. The only time I have PCs take an actual solid hit from an attack is on crits, or very high damage. I can in no way suspend my belief to have a hero wandering around with 20 arrows sticking out of them. It may work in your game mindset, it doesn't in mine. Thankfully HP are abstract enough to support both views.

Besides, your point of view should be applied for every single danger the PCs could face, making them a jumble of incredible idiots, cause they otherwise would never go adventuring knowing that they can face threats immeasurably greater than a bunch of country bandits.

I have no idea where you're getting this idea. Every single danger should be approached with caution. It's not like we go sticking our hands into boiling pots of water for lols. We know the water's not going to kill us, but it's going to hurt worth a damn. We don't go disturbing hornet's nests just cause. Individually they can't even be considered a serious threat, but I would bet there would hardly be anyone who wouldn't be trying to get away from a swarm of even a dozen of them. But it's not like you're concerned with dying (unless you're allergic, of course), but because it hurts, and most everyone has an aversion to being hurt. Likewise it should be for the PCs. It's not that they'll die, it's not that the 12 bandits are a serious threat if push came to shove, it's that arrows are going to hurt and why take pain when you don't have to?

But it seems your PCs act just like this, and wade through lava, take arrows to the face, and fall 200 feet and brush themselves off. In such a world, then yes, I happily concede that 12 bowmen mean nothing to the PCs. It's great that you enjoy this viewpoint of play. It's never been mine in all my years of playing D&D.

EXACTLY. And that's the reason they can survive 12 crossbows as well.
That's easy. Because of adventurers . Which is the way the game is developed to have a plot reason, as you said 2 minutes ago.

So the town has 24/7 protection by adventurers for time imperpetual? Why is it not logical to assume that if a town cannot protect itself from the threats around it on it's own, that the town should no longer be there? If the guard is so ineffectual against manticore, say, they why aren't the manticores just roosting in a tower and having easy pickings? The manticores must perceive at least some danger in the townsfolk that keeps them from more than just raiding them for food.

And now we have the plot, that the local town is suffering predations by the manticore, often where the militia aren't (say local farms, or a raided caravan taking by suprise, or whatever). And so the PCs are brought forth to deal with the problem for the local lord.

That's a moot point. You could assing that baby troll whatever CR you want in D&D, yes. He could be a baby troll 25 level solo. Just like Smaug could be a lvl 4 minion and a LotR rat could be level 30 elite. That does not make any sense, however. If you judge a troll like the one in the book/film, by D&D standards, it's no more than CR 4-5. It does not have the size, or the strength, or the resiliance, of a Giant. It is not tougher than a D&D troll (it does not even regenerates). It's not invulnerable, have no magic, does not fly...

As the PCs themselves show, size and mass have absolutely nothing to do with the difficulty level of a creature. After all, that 20th level halfling rogue isn't invulnerable, may have some magic items, can't fly on his own, certainly isn't as strong or resilient as a giant. So by this logic, the rogue should be pretty easy to defeat. Which of course isn't the case.

Background is not adventure. Aragorn is a dunedain, a long lived character. He has being adventurign for 50 years. I once made a lvl 1 elf character who was 200 years old and had been adventuring for a century. That does not change the adventure itself, it's background, in D&D terms. The adventure starts when Frodo takes the ring from Bilbo.

Sure, for Frodo, and Sam, and Merry and Pippin. All of whom I happily consider 1st level. They've never adventured before, never faced dangers beyond Farmer Maggot. Why would they be anything but?

But for Aragorn, his adventure started 50 years ago. He's just ported into the new campaign with this group of first level hobbits.

I have to ask why your 100 year adventuring elf didn't learn anything in all his adventures?

Because his character isn't described badass enough to dodge arrows. However, let's assume he does. Isn't exactly that your problem? That you find unbelievable that characters survive 12 shots?

No, as I've stated many times, what I find unbelievable is a character totally scoffing at 12 bows aimed at them. I don't expect the characters to be defeated, certainly not killed, because I too know and understand the underlying mechanics of the game, and because they are heroes who in the end should win through.

But it's clear we have differing views on how PCs should perceive their worlds. Totally fine, of course, I do see how your interpretation of the levels in D&D can give a different impression on how characters view the world.

Remember, hit points also represent dodges, etc. In that scene, Achilles character maybe has 350 hp and the Dm is describing him dodging the arrows, getting a bit of fatigue and nothing else.

