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

[Snoweel]

Don't confuse distaste for something with the inability to grasp it.

Oh I understand that distaste is the likely cause of the denial that hinders peoples' understanding.

But if they truly grasped the concept of relative mechanics they would describe their aversion to it in different terms, ie. "I don't like it" rather than "It doesn't make sense".

Because it makes perfect sense and works just fine. It just requires the point of reference to shift from the individuals' beloved gameworlds to the PCs.

Essentially, 4e is a game for those who actually want to play D&D as opposed to endlessly thinking and talking about it.

 

[Korgoth]

Give me OD&D/Basic/1E over this any day. Once I hit 9th level, I'm recognized as a ruler among men.

As the 40-year-old friend I introduced D&D to said, "If the NPCs all get better at the same rate as me, what's the point?"

Well said.

When you're first level, pirates are first level. When you're 15th level, pirates are 15th level. When the campaign started it was pointless... and 14 levels later, it's still pointless!

If my players attain Conanic levels of badness (which they will have worked for, because I'm not in the habit of tossing softballs) I'll let them revel in it. Your average joe workaday guard is not now a 12th level lord just because the PCs are. Average Joe Guard is a threat at low levels; but when you're a Being Of Legend, the guards aren't all beings of legend too. Instead, they fall like wheat before the thresher.

If everything autolevels with the PCs (like Oblivion) then the PCs aren't special at all. They're in the same boat as they were when they were noobs, and they're just running the treadmill of the DM's plot.

For my scale, 4th level is a "hero". That's like Boromir or Theseus. 8th level is a "superhero". That's like Beowulf or Conan. On that scale, your average guard is a Normal Man or a 1st level veteran. The wiry, grayhaired swordmaster at the Ducal Palace is a 3rd level badboy.

 

[Snoweel]

Well said.

When you're first level, pirates are first level. When you're 15th level, pirates are 15th level. When the campaign started it was pointless... and 14 levels later, it's still pointless!

Are you even paying attention?

They scale at a different rate.

So when you're first level the pirates are first level. When you're 15th level the pirates might only be level 7 or 8. Not only do you have better BAB/hp/saving throws than them, but you have a far greater range of powers.

It's functionally the same as what the E6 guys have tried to do, without making things grim'n'gritty'n'dull.

 

[Imp]

Oh I understand that distaste is the likely cause of the denial that hinders peoples' understanding.

But if they truly grasped the concept of relative mechanics they would describe their aversion to it in different terms, ie. "I don't like it" rather than "It doesn't make sense".

Have the minimal grace of not putting straw thoughts into people's heads.

I don't see the appeal of an approach to roleplaying that says "look! The set is made of cardboard cutouts! Don't you ever forget that the set is made of cardboard cutouts!"

And in this particular case, it's not even edition-specific. There's nothing I'm aware of in 4th edition that says that random town guards can or should range from 1st to 30th level. And some DMs in 3e had high-level "average" soldiers and citizens (not an approach I favored, but it didn't seem too rare)

Additionally, thinking and talking about "what if" with imaginary constructs is part of the fun of roleplaying. If you don't get to do that, why not just hammer on things in the garage, or something? No self-indulgence there!

 

[Drowbane]

Make them drow. The entire race is 150-year old badasses who've trained in combat for a century each, but someone still has to pull guard duty.

That goes for many of the PHB races as well...
Dwarven (or elven, or eladrin, or...ick...dragonborn) guards should be just as badass as Drow guards.

Human guards... should be mookish.

 

[Snoweel]

Have the minimal grace of not putting straw thoughts into people's heads.

Forgive me. Analysis of motive and behaviour is part of my job and it often intrudes into my hobbies.

I don't see the appeal of an approach to roleplaying that says "look! The set is made of cardboard cutouts! Don't you ever forget that the set is made of cardboard cutouts!"

I don't really follow here. I mean, if this is a criticism of 4e it should be a criticism of fantasy roleplaying games in general.

Personally I think the criticism should be directed at players who see their characters in terms of mechanics first and story second.

