Power vs. Options

[wedgeski]

The level 20 fighter is fighting a group of Blood Shaman Grazuul's elite bodyguard orc at the peak of a volcano while trying to interfere with Grazuul's ritual to awaken a primordial locked at it's heart.

Okay, so environment, check. Seems fair. We'll list that under encounter design.

But what makes the bodyguard "elite"? Nothing but the fact you're fighting him on the edge of a volcano? What makes him a more significant, more epic threat than the orc the fighter killed on the road?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'd like a slight twist on @Kzach 's proposal: Higher level characters shouldn't have MORE options, but BETTER options. If characters get lots and lots of options, it leads to slowdown at the table as players sort through all of their options and try to decide which one to use. Swapping out a low-level option for a higher-level option would be fine by me, though.

Get a good grip on the full range and scope of options before you release the game, and you can finesse this issue: Make it so that those higher level options are expanding the scope of what the earlier option can do. Of course, if you are going to do that, you might decide to build such "horizontal scaling" into the options from the beginning instead of replacing them.

This pretty much kills feats as we currently know them--or radically changes them, if you want to call the new thing "feats." For example, let's say that a martial character has the option to get better at disarming, over whatever the basic "moderately real-world-like, only works in some fairly narrow situations, when used unexpectedly," version of disarm is. Say that the base version is limited to one-on-one duals with characters of about your size, and no more than one attempt per fight. The first level character picks the "improved disarm" option, and can now try it against characters one size larger. As the character levels, the percentage chance to disarm doesn't move much (beyond whatever the standard, slight attack bonus scaling does for you). But by max level, the character can pretty much attempt a disarm against anyone, any time, if they are holding something in their hands.

Similar things can be done with spells. I believe several people have suggested such options as ways to have spells scale without having to do slightly better versions every few levels. However, an even better effect of such a system is that it gives you flexibility in how widespread your improvements are. Let's say that there are options for casters to become masters of fire or lightning of shaping effects. The fire master gets to do all kinds of neat things with his fire spells, including having them wrap around friends to hit enemies. But he can also ramp up the area, range, etc. The lightning master can do some similar things (i.e. some overlap with fire, but not exact). Whereas the shaping master can't do all that other stuff, but he can shape his fire, lightning, acid, cold however he wants.

One of the problems with such abilities as discrete feats (e.g. "enlarge spell", "improved disarm") is that they build off of other bonuses, and when stacked in certain combinations produce the overpowered characters--or don't stack so hot and produce an underpowered character. Contrawise, if the ability is a major package with a gradually unlocking scope (in a system as discussed in this topic), then there is not much effective stacking.

 

[JohnSnow]

Just adding to this idea, by stealing something from OD&D...

In OD&D, there was a significant distinction between a hero (of any level) and an "ordinary man." A hero could mow down a group of ordinary men with impunity, but simply adding a hero (even a lower-level one) to that group eliminates the ability.

What if the game were to introduce a similar idea, but rather than being binary, it was tiered? In other words: if there's a hero of your tier or 1 lower, you can't simply mow down the opposition. But if you eliminate your significant adversaries, your enemies have simply no chance.

Basically, you could do away with the rapid number inflation and instead scale monsters in a way similar to the old "+1 or better weapon to hit." But rather than making it reliant on magic weapons, it's reliant on character level.

Something like:

Character Level/Tier:

1-2: Tier 1
3-5: Tier 2
6-9: Tier 3
10-14: Tier 4
15-20: Tier 5
21+: Tier 6

Monsters of Tier X are simply invulnerable to hits from lower tier opponents. And unless the opposition contains an opponent of Tier X-1 or higher, it's not "significant opposition." This works surprisingly well with The Lord of the Rings, where Gandalf must take on the Balrog alone - because it's a foe that's simply "beyond" the rest of the party.

So, as an example, a 1st-level PC can take on up to a 5th level monster, and a a 3rd-level PC prevents a fight from being a walk away for up to a 10th level monster.

Those who wanted their PCs to be proof against a broader spectrum of opponents could make the acceptable disparity "two tiers." That might make sense. In that system, "normals" represent a sort of "Tier 0." So a party of normal men can take on up to a Level 5 (high 2nd Tier) opponent. Against a level 6 opponent, a party of normal men just gets killed.

