Snoweel
First Post
Could this not lead to the situation where characters try to out-do each other in the risk-taking department, chasing individual rewards, rather than working as a team?
More "realistic" advancement in D&D?
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
Could this not lead to the situation where characters try to out-do each other in the risk-taking department, chasing individual rewards, rather than working as a team?
If you do this, realize that you're throwing away the existing math and shifting the game's balance in ways you might not predict. (Toward low-BAB monsters with multiple attacks, I suppose...)
This opens a whole can of wyrms, of course. Do luck and divine providence get used up? Sure, I guess. By being "hit" with weapons? Based on how big and powerful and damaging the weapon is? But luck and divine providence aren't usable against other threats?
And anyone who's good at anything has this specialized anti-damage luck and divine providence? Which is totally reliable and restored by easily-accessible, well-understood means?
None of this was designed to be "unrealistic" -- if it was designed at all -- but it leads to high-level characters who aren't simply bad-ass, but who know they cannot be hurt in any meaningful way by lesser threats. That's the nature of a large buffer of easily-recovered hit points. Either a threat is powerful enough to work through the buffer, or it isn't.
I think most people do want the 15th-level Fighter to beat the 100 peasants, but not by being virtually impervious to pitchforks. That's what strikes them as "unrealistic".
I know I'd rather see Conan stare down the mob or cut down the first guy who raises a hand against him and thus send them scurrying -- but have him still be vulnerable if they really do have the morale to dog-pile him. (Because they're under sorcerous control?)
I hope you see the problem though, if by the rules a mob of 100 peasants won't even inconvenience a 15th-level Fighter, but by your DM ruling the high-level Fighter stands no chance.
Fighting large numbers of "mooks" isn't exactly an off-the-wall scenario the game-designers couldn't expect, but here we are with the rules saying "no prob" and a DM saying "no chance".
Snoweel
First Post
I see levels as an abstraction.. kind of like hit points.
In the same way I'd narrate the 15th level fighter being overpowered by 100 villagers, I'd also narrate the same 15th level fighter slaughtering 10 of them (without rolling any dice because it's pointless).
I think the 4e combat system is designed to represent situations where the outcome is in some doubt. And I think it does that well, especially allowing weaker foes to be represented by level-appropriate minions, and stronger foes to be represented, in mechanical terms, by level-appropriate elites and solos.
I don't think levels are a concrete value intrinsic to NPCs; they are abstract and relative to the PCs.
D&D is not a simulation.
So while the PCs are absolutely 9th level (although their level is still an abstract value), I might decide that a group of opponents are nothing more absolute than 'low heroic tier' (a vague yet absolute statement of ability).
But because those opponents must have a level in order to generate combat staistics, they might be represented as 10th level minions - roughly equivalent to low heroic tier standard monsters.
If I had decided the enemies were 'high heroic tier', like the PCs, then I would just give them a level somewhere around the PCs level (9th).
Likewise, if I deem an NPC's power level to be 'mid paragon tier' (in absolute-yet-abstract terms), then in a fight against 9th level PCs I could represent this NPC as a 10th level elite. This is the same NPC who might be represented as a 15th level standard monster if he were to fight the PCs in a few levels' time.
Hell, the same guy might be a 6th level solo against a party of roughly that level. My point is that the values used in the combat system are designed to be abstract representations and they should always be relative to the PCs (who are the only ones who need an absolute level value at all times).
The statistics don't exist outside of combat between the PCs and NPCs. All that matters otherwise is a general idea of the NPCs' prowess, which needn't be any more detailed than a rough indication of which end of a particular tier (heroic-paragon-epic).
The problems sounds like:
1) PCs get a lot of improvements for each level gained
2) PCs get too much XP/levels for "game time" that occurs compared to NPCs
Fixing #1 would mean adjusting the rules quite a bit. Right now, when you level up, you get more HP, BAB, skills, feats, etc. If you want there to be less change between levels, you'd have to change the advancement rules to give out less changes.