And in this particular case, it's not even edition-specific. There's nothing I'm aware of in 4th edition that says that random town guards can or should range from 1st to 30th level.

It doesn't and they shouldn't. Have a look at chapter 4 of the DMG, specifically page 56. Town guards should be whatever level and role the DM deems most appropriate for the type of encounter he is building.

So if he wants an easy encounter (and it's up to the individual DM to determine whether 'x' number of guards is an easy, standard or hard encounter for PCs of 'y' level in his gameworld) then he sets the total encounter level "one or two levels lower than the party's level" (56).

The DM can build this encounter in a couple of ways - either add or subtract guards, make them minions, elites or solos, or adjust the levels. Though as the DMG says, "Monsters... more than four levels below the party's level... don't make good challenges." (57)

If you decide that in your world twenty town guards aren't just an easy challenge for your 10th level party, but are in fact no challenge at all (which is fair enough) then don't bother wasting valuable gaming time on combat. Just describe the massacre and get on with the repercussions (if there are any).

Likewise if the same 20 guards accosted your 1st level PCs. In my view of D&D, if a 1st level party doesn't (or can't) run from 20 town guards then they face more than a "hard" encounter and so I wouldn't waste time running it as a combat encounter - "The guards tackle you to the ground, beat you up, and drag you away to the cells."

You might decide that the same encounter in your world is "merely" a hard encounter and so build it as a level 5 encounter - "A hard encounter is two to four levels higher than the party's level." (56)

And some DMs in 3e had high-level "average" soldiers and citizens (not an approach I favored, but it didn't seem too rare)

I had the same problem in 3e/3.5e and wasted a lot of time trying to come up with a baseline standard for the Average Joe. I'm happy 4e has solved it all through changing the way I look at the game.

Additionally, thinking and talking about "what if" with imaginary constructs is part of the fun of roleplaying. If you don't get to do that, why not just hammer on things in the garage, or something? No self-indulgence there!

Mate, if you haven't noticed I'm here thinking and talking about D&D too. I'm just saying if that's all people are going to do with the game they shouldn't complain when it is reworked to make it easier to play and especially to DM.

 

[Delta]

For my scale, 4th level is a "hero". That's like Boromir or Theseus. 8th level is a "superhero". That's like Beowulf or Conan. On that scale, your average guard is a Normal Man or a 1st level veteran. The wiry, grayhaired swordmaster at the Ducal Palace is a 3rd level badboy.

Totally agree.

Now admittedly old-school D&D requires that DMs actually change how the game gets played as levels go up (a scaling issue). So maybe you just need to talk-through/roleplay the fact that at 8th level you can easily carve through 20 guards when need be. Or you need to start using mass wargaming rules. Or you need to just ignore the man-to-man interaction scale and start dealing with week-by-week strategic decisions.

I can see how some folks wouldn't like that, it's not for lazy DMs. It's certainly a lot easier to just act like the game plays exactly the same at both 1st level at 20th.

 

[AndrewRogue]

Given that I run a world where "heroes" are, at worst, uncommon, I prescribe a bit more to the theory that the people at the top are the people with the power. And the people with the power are the highest level people.

Furthermore, given that my world has a far gentler curve (mid level individuals are uncommon, rather than rare), most civilized areas have special task forces and such for dealing with extraordinary individuals.

 

[S'mon]

as you gain levels you gain new abilities though your absolute power level doesn't necessarily scale (in reference to the game world) the way it appears to on the character sheet.

This seems like a bad idea to me, why bother with the paperwork of levelling up the PCs if only their range of options has increased?

 

[S'mon]

Hey, brazilian policeman are not low-level, they are just CE.

My point was about relative not absolute capability - if the police are keeping order, they must be tougher than their typical opposition. The Brazilian police could be the SAS but then the gangs are made up of Rambos. My argument is against the kind of thing I saw a lot in 1e, where in supposedly fairly orderly cities the typical rough-area thugs were 4th level Fighters but the city guards were zero level.