Justifying high level 'guards', 'pirates', 'soldiers', 'assassins', etc.

[S'mon]

Yet you previously said that in your sandbox game there is no distinction between PCs and NPCs.

The concept of there being a "need" for such metagame concepts as player characters is intrinsically narrativist.

I am probably going to regret this, but...

1. My 4e sandbox campaign, being 4e, has very different rules for PCs than for NPCs. Whereas my Labyrinth Lord sandbox campaigns use the same rules for both.

2. I didn't mean a need for PCs as such, but for "Heroes", as in the blurb to the 4e PHB "The World Needs Heroes". ie: The PCs are the (potential) heroes, without them bad things will (continue to) happen. Eg the Points of Light will (continue to) wink out, consumed by the Darkness.
Edit: Which is a dramatic conceit. I guess you could say it was Dramatist in terms of GDS Threefold Model, but nothing to do with Edwards GNS Narrativism.

3. Now that I have actually run 4e, my actual approach is a bit different from my opinionatings of a year ago. I've been happily using 9th level Orc Warrior minions against 1st level PCs in my sandbox game; treating them as a status quo encounter, and feeling no need to turn them into 1st level brutes (who are worth the same 100 XP).

 

[Ferret]

brave pirates.

Brainless Pirates...

So right now I'm reading through the Sea Reavers adventure from today's Dungeon article. Not to give away any spoilers, but there are some high level (15th) human enemies. How do you justify random guards, assassins, etc. or whatnot being above, say 6th or maybe 8th level? (In 4E terms; adjust the level/power based on your system of choice.)

It seems there should come a time where only extraordinary examples from among mortal races should pose any threat to the PCs.

~

Do you read Terry Pratchett? Vimes, and Carrot are certainly 10+ level guards. Tea Time is (or was) a highish level Assassin. People above this sort of level can't really be random, at least in their own world. That is to say that it may seem like some random guard, but this guard has seen things in the city that would have shaken his peers. He was the one who went into the sewers when those people went missing, and unlike his patrol he came back. He was there when the adventurers weren't.

 

[Oni]

I think a lot of this kind of question could have been avoided if the 4e designers had decided to go with a flatter power curve rather than feeding the need for ever increasing bonuses as a sign of progress. If you simple lost the +1/2 level that gets tacked on to nearly every roll and defense then I think questions like, how can I miss the guard, or how is he hitting me, or why do things become more difficult as I level up would simple fade into the background either from not being necessary, or not being nearly so mechanically obvious at the table.

Is there something I'm missing about why this wouldn't work and be perfectly reasonable?

 

[S'mon]

How steep is the 4e power curve really? A level 10 monster is 500 XP, only 5 times the value of a level 1 monster. In B/X a 10 hd foe is 1000 XP, a 1 hd foe is 10 XP - that's 100:1, which is about how much more powerful a B/X 10th level Fighter is than a Fighter-1.

I embraced a simulationist approach to 4e Minions when I realised how flexible high level minions are - they can both threaten high level PCs and be threatened by low level NPCs! Finally, you can see how the bad guys don't wipe out civilisation.

 

[Celebrim]

So right now I'm reading through the Sea Reavers adventure from today's Dungeon article. Not to give away any spoilers, but there are some high level (15th) human enemies. How do you justify random guards, assassins, etc. or whatnot being above, say 6th or maybe 8th level? (In 4E terms; adjust the level/power based on your system of choice.)

I don't really.

That isn't to say that there aren't 8th and 9th level NPC's out there, but an assembalage of 8th level NPC's would to me always be extraordinary.

NPC's of that level are generally the ones in charge of running the world, or at least the immediate and trusted servants, councilors, and senschals of those that are. They are also usually older than PC's of equivalent level. In fact, many 8th level NPC's are reaching the point where their health and vigor is beginning to fail. So, while an 8th level character isn't necessarily in and of itself that unusual (at least in the since that most NPC's have at lest met another NPC of 8th level), being 8th level and to still by young and full of unfulfilled potential is.