Yes, which is why I argue that HP represent much more than pure physical health. Which is why I believe characters should be concerned about arrows pointed at them. Which is why I argue that PCs shouldn't just meta-game that because they have 300 hps, that a dozen bowshots shouldn't matter. The _players_ certainly can, and it's virutally impossible not to. But I would like the _characters_ to feel that it's at least a risky proposition, that the arrows are going to hurt, and they might even be unlucky and take a fatal shot.

I don't see the difference. The PC might have shields too.

One or two, maybe, but I don't think I've ever seen a party of all shield users, and fewer still that would offer complete cover, from all angles of attack.

This. This is completelly the solution and the way to go, imho. Goblins with crossbows won't threat High Level PC.

But Ranger 4/rogue3 goblins with poisoned crossbows? That's another matter.

And if your players don't know which goblins are garbage and which goblins aren't, they will be wary in front of those 12 crossbows. Because yes, if those are lvl 1 CR 1/4 goblins, this is a feast. If they pack 3d6 sneak attack and have favourite enemy human, that's another matter.

4E style won't give them class levels, but will use higher level goblins. They are not "filthy goblins" but "fell goblins" or "killer goblins" or whatever.

This is the solution. Not making 12th level warriors weak enough so anyone with 35gp can buy a crossbow and challenge them.

But then we're getting back to the metagaming. Why are these ranger/rogue goblins perceived as such a threat, when bandits weren't? To the characters, they're just goblins with bows, and aren't goblins not worth worrying about if you're challenging manticores and beholders?

Reading the threads here on the forums, and my own preparations, I'm happy to see the 4E can at least better model some of what I'm looking for, in that's it's easier to scale threats to the PCs, even if the bandits are just minions.

 

[Balesir]

I agree. But that doesn't mean that D&D Next can't support both.

So, levels support what you don't want, but don't support what you do want, and you want both? The only way I can see for that to happen is for D&DNext to both have levels and not have levels - how can that work?

Why is that a problem for you?

It bothers me because both having levels and not having levels is impossible, and an irrational thing to desire.

No, I think I'll keep it as it was, thank you very much.

OK, in that case I'll just stick with disagreeing with you. D&DNext cannot both have and not have levels, so we are down to one or other desired system not being D&D Next, as far as I can see.

What part of a unifying edition do you not understand...? If you consider the goals of D&D Next as abject folly, then why are you here in the D&D Next forums...?

I'm here because I'm interested to see what D&DNext does turn out as, and I'm hoping that it's a coherent enough system to be useful for something.

Seems to me that posting in a thread, in a forum about the next edition of D&D, an edition that has stated it's goals as unyeildingly unifying, when one is against that very notion...that is abject folly.

Its stated goals are unifying the "play styles" (exact meaning unclear) of all previous editions of D&D. That seems likely, to me, to exclude those things that D&D has never done. That still leaves a considerable scope for D&DN to cover - possibly an impractical amount. To add even more scope for it to "unify" seems beyond any semblance of reasonable ambition.

If you haven't figured it out by now, by reading this thread, then you're simply not ever going to understand it. That's okay though, you don't have to. What would be nice from you though, is tolerance for opinions and desires that don't match your own, whether you understand them or not. May as well simply start accepting that and move on. Leave talk of the inclusion of things in D&D Next that you don't like, to those that do like them, and just be happy that D&D Next will also continue to have what you want.

I understand perfectly well why you want the style of game you describe - it's a perfectly valid, cogent and sensible desire. I just don't understand why you want to get that game with the words "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover. I have nothing against you having it - it just seems a bizarre thing to demand. It also seems to me likely to surprise and confuse those who thought they knew what "D&D" could be expected to provide, as an RPG. But, if that's the game you want, I'd have a use for it, quite honestly, if it did the job well - I would just be really puzzled why they ever called it "D&D" (if that's what they did).

 

[El Mahdi]

So, levels support what you don't want, but don't support what you do want, and you want both? The only way I can see for that to happen is for D&DNext to both have levels and not have levels - how can that work?

...

It bothers me because both having levels and not having levels is impossible, and an irrational thing to desire.

...

OK, in that case I'll just stick with disagreeing with you. D&DNext cannot both have and not have levels, so we are down to one or other desired system not being D&D Next, as far as I can see.

