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

[pemerton]

How does switching from fighting Orcs to fighting Drow suddenly make D&D a wargame?

Further, I think the 4E DMG (and posts from the designers) was pretty clear about the fact that different Tiers will have different styles of play.

I musn't have been clear - I agree with this. This is what I meant when I talked about a "nod to the simulationists".

My wargame comment was directed at Delta - in the quote from Delta that my reply was posted beneath, Delta talked about using a new mechanical system (eg Chainmail) to play out fights between Superheroes and hundreds of normals.

Can you summarize the difference between "Encounter difficulty" and "In game prowess"?

As far as I can tell, they're the same thing. NPCs capable of presenting a challenging encounter to 16th level PCs possess a great deal of "in game prowess". Unless you subscribe to the philosophy that NPC toughness can vary from one day to the next (which I do not - I expect a little consistency in my worlds), NPCs that can fight 16th level PCs can wipe the floor with 99% of the population, and my players expect the in-game world to reflect that.

I'm not objecting to ingame consistency. Thus, I want a consistent answer to the question whether or not a given NPC can wipe the floor with 99% of the population. But the answer to this question turns on the NPC's ingame prowess. And I think that, in answering this question, the game can toleratee a degree of flexibility in the correlation of stat block to ingame reality.

To give one example - I don't think it follows from the fact that the PCs can more-or-less handle a fight with a 12 level Adult Green Dragon, and then have a bit of trouble against the level 13 Drow encounter set out on p 95 of the MM, that we have to infer that that Drow patrol could itself have taken on and beaten the Green Dragon. The fact that the game mechanics give the PCs the advantage over the dragon needn't be taken to correspond to entirely to the ingame prowess of the PCs - it might be taken as a narrative conceit, intended to yield the ingame outcome that it is the PCs who are the dragon slayers of the world.

Obviously that sort of flexibility is limited in what it will allow for - I think that the tiers of play can be seen as setting rough boundaries on the tolerable slippage between game and metagame in this respect.

Related to this idea of slippage between game and metagame: the exponential growth in game-mechanical power of PCs is, in part, a consequence of the desire to have a certain sort of reward system that stresses character build as the main vehicle by which rewards are played out (in this respect, a very strong contrast can be drawn with a game like classic Traveller). This, in turn, mandates that monsters be statted with the same mathematical spread, if the game is to work.

But the ingame interpretation of these variations in capability will probably be more credible, and less gonzo, if the numbers are taken to be compressed a bit. Again, the tiers provide a rough guide here. A paragon PC should, in the gameworld, have more prowess than a heroic PC. But the degree of ingame increase in power needn't correspond to the mathematical transformation on the character sheet, the purpose of which is mostly to serve a metagame purpose of rewarding the player.

 

[Fenes]

First, I decide if the encounter is going to easy, medium or hard. Then, I create the stats for the encounter. I scale everyone practically in the game. Meaning, climbing a wall at 1st level is no different than 14th level. The same goes for foes; I simply increase their level and abilities as according to the DMG for scaling monsters.


The "Oblivion Effect" failed in Oblivion because mundane foes were replaced with really, really strange foes that used to not wander around. In application for 4E, I use the Easy,Medium,Hard DC table for all skill challenges and "climbing walls, bluffing guards", therefore ignoring the DCs as set by the Player's Handbook. I scale damage in accord with the foe's level depending if I want it to be an easy romp, a middling fight or a complete challenge.

In my games, the only thing that high levels truly equates to for PCs is dynamism and more options (via Powers and Feats). A Paragon hero is always going to be just as susceptable to falling off of a ladder as a 1st level character (but the caveat is that he will always be better than mundane folk).

I completely disagree with this. The idea of a paragon or epic rogue who has been wall climbing for half his career having any trouble at all with a ladder, looks incredibly stupid to me. How can he scale the icy cliffs of the Fortress of Frost if he risks falling off a ladder in town?

Are heroes never gonna learn anything? If they can't tie their shoelaces as toddlers, they can't tie their shoelaces as heroes? What about the bully from recess? Will he always be a threat, even to the epic PC?

Part of becoming a hero is outgrowing some challenges. A ranger who can shoot three arrows into the three eyes of a god during a hailstorm shouldn't be challenged in a archery competition held in a small famr, where the best archer is a peasant doing some hunting at the side.

 

[Fenes]

Related to this idea of slippage between game and metagame: the exponential growth in game-mechanical power of PCs is, in part, a consequence of the desire to have a certain sort of reward system that stresses character build as the main vehicle by which rewards are played out (in this respect, a very strong contrast can be drawn with a game like classic Traveller). This, in turn, mandates that monsters be statted with the same mathematical spread, if the game is to work.

But the ingame interpretation of these variations in capability will probably be more credible, and less gonzo, if the numbers are taken to be compressed a bit. Again, the tiers provide a rough guide here. A paragon PC should, in the gameworld, have more prowess than a heroic PC. But the degree of ingame increase in power needn't correspond to the mathematical transformation on the character sheet, the purpose of which is mostly to serve a metagame purpose of rewarding the player.