Eighth level in my campaign means 'Knights of the Round Table', it means 'Robin Hood's Merry Men', it means the 'Rangers of the North', it mean's David's band of 30 heroes, it means a gathering of some of the most heroic, renowned, and experienced people in a whole nation or the whole world. So, that's how I would justify it. Eighth level characters just don't hang out waiting to die in a pointless encounter. They are important people and they know it. At the beginning of a campaign, this is probably the highest level NPC in the PC's vicinity, and I'll try to play up how aweinspiring and fearsome the character is. That way, if the PC's get there and suddenly they are treated as a peer or even superior, they feel like they've gotten somewhere. If on the other hand, they get to 8th level, and random gaurds are 8th level, then they've gotten no where - only the numbers have changed.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I use "quantum state" NPCs in my games.

IME, down-ranking NPCs does make the PCs feel like they've grown stronger. Let's assume, for example, that I decide the average King's Guard is worth 500 xp (a level 1 solo).
At level 1, Joe the fighter needs all four of his buddies to take down one of these Solos.
By level 6, Joe and Bob the rogue can beat the Elite just working together.
Level 10 and Joe can beat a Standard King's Guard all by his lonesome.
Once he's level 18 Joe can easily take on 5 of these Minions (DMG2 guidelines) without breaking a sweat.

There's nothing saying you can't use the Solo version at level 18, beyond that the DMG points out that it'll be pointless and boring (Joe will have to deal over 400 pts of damage to Guards he can only miss on a 1 and who can only hit him on a nat 20; quite grindy and lacking any semblance of threat IMO). Neither the level 18 minions nor the level 1 solos stand a snowball's chance in hell of beating Joe, but at least the minions can't be ignored and die quickly (with the solos he can lay down and take a nap as even a coup de grace isn't a legitimate threat from them and their damage will be minimal; the minions can't coup de grace him either but will beat his hps to a bloody pulp for deciding to take a nap in the middle of a fight).

IMO being able to fight off 5 of the King's Guard simultaneously is a clear improvement over eight levels ago when a single King's Guard posed an equivalent threat, and it's pretty clear to my players even if they still need to roll the same 10 to hit that they needed 8 levels ago. Eight levels ago the guardsman would have dodged the blow and merely gotten scratched; now he is skewered by the "same" attack.

I confess, I don't really comprehend the complaint about NPCs scaling with you. AFAIK, D&D has always done this. You improve your attack and defenses so that you can take on bigger and nastier threats, not so you can hunt down endless level 1 goblins until they stop granting xp. Shifting the odds from 1:5 to 5:1 over 18 levels is a healthy improvement as far as I'm concerned.


Regarding Blue Slime, I see page 42 as offering DCs for relevant challenges. At level 1, the Blue Slime in the Kobold Warrens is a DC 10 to avoid slipping. If at level 19 the PCs start feeling nostalgic and visit the Warrens to look around, the slime is still DC 10 but I don't bother asking them to roll; they have a +9 from 1/2 level alone so what would be the point? On the other hand, if they decide to go hunting frost giants, I might decide there's DC 21 Black Ice in the Fortress of Frost. Black Ice, now with more than twice the slipperiness of Blue Slime! Accept no substitutes!

At heroic tier I might ask the PCs to make a roll when hopping over a brook filled with pointy rocks on a sunny day.
At paragon it might be a rushing stream during the middle of a hurricane.
At epic it may be a river of lava while blinded and choking on a constant downfall of burning ash.


That said, I do think that NPCs of unusually high level should be restricted. I would be bothered by a group of random level 25 street thugs.

The guards from the module in question don't seem like a big deal though since they're only minions. As I stated earlier, I have no issues with "quantum state" NPCs since IME they make the game more fun than using tons of meaningless, low level creatures. A 13th level minion and a level 5 standard can be the same creature in my world with no issues. I wouldn't have a level 5 PC running with a level 13 party (or vice versa) so no worries there either.

For me, NPCs of levels 1-10 are pretty reasonable. Certainly, this doesn't apply to Farmer Average, but I don't see why the grizzled veterans of a frontier fort on the edge of the Forest of No Return shouldn't be level 10. After all, these are the guys keeping the more common, dangerous frontier threats (like ogres and trolls) out of the kingdom proper. It would break my sense of consistency if the fort under weekly troll attacks was manned by inexperienced level 3 chumps who can barely hit their foes.

Why don't these level 10s just handle the troll threat themselves? Standard NPCs are not as strong as individual PCs in 4e. In an equal level, one on one fight the NPC will lose to a PC every time unless he gets lucky. PCs are overall stronger than NPCs, and this is exponentially truer when those PCs are working as a team.

In addition, it's often easier to defend than attack. Holding the trolls back from behind sturdy fort walls using flaming arrows is a world of difference from trying to invade the caves where those trolls live. Home turf advantage.