I could see this system also making it more possible to simulate the fantasy mentor+ scenario, where one (or a few) high-level characters adventure alongside those of lower level. Sure, Obi-Wan has to face Vader alone - but against a battalion of Stormtroopers, he still needs help.

Think of the role played by Lan, Moiraine and Thom Merrilin in The Eye of the World.

There's a few different concepts warring with each other here, and obviously, this idea is very rough, but hopefully you get what I'm driving at.

 

[Mokona]

Here's a light sketch of how I would envision the difference between a say 1st level fighter vs 10th level fighter:

Tordek
Fighter 1
Dwarf
HP: 16 (Con)
AC: 14 - chainmail
Attack: +3 vs AC, 1d12+3 damage - greataxe
1 Feat
6 Weapon Proficiency Slots
6 Nonweapon Proficiency Slots
1 Career/Profession/Craftsman/Secondary Skillset (AD&D 2e, page 53)
Mettle (race feature): On a successful saving throw, completely negate the effects and damage of any attack/spell/poison that allows a Constitution Save

Fighter 10
Dwarf
HP: 43 (Con + 3/level)
AC: 17 - plate mail
Attack: +8 vs AC, 1d12+1d6+8 damage - superior magic dwarven waraxe
10 Feats
11 Weapon Proficiency Slots
8 Nonweapon Proficiency Slots
1 Career/Profession/Craftsman/Secondary Skillset (AD&D 2e, page 53)
Deflection (class feature): 5% chance to negate any attack that targets Armor Class
Mettle (race feature): On a successful saving throw, completely negate the effects and damage of any attack/spell/poison that allows a Constitution Save
Possible Feat Chain - Dwarven Resilience (feat): Always allowed to make a Constitution Save against attacks with the Poison type (thus, see also mettle above)
&c - a few more class features/talent tree abilities/things gained with feat chains

Enough proficiency slots for 1st level characters to have variety but few enough "powers/feats/features" to allow noticeable growth as you level. If you start out with too many abilities at 1st level then complexity gets too high as you reach 10th level.

 

[jshaft37]

Slightly off topic (I agree with the OP for the most part), but here are my thoughts based on some of the comments in this thread.

I am of the opinion that creatures (PCs, NPCs, Monsters) of any level should be able to defeat a high level creature, with enough resources. Whether those resources are terrain advantage, numbers, magical items, whatever.

This is the basis of my thought: How many kobolds does it take to defeat a level 20 dragon? 50, 100, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, infinity? Surely, there's a number that makes sense.

Lets look at the 4e Monster Vault, a level 1 Kobold Quickblade has d20+6 to its attack dealing 1d6+3 damage.

A level 20 Elder Blue Dragon's AC is 34 and hp is 756, so the Kobold needs a Crit to hit the dragon. So basically 5% of the hits will connect. With max damage (9), it takes 84 hits to slay the dragon. So that would equate to 1 round of 1680 Kobolds attacking the dragon at once (84hit/5% chance to hit). If we look at average damage (6.5) you would need 117 hits, or 1 round of 2340 Kobolds to slay the dragon.

Maybe those are the correct numbers? After all its just an estimation of what seems reasonable and fun in a fantasy setting. Maybe 500 Kobolds should be able to take down a Blue Dragon in 1 round, and therefore the math should be adjusted accordingly. My point being is that "balance" is just an iterative process, and based on 4e design, I feel that Wizards of the Coast is pretty good at running stats and crunching numbers.

What should actually be discussed is the concepts behind the numbers. Can 500 Kobolds take down the Elder Blue Dragon? How many sword strikes from a level 5, 10, 20, 30th level fighter(s) should it take to slay that same level 20 elder blue dragon? How does a level 15 fighter fight a room of 50 goblins? How does a wizard fight a room of 50 goblins? Should they be equally successful?

If we can discuss those types scenarios, I feel confident that WoTC can take that information, analyze it, and produce sufficient crunch that represents the qualitative information from the players.

 

[Rhenny]

Jshaft, I totally agree.

Although I'm not for making the game a realistic simulation, I do believe that logic should be used for how combat works with creatures as you say.