Where in the hell did you get the idea that I don't want levels or progression through levels??? I've never said that, nor said that I endorsed such an idea. And as far as I can tell, nobody in this thread has said that either...(though it is a long thread, and though I've read almost all of it, I may have missed or overlooked somebody saying that).

Adding realistic rules through modules, or vice-versa - making the core more realistic and adding the more superheroic concepts through modules, is what I and everybody else in this thread has been talking about.

What makes the concept of Levels of Experience and subsequent improving of abilities counter to either type of game style?

Its stated goals are unifying the "play styles" (exact meaning unclear) of all previous editions of D&D. That seems likely, to me, to exclude those things that D&D has never done. That still leaves a considerable scope for D&DN to cover - possibly an impractical amount. To add even more scope for it to "unify" seems beyond any semblance of reasonable ambition.

Incorrect. D&D has been played as, and has been capable of in every edtion, damn near every type of playstyle possible in RPGs. That's the beauty of D&D. D&D has most certainly been able to play standard High Fantasy, Grim n' Gritty, Ordinary Hero, Zero to Hero, Zero to God, etc., and with variable mixes of Gamist, Simulationist, and Narrativist elements.

Some editions have focused on different aspects to different degrees. But they have all been able to do that. But with 5E, we have the chance to have a D&D that does all of those things, exactly as each and every gaming group wants them to be. And that is the design goal of D&D.

Mike Mearls, Legends and Lore 4/9/2012
Goal #2: Reunification through Diversity

Traditionally, D&D editions have focused on specific play styles. This approach has fragmented the community over time. The next iteration must stretch the system to cover a wider variety of play styles through character and DM options. By looking at past editions and incorporating their elements as core or optional rules, we can allow players and groups to place the focus where they want it.

In other words: Unifying the play styles of the gamers that play D&D, under one versatile edition.

I understand perfectly well why you want the style of game you describe - it's a perfectly valid, cogent and sensible desire. I just don't understand why you want to get that game with the words "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover. I have nothing against you having it - it just seems a bizarre thing to demand. It also seems to me likely to surprise and confuse those who thought they knew what "D&D" could be expected to provide, as an RPG. But, if that's the game you want, I'd have a use for it, quite honestly, if it did the job well - I would just be really puzzled why they ever called it "D&D" (if that's what they did).

Because believe it or not, tons of people have been playing D&D for decades, in ways that you likely wouldn't call or recognize as D&D. And that's the whole point of a unifying edition.

What D&D IS varies from group to group, table to table, and player to player...and they are ALL D&D! Such changes might be ones that won't look recognizable as D&D to you. To others, that is exactly what D&D is and has always been.

It's time for fans of D&D to stop viewing D&D through their own narrow definitions, and accept that D&D is many different things, to many different people, and has always been that way.

It's more than just accepting, it's acknowledging and embracing an inclusive attitude towards the game, rather than an exclusionary and limiting attitude.

The designers have already done that, it's time for us as fans to do the same.

 

[pemerton]

If you consider the goals of D&D Next as abject folly, then why are you here in the D&D Next forums...?

<snip>

What would be nice from you though, is tolerance for opinions and desires that don't match your own, whether you understand them or not. May as well simply start accepting that and move on. Leave talk of the inclusion of things in D&D Next that you don't like, to those that do like them, and just be happy that D&D Next will also continue to have what you want.

Speaking for my own part, my interest in D&Dnext is a bit like Balesir's: I'm curious to see what will be in it, and whether it will be a viable and coherent system.

I think, if it is to be viable and coherent, there must be some limits on what can and can't be done with it.

Adding realistic rules through modules, or vice-versa - making the core more realistic and adding the more superheroic concepts through modules, is what I and everybody else in this thread has been talking about.

What makes the concept of Levels of Experience and subsequent improving of abilities counter to either type of game style

"Levels", in D&D, have typically meant (i) better attacks (whether weapons or spells), (ii) better resilience (AC and hp), and (iii) tougher challenges.

At a certain point, the PCs typically have had attacks strong enough to fell dinosaurs and dragons (as measured in the mechanics of the game), and have been resilient enough to survive impossible falls, point-blank dragon fire, and the like. In AD&D it is not impossible for a high level fighter to confront and defeat an army of 100 or more goblins, kobolds or mercenaries in 15 or so minutes of fighting (using the 1 attack per round per level rules when facing foes with < 1 HD).