The example of the drunk and disorderly PCs who get beat up by the guards and then asked to deal with trolls, is IMO a bad one. I think this is a case where the DM ought to try to identify why the PCs became drunk and disorderly in the first place, rather than just using super-guards to beat them into submission and force them to do his will.

In any case, in my campaigns the guards are never individually too strong for the PCs to handle (because that would indicate that the PCs are in an area where the threats are completely out of their league). They may or may not be higher level than the PCs, but they'd have to come en mass to have a realistic chance of beating the PCs. IME, unless heavily drained of their resources (surges and dailies), PCs can take on sizable forces of reasonably over-leveled NPCs and still win.

I base my guards on the threats that they have to deal with. Guards dealing with Kobolds and Goblins would be levels 1-5. A town that is threatened by frost giants on a regular basis would either have guards in the 17-22 level range, or it wouldn't be a town for very long. A reasonable objection would be not to build towns in frost giant territory, of course, but if one did then either that town should have some treaty with the giants, or a means to defend the town from their predations.


Finally, regarding the assertion that E6 would be a better fit, I respectfully disagree (at least in my case). Saying I want 25 of the King's Guard to be viable threat at 18th level (whereas 5 were a threat at level 10) isn't the same as saying I don't want my Archmage to turn into a ghost and kick butt before coming back to life again, when I hit level 24. Show me the E6 character that can do that and I might consider giving it a second look. It's instead saying that I'm not interested in slogging through 400+ hp that I could just as easily ignore, when I could instead be fighting a horde of minions that might actually present some semblance of a challenge and will die quickly at the very least.

 

[Snoweel]

Eighth level in my campaign means 'Knights of the Round Table', it means 'Robin Hood's Merry Men', it means the 'Rangers of the North', it mean's David's band of 30 heroes, it means a gathering of some of the most heroic, renowned, and experienced people in a whole nation or the whole world. So, that's how I would justify it.

I think this paradigm is a throwback to previous editions, where 9th level fighters were called 'Lords' for example.

My interpretation of the 4e power curve isn't that, in the transition from 20 levels to 30, they've tacked on 10 more levels of awesome, but rather, that 4e level 30 is equivalent to 3.x level 20.

So I have no problem with more-or-less mundane NPCs occupying the entire span of heroic tier levels (1st-10th), though obviously a 9th level guardsman will naturally rise to the top.

Paragon tier is where I see the regional movers and shakers - the Knights of the Round Table and so on.

Epic tier NPCs (and PCs) are truly legendary - like living gods. There may be only a handful of them in the gameworld; there may be none.

Obviously your mileage may vary.

Finally, regarding the assertion that E6 would be a better fit, I respectfully disagree (at least in my case). Saying I want 25 of the King's Guard to be viable threat at 18th level (whereas 5 were a threat at level 10) isn't the same as saying I don't want my Archmage to turn into a ghost and kick butt before coming back to life again, when I hit level 24. Show me the E6 character that can do that and I might consider giving it a second look.

I'm with you.

Suggesting E6 as a superior alternative to 4e misses the point that grim'n'gritty = dull.

4e models cinematic play better than any edition to date. E6 does it extremely poorly.

 

[Celebrim]

I think this paradigm is a throwback to previous editions, where 9th level fighters were called 'Lords' for example.

My interpretation of the 4e power curve isn't that, in the transition from 20 levels to 30, they've tacked on 10 more levels of awesome, but rather, that 4e level 30 is equivalent to 3.x level 20.

Well, I'm what you might call a 'throwback'. My prefered system is 3.25. I think 3.5 got more wrong than it got right.

The original poster didn't seem to address the question in 4e terms alone, so I answered based on my experience in 1e-3e. If I was speaking of 4e, I'd be speaking of something I really have no experience with or interest in, but if I were going to run 4e then I agree with you about the power curve and would be speaking about something along 12th to 15th level. In any event, whatever the edition, there is some level above which no one with that level is mundane.

So I have no problem with more-or-less mundane NPCs occupying the entire span of heroic tier levels (1st-10th), though obviously a 9th level guardsman will naturally rise to the top.

As I have no real problem with more or less mundane NPC's occupying the entire span of heroic tier levels (1st-4th) from earlier editions, with a scattering of more or less mundane heroic leaders of 5th and 6th level. Beyond that, and I feel like I'm cheating and cheating the players.