I would expect at least a few players who like a more consistent world, where the fact that A beat B and B beat C can be a strong hint that A will beat C (leaving the "rock paper scissor" theme out) won't exactly be that concenred with getting mechanicall rewarded if it means sacrificing their enjoyment of the game.

Also, those who take a big part of ther enjoyment of the game from the rewards of levelling may not like it if they never feel like they got stronger. As was posted - what's the point in levelling up and braving danger if one will never outstrip the town guard?

 

[Irda Ranger]

the degree of ingame increase in power needn't correspond to the mathematical transformation on the character sheet,

At my table it does. I see the character sheet numbers as a contract I have with the PCs. I can't change them.

For instance, would you ever, in a million years, simply take away the player's character sheets and rewrite all the stats as you saw fit? "Hmm, this AC is too high - I'm making it 17." I think people would be pretty pissed if you tried that. Well, simply giving NPCs an extra +3 to attack just because you feel like it is exactly the same thing as decreasing the PC's AC from 20 to 17. There's no difference. Therefore I don't do it.

And no, it doesn't matter that "they'd never know." Cheating doesn't stop being cheating just because you get away with it.

the purpose of which is mostly to serve a metagame purpose of rewarding the player.

The purpose of XP, NPC admiration and gold is to reward the players, but the purpose of writing down 2d6+9 (as opposed to 2d4+1) is to accurately describe how badass a N/PC is. Like inflating attack penalties, inflating enemy HP to wipe out the difference between 2d6+9 and 2d4+1 is to take away any and all improvement the PCs (mistakenly believed) have achieved.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I allow "different perspectives" on what would be the same "stock" NPC. This is pretty much as shown in the MM: a level 4 party might go up against an orc tribe and fight, among other things, orc raiders (level 3) and orc berserkers (level 4). Later in their career (level 8-9), they are fighting an ogre tribe that has ogre savages and skirmishers (level 8), but the tribe also has a bunch of enslaved orc warriors (level 9 minions) they use for cannon fodder.

These orcs could very well have been survivors of the original tribe, but instead of being level 3-4 "full" monsters, they are now level 9 minions. They supposedly offer roughly the same threat value (150 XP for orc raiders and 100 XP for orc warriors), but as minions they work better against higher-level PCs.

Minion rules are a kludge. If you want to play a game where orcs are dangerous at 10th level stop advancing Attacks and Defenses past 1st level. Much simpler and straight-forward.

 

[Fenes]

Minion rules are a kludge. If you want to play a game where orcs are dangerous at 10th level stop advancing Attacks and Defenses past 1st level. Much simpler and straight-forward.

Actually, just cutting down all the buff spells works best. Without all the magical natural armor, deflection and dodge bonuses, and without mithril full plate +5, AC doesn't skyrocket.

My current level 16 PCs have ACs that range from 13 to 20 or so, more if they go defensive. An Orc Barbarian doesn't need to roll that high to hit them. It's sort of a minion in effect, without using a minion mechanic.

 

[Staffan]

Minion rules are a kludge. If you want to play a game where orcs are dangerous at 10th level stop advancing Attacks and Defenses past 1st level. Much simpler and straight-forward.

But that's not something I want to do. And while 9th level minion orcs are about as relevant as threats as the 3rd level orc raiders, they are dangerous on a different level. They don't have the endurance of the low-level orcs (1 hp instead of 46 + Warrior's Surge), and they do less damage (6 instead of d12+3), but as compensation they have better defenses (2-4 points higher) and more accurate attacks (6 points higher).

An orc raider will hit a 9th level PC about 1 roll in 3 (plate +2, heavy shield = AC 22 vs attack bonus +8: hit on 14+, or 7/20) for an average of 9 points, or 3 points per round. The orc warrior hits about 2 out of 3 attacks for 6 points of damage, aslo 3 points per round. The raider can take more hits, but he will also be hit more often. The raider is, on the whole, a bit nastier, but three warrior vs two raiders (which is what the XP values would give) are a pretty even match.

 

[Snoweel]

Just don't sit there and tell me I "need" to do things your way because I really don't.

No but you do man. You need to play D&D exactly the way I tell you to.

Oh? Is that what you think?

Ok I'll come clean.. it's what I know. Am I right in assuming you think I'm wrong?

The poster in question has made his views on 4e very clear.

I’m going to guess what you do professionally and hope that you're professional attempts at analysis show better results than you've shown here so far.

My analysis in this thread has been first rate. Top notch, even.

Otherwise I fear for the safety of Australia.

You and me both mate, but internal security is more of a political issue than military and we're not at liberty to discuss politics here. So we won't.

There are some things you’re just not grokking.
The OP asked "How do you justify 16th level castle guardsman?", and many folks answered "We don't, because they'd simply never be 16th level in our campaign." The way we play D&D, NPCs' levels are determined by the shared assumptions among the group of how the game world "is".

Bear in mind that a level 16 minion is roughly equal to a level 8 standard monster (to use the official terminology). Just more suitable for use against a 20th level party. They are essentially the same creature, expresed in slightly different mechanics.

For a game where PC careers now span 30 levels, this isn't such a stretch unless your conception of levels is rooted in some previous edition.