Not in B/X or AD&D, as written - let alone 3E or 4e - is it possible to conceive of a 15th or 20th level PC as "just like an ordinary person, only more talented". I'm not saying one therefore has to assume that they have muscles (literally) of steel and huge layers of meat. But they are "chosen", or blessed, or insanely lucky, or something similar, and therefore superheroically capable, in terms of the exploits they can undertake.

If people are running "ordinary heroes" campaigns with 15th or 20th level PCs, it seems that they must either (i) changing the mechanics or (ii) ignoring parts of the mechanics: for example, ruling that PCs die from 100' falls (10d6 is not fatal damage for the typical 15th level PC, except perhaps a magic-user), or from being shot by 12 NPC archers (ditto 12d6 with attack rolls needed for each die), even though the mechanics say that they can survive.

In 2nd ed AD&D and 3E, the massive damage rules (a mechanical change) will make a difference to some of these cases - some falls, some breath weapons, etc will trigger massive damage saves - but not others - 12 separate arrow attacks, for example, will not trigger a massive damage save.

If D&Dnext is going to support "ordinary heroes" play for the full 10 or 20 levels of the game (I'd be surprised if they go for 30 levels this time around), but also support the same sort of play as one gets from using prior editions' high level rules as written, the only straightforward way I can see to do it is via some sort of "reflavouring" toggle: when you press the "ordinary heroes" button, then your 10th level opponents are well-trained soldiers, whereas when you push the "Silmarillion" button, your 10th level opponents are Balrogs.

It's seems likely that there would have to be some changes to these opponents other than merely reflavouring - perhaps 10th level Balrogs have a few mechanical abilities that 10th level soldiers lack - and therefore perhaps some changes to the mechanical abilities of the PCs when toggles are switched. (Maybe the pool of feats or spells to choose from is different depending which toggle is pushed.)

But the changes can't be very extensive - eg whole new realms of PC building can't be opened up or shut down by pushing the toggle, and whole new action resolution techniques can't be opened up or shut down by pushing the toggle - or else we won't be talking about a modular system anymore, but simply multiple games being published side-by-side by the one publisher.

[MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] and [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] have better ideas than me about how these "tier" toggles might work.

 

[Minigiant]

-Good Stuff-

Can't XP you yet.
This is what I've been saying for pages.

I am sure there will be many modules and options that can make D&D into a Semi-realistic world. But I really doubt any of them will be core due to the traditional nature of D&D's levels being only of increasing numbers. Eventually the increasing numbers will clobber the low numbers.

Making D&D more realistic (or more superheroic) wold require a lot of extra rules and the Design staff have mentioned that the core with be rather simple and only contain the most important and required rules. And there is a limit to how much could be added until the core rules are smothered by the new rules and the game not longer feels like a homebrewed version of the same game others are playing.

 

[Hussar]

But really, why is this something you've chosen to debate? Why is it you want to nix the very idea of Ordinary Hero's?

You may not be interested in them, wouldn't read a story about them, or play a game like this...but why do you feel the need to nullify the very idea...? Is it that you just don't want D&D to be played this way at all...? Is it you don't want the rules to support this even if it doesn't impinge upon your playstyle...?

Because, in your quest for "ordinary heroes" you gum up my game?

D&D has never, ever, out of the box, supported ordinary heroes. Yet, people insist that, not only did it previously, but this should also be a design goal for the future. In earlier editions, a 2nd level fighter was already head and shoulders above the common man. By 5th level, he was super-human, routinely capable of surviving completely unrealistic situations.

D&D is heavily based in pulp fantasy and sword and sorcery fiction. That's the roots of the game. And S&S and pulp fantasy do not do "commoner done good" fiction. S&S heroes are Big Damn Heroes. Conan was never a common man. Fafrd and the Grey Mouser were never Joe Q Average. Elric was miles away from being the guy just off the turnip truck.

What I don't get is why you insist that D&D be something that it has never been. By flattening the game to the point where your common man hero can survive anything, you make it impossible for me to run my game.

OTOH, by scaling opponents to fit with whatever narrative situation the PC's find themselves in and recognizing that the mechanics are NOT defining the world but are rather simply the method by which the PC's interact with the world, we both get what we want.

You want Common Man Hero fiction? Why on earth are you playing D&D?

 

[Balesir]

Where in the hell did you get the idea that I don't want levels or progression through levels???

I got the idea from the fact that you said:

There are a lot of different things that can be described as special. Gonzo superhero abilities are certainly not the only ones.