And even a 4th level character is something somewhat special, heroes (of a sort) in their own right - the member's of the King's Own Cavalry, elite mercenaries, successful businessmen, leaders of local churches, and so forth. But even so, these will be middle aged individuals with stats generally below those of the PC's.

Paragon tier is where I see the regional movers and shakers - the Knights of the Round Table and so on.

For earlier editions, I'd consider the 'Paragon Tier' to be roughly 7th to 12th level. At that level, you start becoming a force to be reconned with; you begin acquiring fame beyond your local region; and the people in charge start to take notice and begin treating you as something like a peer. Beyond that is truly rare. Above 15th level, and there are countable numbers of individuals of that level across the whole world.

Suggesting E6 as a superior alternative to 4e misses the point that grim'n'gritty = dull.

Well, obviously your milage may vary, but as a player when my character acquires a certain level of power it stops being interesting and starts getting silly. I perfer lower levels of play for much the same reason that the most popular superheroes are somewhat less powerful, somewhat grittier than the 'Superman' tier superheroes like Captain Marvel, Black Bolt, Martian Manhunter, etc., etc. Above a certain level of play it becomes all about the character, and really the numbers start to get meaningless and the play becomes rather cheesy if you aren't careful.

4e models cinematic play better than any edition to date. E6 does it extremely poorly.

I'm not sure we can agree on a definition of 'cinematic'. To me cinematic means, 'consistantly causing the player to imagine things in his head as if there was a movie of the game'. I'm very very very unconvinced that 4e does this well. I'm even less convinced that does emersive cinematic play, by which I mean that the player tends to imagine a first person camera perspective as if he was seeing through the character's eyes. I can't speak for how well E6 does it, but in my experience producing emersive cinematic play is a function of the game master more than the game system so the whole question may be off base. However, I will say that in my experience game systems which are heavily tied to the use of minatures and tactical positioning tend to be poorly emersive at best and non-emersive generally.

 

[Snoweel]

I'm not sure we can agree on a definition of 'cinematic'. To me cinematic means, 'consistantly causing the player to imagine things in his head as if there was a movie of the game'.

Ah, this is why we disagree then.

I alwasy understood 'cinematic', at least in the context of rpgs, to mean something like 'modelling the conventions of drama more than modelling the conventions of real life'.

I'm very very very unconvinced that 4e does this well. I'm even less convinced that does emersive cinematic play, by which I mean that the player tends to imagine a first person camera perspective as if he was seeing through the character's eyes. I can't speak for how well E6 does it, but in my experience producing emersive cinematic play is a function of the game master more than the game system so the whole question may be off base. However, I will say that in my experience game systems which are heavily tied to the use of minatures and tactical positioning tend to be poorly emersive at best and non-emersive generally.

I don't consider the terms 'immersive' and 'cinematic' to share any direct relationship, although neither do I think that 4e is particularly conducive to immersive play.

Immersion is, in my experience, directly tied to preparation time - players, DMs and especially world-builders who are able to spend more time on their game away from the game table than at it, meticulously preparing down to the finest detail.

4e seems to have been made to cater to the people who just don't have that kind of spare time (or inclination). 3.X could be seen to be more encouraging of immersive play because it practically demanded that sort of attention to detail.

I know my own frustration with 3.X RAW started when I realised just how much prep time it was costing me to play, and how much of my work was wasted by never appearing at the table. Many of the bandaid solutions I found or came up with led me to focus on the PCs as opposed to the environment. I later learned that this is considered the 'cinematic' style.

When 4e came out I was so impressed that I started playing again. This is interesting, because when 3e was released it made me want to start playing again because it provided a lot of the simulationist fixes for what turned me off BECMI D&D.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I don't consider the terms 'immersive' and 'cinematic' to share any direct relationship, although neither do I think that 4e is particularly conducive to immersive play.

Immersion is, in my experience, directly tied to preparation time - players, DMs and especially world-builders who are able to spend more time on their game away from the game table than at it, meticulously preparing down to the finest detail.

While I agree that immersion and cinematic don't share a direct relationship, your second paragraph is just...what?

No.

Immersion is a word that exists and means something. It has nothing to do with prep time. I. You. What?

How did you get that?

That said, the immersion argument reminds me of the game Oblivion, which some people touted as being incredibly immersive, and others, such as myself, stated that it was one of the least immersive experiences we had played.