]Many who has posted here start encounter design with the question "Given how I've explained the world to my PCs, how tough should these guys be?" For run of the mill pirates, assassins and guards that usually means levels 1-5. NPC levels don’t scale with the PCs levels at all.

What level do you feel a 20th level character under 3.5e would translate to under 4e?

]This has nothing to do with 4E, or our assumptions about the edition.

Not for you maybe but be careful thinking you can speak for everybody.

We can give “absolute answers” about what level certain NPCs are, and our players can too. NPC "level" is the ability to challenge PCs of a similar level.

So you concede that NPC level is directly tied to PC level?

That without the existence of PCs, NPCs have no need for levels?

PCs know that most city guards will be levels 1-4. If those guards suddenly pose a challenge to 15th level PCs, yes, the players will notice. They’re not idiots. And they’ll rightly ask me “Dude, WTF?”

That's quite a leap from 4th to 15th level. Such a leap that this example could be considered flippant.

My players (and I, and others here) expect the world to show some consistency from one game session to the next, rather than warp and twist from one day to the next.

Who here has described a gameworld that "warps and twists from one day to the next"?

That’s how we like it.

As opposed to how I allegedly think you should play, in a gameworld with absolutely no consistency or internal logic?

 

[pemerton]

I would expect at least a few players who like a more consistent world, where the fact that A beat B and B beat C can be a strong hint that A will beat C (leaving the "rock paper scissor" theme out) won't exactly be that concenred with getting mechanicall rewarded if it means sacrificing their enjoyment of the game.

I adressed this in my post. Consistency in the gameworld doesn't require treating the mechanics as an infallible guide to ingame power. For example, the mechanics can be interpreted as giving effect to certain narrative conceits (such as that the PCs are the dragon slayers of the world). Other examples are given in the replies to Irda Ranger below.

There are a lot of threads in which non-simulatoinist play gets described as not having a consistent gameworld. This is not true (and, to be honest, comes across as a bit derogatory). What is true is that non-simulationist play does not use the game mechanics as the measure of consistency in the gameworld. That doesn't mean the gameworld is inconsistent.

I see the character sheet numbers as a contract I have with the PCs. I can't change them.

No one is disupting that. The question is - what do those numbers mean in the gameworld?

giving NPCs an extra +3 to attack just because you feel like it is exactly the same thing as decreasing the PC's AC from 20 to 17. There's no difference. Therefore I don't do it.

Who is talking about not following the encounter building and XP rules?

Cheating doesn't stop being cheating just because you get away with it.

I don't understand how this relates to anything in my post. I am talking about the correlation between metagame (ie mechanics) and game (ie what is true within the gameworld). It is of the essence of an RPG that the former has an impact of some sort on the latter. But my claim is that there is room for slippage (ie for non-simulationist play).

For example: who is to say that a PC's +0.5 per level doesn't represent moral authority against deserving foes (a thematic device, not an ingame phenomenon), that a dragon's +0.5 per level doesnt represent physical prowess (an ingame state-of-affairs), and that a drow's +0.5 per level doesn't represent the fact that underworld faeries are dangerous foes for the most seasoned traveller (a genre convention, not an ingame phenomenon)?

If the stats are read in that way, then from the fact that the PC handily beats the dragon, and barely beats the drow, it doesn't follow that the drow would have a good showing against the dragon. That is what I mean by "slippage" between game and metagame. It has nothing to do with disregarding the rules of the game. The notion that non-simulationist play is cheating is even more bizarre than that it involves an inconsistent gameworld.

The purpose of XP, NPC admiration and gold is to reward the players, but the purpose of writing down 2d6+9 (as opposed to 2d4+1) is to accurately describe how badass a N/PC is.

Nowhere do the rules state this.

The purpose, as I see it, is to set the mechanical parameters for the resolution of combat. But nothing in the rules stops me interpreting those stats as I would spiritual attributes in The Riddle of Steel. Indeed, some of the Paladin, Cleric and Warlord attacks, which use CHA as the stat, actively encourage a TRoS-type reading.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Ok I'll come clean.. it's what I know. Am I right in assuming you think I'm wrong?

Yup.

My analysis in this thread has been first rate. Top notch, even.

I guess we'll just have to add that to the list of things we disagree on.

You and me both mate, but internal security is more of a political issue than military and we're not at liberty to discuss politics here. So we won't.

Not here, no, but I will say good luck.

So you concede that NPC level is directly tied to PC level?

That without the existence of PCs, NPCs have no need for levels?

Without the existence of PCs we don't even need dice.

Who here has described a gameworld that "warps and twists from one day to the next"?

You did. And I quote:

"So your 10th level party fighting 6th level minions only knows that the guards are an easy fight. If a 2nd level party came by the next day and fought the exact same guards they'd find the now-1st-level-minions slightly less easy.

And if the 2nd level PCs had to interact with the 10th level PCs, shattering the house of cards? Now that's poor adventure design. 10th level PCs and 2nd level PCs shouldn't exist in the same universe."

I don't build "house of cards" worlds.

As opposed to how I allegedly think you should play, in a gameworld with absolutely no consistency or internal logic?

Hey man, I'm just going by what you say.