To which I replied:

Quite right, they are not - but they are the ones specifically modelled by "levels" in every edition to date of D&D.

To which you replied:

I agree. But that doesn't mean that D&D Next can't support both. Why is that a problem for you?

So, levels have always modelled superheroic abilities in D&D, and you want something else instead of superheroic abilities, but you also want D&D. D&D has levels, so you want a "D&D" that has no levels, but is still the "inclusive D&D" so still does have levels.

To me, there only seems to be one complicating factor - that you insist on calling any roleplaying game "D&D".

Incorrect. D&D has been played as, and has been capable of in every edtion, damn near every type of playstyle possible in RPGs. That's the beauty of D&D. D&D has most certainly been able to play standard High Fantasy, Grim n' Gritty, Ordinary Hero, Zero to Hero, Zero to God, etc., and with variable mixes of Gamist, Simulationist, and Narrativist elements.

Through copious houserules, sure.

Look, if you are really this invested in having whatever you play called "D&D" just buy the IP and stick the label on every game you ever play - no problem for me.

In other words: Unifying the play styles of the gamers that play D&D, under one versatile edition.

I'm a gamer; I play D&D. I play a whole range of styles, but I don't expect or even want D&D to cater to all of them. Frankly, I'm not interested in "unifying" all the different styles I play, never mind mixing in all the (potential) styles I don't play/haven't played yet. As someone else put it quite evocatively, I like steak and I like chocolate, but that doesn't mean I like chocolate-flavoured steak.

Because believe it or not, tons of people have been playing D&D for decades, in ways that you likely wouldn't call or recognize as D&D.

Right - because they houseruled it. In some cases I've seen the "houserules" go to the extent of making what is essentially a different game. That's fine; they are allowed to do that! If they want to call what they are doing "D&D" they can even do that - the worst it will be is a bit confusing, but I think we've all got used to it by now.

And that's the whole point of a unifying edition.

I think the "whole point" of a "unifying edition" is to get as many people to buy the thing, to be brutally honest - for whatever personal reason they may have.

What I am hoping will happen is that they will make a coherent game that is good for something, and maybe that is pretty flexible and captures the spirit of D&D setting elements, and that the "D&D Next will be all things to all men" stuff will get lots of gamers to at least try it and have a chance to discover just what the game is good at (which was one of the things most notably screwed up with 4e's launch).

What D&D IS varies from group to group, table to table, and player to player...and they are ALL D&D! Such changes might be ones that won't look recognizable as D&D to you. To others, that is exactly what D&D is and has always been.

Well, they are all roleplaying, that's for sure. "D&D" is nothing more than a trademark property of a published roleplaying system, but you seem to have some model in your head in which it is something different - possibly even identical with "roleplaying" - and what you call "D&D" in that otherworld I can't really know or allow for.

It's more than just accepting, it's acknowledging and embracing an inclusive attitude towards the game, rather than an exclusionary and limiting attitude.

The designers have already done that, it's time for us as fans to do the same.

I'm very, very happy to have an "inclusive attitude" towards my hobby - and that hobby is roleplaying games. "D&D" is just one published set of rules. It cannot be "inclusive". It can be "flexible", up to a point, before it becomes so vague as to be worthless, but published sets of rules do not "include" or "exclude" anybody.

There is the wish to play the RPG you want to play.

There is wanting to play an RPG called "D&D".

People like to play a huge range of RPGs, so if everyone took the view that they want both of these things, some will be disappointed.

The first of the wishes is natural and to be expected. The second is irrational and potentially causes conflict. So, it seems to me that the sensible thing to do is to pursue the first one and let the second be an incidental.

I am interested in D&D Next. If it's a game I want to play, I'll play it. If it's not a game I want to play, I won't. But I'm not about to insist that it does what everybody wants of it, because I don't think that's possible.

It's seems likely that there would have to be some changes to these opponents other than merely reflavouring - perhaps 10th level Balrogs have a few mechanical abilities that 10th level soldiers lack - and therefore perhaps some changes to the mechanical abilities of the PCs when toggles are switched. (Maybe the pool of feats or spells to choose from is different depending which toggle is pushed.)

But the changes can't be very extensive - eg whole new realms of PC building can't be opened up or shut down by pushing the toggle, and whole new action resolution techniques can't be opened up or shut down by pushing the toggle - or else we won't be talking about a modular system anymore, but simply multiple games being published side-by-side by the one publisher.