Fixing #2 is something I wrote a blog entry on. The main points:
Figure out what level frequency per session you want (so you understand the problem)
give out less XP in general
use less encounters (like a TV show, you don't need 100 encounters before you face the bad guy of the episode), this yields less XP
make game time pass, thus "aging" the PCs, like the NPCs have
If you imagine your adventure to be an episode or novel (from a action series), there are less encounters than what the typical D&D party faces. One could learn a lot about pacing and making fewer, better encounters.
1) PCs get a lot of improvements for each level gained
2) PCs get too much XP/levels for "game time" that occurs compared to NPCs
Fixing #1 would mean adjusting the rules quite a bit. Right now, when you level up, you get more HP, BAB, skills, feats, etc. If you want there to be less change between levels, you'd have to change the advancement rules to give out less changes.
Fixing #2 is something I wrote a blog entry on. The main points:
Figure out what level frequency per session you want (so you understand the problem)
give out less XP in general
use less encounters (like a TV show, you don't need 100 encounters before you face the bad guy of the episode), this yields less XP
make game time pass, thus "aging" the PCs, like the NPCs have
If you imagine your adventure to be an episode or novel (from a action series), there are less encounters than what the typical D&D party faces. One could learn a lot about pacing and making fewer, better encounters.
Yes, for the type of players who are into that sort of thing. Aside from the fact that real people aren't always team players, ome folk might find that fun.
It isn't like there's one reward system that'll do the trick for all people without any possible negative repercussions. Different people want and are motivated by different things. You have to pick the system that work well for your particular bunch.
All excellent points! I'll let you know how the sessions go.
In what sense is a 5th-level character realistic, while a 10th-level character isn't? What elements of the progression are unrealistic?
In many ways, characters (in 3E, at least) aren't competent enough, given how the d20 combat system and non-combat skill system work. Should a typical young American Indian hunter or Roman auxiliary archer -- presumably a 1st-level Warrior, Fighter, Ranger, or Barbarian, with a +1 BAB -- really only have +1 to hit. If he grew up bow-hunting, he hits a target 55 percent of time rather than 50 percent? And a great archer -- let's say 5th-level -- hits that target 75 percent of the time?
If a 5th-level Fighter is a great knight (or samurai, or whatever), and a 10th-level Fighter is the greatest knight (or samurai) in the land, then I wouldn't find it "unrealistic" for the 5th-level Fighter to more-or-less always hit and always kill 1st-level Fighters, and for the 10th-level Fighter to always hit and always kill 5th-level Fighters -- without magic weapons, magically boosted strength, etc.
I also wouldn't bat an eye at a 10th-level Fighter who was effectively unhittable, even without his magic armor, as long as he had his sword or shield.
But he should always be a little bit worried that this might be the time he gets caught.
Gentlegamer
Adventurer
My "level thinking" is based on AD&D (generally D&D pre-2000). Mostly going by "firepower" and ability (mechanically) to endure hardship compared to "zero level" characters or commoners, characters of about 5th level are of a stature that should make them heroes whose name is known by everyone in their kingdom or culture, "realistically" speaking. Above that, characters enter power levels that make them nearly demi-gods compared to "normal people," "realistically" speaking.
This is why I asked, What elements of the progression are unrealistic? Really, there's nothing "unrealistic" about a 10th-level thief in AD&D -- except his 10d6 hit dice. And there's nothing "unrealistic" about a 10th-level fighter either -- except his 9d10+3 hit dice. His +10 to-hit isn't implausible at all.
When we look at how (old-school) D&D characters progress, it's fairly odd. Let's look at the fighter:
To-Hit: +1/level
Damage: +0/level
Armor Class: +0/level
Hit Points: +1d10/level, until 9th level
If we were starting from scratch, we might just as likely come up with something like this: Damage: +0/level
Armor Class: +0/level
Hit Points: +1d10/level, until 9th level
To-Hit: +1/level
Damage: +1/level
Armor Class: +1/level
Hit Points: +1/level
A 10th-level fighter might be even more powerful under that progression, but he wouldn't seem "unrealistic".Damage: +1/level
Armor Class: +1/level
Hit Points: +1/level
Similar Threads