Gang tactics of even the smallest creatures on earth make a small group dangerous vs. even a vastly more powerful creature. Think Piranha. Or, a tough mercenary with a machine gun, can be overwhelmed by 20 unarmed men, if the men don't fear death or injury. They close and although some may die, the others get to the mercenary and knock him down and pummel him.

This concept should carry over into the fantasy rpg as well. More powerful creatures should fear large groups of lower level creatures...the "angry mob" is terrifying.

I want PCs to feel as if they have some chance against anything if they set themselves up in the right position and they have a little luck. Conversely, I want PCs to always fear larger groups of weaker opponents.

If WoTC crunches the numbers they should work them forwards and backwards to really achieve these goals.

 

[Kzach]

I want PCs to feel as if they have some chance against anything if they set themselves up in the right position and they have a little luck. Conversely, I want PCs to always fear larger groups of weaker opponents.

If WoTC crunches the numbers they should work them forwards and backwards to really achieve these goals.

These two points should've been what I used to start the thread.

One of the things they've discussed and that I'm hoping will lead to the above sort of thinking is of making low-level threats still be threats through the entire character's life. The concept of 'moving past' a certain level of threat, like say a mountain lion, has always bugged me. A mountain lion should ALWAYS be a threat, but if the party has enough options available to them from experience, then they can make the encounter trivial through their abilities not through their power, ie. they could calm the animal through magic, or trap it with special bait and trap trick they've learned, or they could lead it into a cul-de-sac, or disguise their scent or send it off in another direction, etc. But if the lion happened to get in a swipe at them, it'll still be dangerous and would still take a few solid hits to take down.

 

[JohnSnow]

These two points should've been what I used to start the thread.

One of the things they've discussed and that I'm hoping will lead to the above sort of thinking is of making low-level threats still be threats through the entire character's life. The concept of 'moving past' a certain level of threat, like say a mountain lion, has always bugged me. A mountain lion should ALWAYS be a threat, but if the party has enough options available to them from experience, then they can make the encounter trivial through their abilities not through their power, ie. they could calm the animal through magic, or trap it with special bait and trap trick they've learned, or they could lead it into a cul-de-sac, or disguise their scent or send it off in another direction, etc. But if the lion happened to get in a swipe at them, it'll still be dangerous and would still take a few solid hits to take down.

A good example I would use of a reasonably high-level fighter is Maximus from Gladiator. During his special exhibition match, Maximus is facing off against one of the most famous undefeated gladiators of all time. The emperor has arranged for a series of TIGERS to emerge from beneath the arena as a special "complication" for the combat.

Now, Maximus is not dumb enough to ignore the threat posed by a tiger - even though when push comes to shove, he dispatches one with relative ease. Of course, in D&D terms, Maximus is barely more than 10th-level. Obviously still an impressive fighter, but nothing he does is outside the realm of what an accomplished real world warrior might do.

That said, I believe that low-level adversaries should still pose a threat to high-level characters. A sword thrust is still a sword thrust, an arrow is still an arrow. What distinguishes the high-level fighter is that he's more likely to be able to block that arrow, or dodge it.

I've said elsewhere that the ideal would be the system that models BOTH the ability of Conan to go cleaving through a legion of the duke's guards on his way into the palace, AND the fact that he surrenders when surrounded by 25 of them with drawn bows. That's a tall order, but I think it's doable.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Two students have trained for years and become 1st-level monks. One stays at the monastery whilst the other goes abroad to learn more about the art. Five years later, the travelling monk (now 20th-level) returns to the monastery and the two friends decide to have a sparring match for fun. The 20th-level guy is a little bit faster, a little bit more accurate, and hits slightly harder, but otherwise, the 1st-level monk is keeping up with him just fine. But then the 20th-level monk does a double flip over his 1st-level counterpart, creating an opportunity to strike from behind, thus denying the 1st-level monk his ability to block the attack. Later on in the fight, the 1st-level monk is almost defeated but pulls off a critical hit. The 20th-level monk, knowing a mind-over-body technique, halves the damage and then uses a ki focus technique to heal himself of a small amount, turning the tide in favour of himself and winning the match.

I wouldn't mind playing with that system, but it doesn't sound anything even remotely like D&D to me.