As far as I'm concerned, if you have "toggles" you have different games - but maybe this would be a really smart move for WotC. There do seem to be a number of people who are very heavily invested in having what they play be called "D&D" on the cover, so publishing a whole range of, say, 3-4 games, all with the brand name "D&D" on them could be a winner. The design focus should, in that case, include making sure that the components of the different games are clearly identified and their use explained - without insinuating too hard that they are actually different games...

Edit: actually, I can almost see right now the posts here and elsewhere arguing blue-in-the-face that random assemblages of such a "multi-game" actually work perfectly together, despite being designed for very different "modules"!

 

[Incenjucar]

Depending on how 5E scales, it is at least possible that the math could be further compressed to allow everyone and their dog the ability to kill a dragon.

 

[triqui]

As the PCs themselves show, size and mass have absolutely nothing to do with the difficulty level of a creature. After all, that 20th level halfling rogue isn't invulnerable, may have some magic items, can't fly on his own, certainly isn't as strong or resilient as a giant. So by this logic, the rogue should be pretty easy to defeat. Which of course isn't the case.

I already conceded that point. You could go as far as saying that regular LotR orcs are level 15, uruk hai are level 25 elite, mordor flies are level 30, and regular rats are level31 solo if you want. It wouldn't make a lot of sense, though, and claiming that a baby rock troll is CR 10 by D&D standards dont make any sense either. You could try and say so if all what you want is to find a lame excuse to keep saying that Aragorn is high level, just like you could go and say hunters are lvl 25 because all rabbits are level 25 as well (killer rabbits!)

But, in all fairness, the rock troll is not a 20th level rogue. He can't became quasi-invisible with 30+ stealth, isn't incredibly well versed in backstabbing and is not described as having supernatural dexterity. It's a baby troll, which does NOTHING but hit and bash. He is not as strong as a D&D hill giant, and he has NOT any other ability beyond what a hill giant has. Sure, Tolkien could had described this baby troll as a fast, swift dextreous character with an awesome fencing technique, incredibly high sneaking skills and some lightning reflexes. But he didn't. He described it as a slow, hulking beast who was half-chained, using a crude club. By what he described, that baby troll is *at best* CR4 (in a 1-20 range), as a regular D&D troll. I'd say it's less than that, as regular trolls regenerate.

But for Aragorn, his adventure started 50 years ago. He's just ported into the new campaign with this group of first level hobbits.

Gimli is 139 years old when the Fellowship assemble. That's 52 years more than Aragorn. By your standard, Gimli should be epic level then. And let's not start with Legolas, son of Thandruil, who is probably in the thousands.

I have to ask why your 100 year adventuring elf didn't learn anything in all his adventures?

Because it's background. If you use logic, as the elves learn just as fast as humans (they get the same XP once the game starts), any elf character with a background would be level 15 before the game starts, by human standards. Any elf with a military background has been fighting for decades.

But it's clear we have differing views on how PCs should perceive their worlds. Totally fine, of course, I do see how your interpretation of the levels in D&D can give a different impression on how characters view the world.

Just to point, my interpretation is the base assumption of the game.

But then we're getting back to the metagaming. Why are these ranger/rogue goblins perceived as such a threat, when bandits weren't? To the characters, they're just goblins with bows, and aren't goblins not worth worrying about if you're challenging manticores and beholders?

For the same reason a group of Navy Seals are extremelly cautious when facing a group of Spetnaz, but extremelly confident when they face a group of somalian pirates. Just that exponentially more, because they are in a world where magic exists, including healing magic and raise dead.

 

[pemerton]

You could go as far as saying that regular LotR orcs are level 15, uruk hai are level 25 elite, mordor flies are level 30, and regular rats are level31 solo if you want. It wouldn't make a lot of sense, though

The idea I mentioned above, of toggling a given tier on or off (so level 10 enemies are either soldiers, or balors, depending whether one is playing an "ordinary hero" campaign or an "epic" campaign), is a version of this that is at least conceivable. It draws in part on the idea of "reskinning" and scaling in 4e. But it also resembles the approach of HeroQuest revised, in which Speed 17 might mean you're as fast as a professional sprinter (if you're playing a pulp game) or as fast as The Flash (if you're playing a superhero game). In HQ revised, he numbers and mechanics don't change betwen pulp and superheroes, just the flavour around them.