Relevant Orcs

[Reynard]

The seminar synopsis included a bit about keeping low level enemies like orcs relevant even in higher levels, primarily through the process of making higher level characters more diverse, not necessarily having higher and higher numbers. If this is the way 5E is going to work, then all I can say is

EXCELLENT!!

The too steep power curve has been a bugbear of mine since 3E arrived. I want orcs -- just every day raid-your-village-eat-you-horse orcs -- to be threat throughout the life of a campaign. At least in the 3.x versions, that has been hard to do because PCs get too powerful too quickly. 4E attempted to fix it by taking the levelled monster approach of 3.x and running with it -- the exact opposite of what I would like to see.

So I say Huzzah to relevant orcs!

PS sorry about the lack of quote or link but I am on a craptacular tablet...

 

[Argyle King]

The bit about orcs made me feel pretty good. More width rather than continuing to inflate the numbers is something I like -if that's the idea they have in mind.

I also liked that there was mentioned of castles and such. I'm most certainly the type of person who would want deeper options for that.

One of the big things I loved about 4th edition was that it has less of a power curve between levels than 3rd does, and that allows creatures to remain relevant for a longer period of time. If that is an idea they plan to expand upon, I feel pretty positive about that aspect of design going forward.

 

[Dragonblade]

The seminar synopsis included a bit about keeping low level enemies like orcs relevant even in higher levels, primarily through the process of making higher level characters more diverse, not necessarily having higher and higher numbers. If this is the way 5E is going to work, then all I can say is

EXCELLENT!!

The too steep power curve has been a bugbear of mine since 3E arrived. I want orcs -- just every day raid-your-village-eat-you-horse orcs -- to be threat throughout the life of a campaign. At least in the 3.x versions, that has been hard to do because PCs get too powerful too quickly. 4E attempted to fix it by taking the levelled monster approach of 3.x and running with it -- the exact opposite of what I would like to see.

So I say Huzzah to relevant orcs!

PS sorry about the lack of quote or link but I am on a craptacular tablet...

Yep. Without knowing specifics, it sounded very similar to what I was suggesting with my treatise on getting rid of ascending bonuses that I posted in another thread.

There are a lot of benefits to be had by keeping ascending bonuses in check, and this is one of them.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The bit about orcs made me feel pretty good. More width rather than continuing to inflate the numbers is something I like -if that's the idea they have in mind.

...

One of the big things I loved about 4th edition was that it has less of a power curve between levels than 3rd does, and that allows creatures to remain relevant for a longer period of time. If that is an idea they plan to expand upon, I feel pretty positive about that aspect of design going forward.

Yes, 4E has features that work at cross-purposes on this issue. I like the sound of the way they are resolving that.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

though it does not work in 4e too well. Not too bad, but not too well. When 4e was announced, I was really happy that you only go up by +1/2 a level
too bad it was +1/level in reality...

 

[ferratus]

I'm not sure if I know what to make of this.

On the one hand, I hate the idea of bandits, orcs, street thugs, goblins etc. continuing to beat the crap out of me when I'm the champion of Kirkwall and have fought many dangerous monsters and more powerful creatures. (#$&@ you Dragon Age 2!). So if it stalls the sense of forward momentum, I'll definately not be a fan.

If however it means that I'll be able to fight a slew of orcs where once I could fight one, and it will still be a challenging encounter, then I'm all for it.

 

[Ichneumon]

My rough guess on how this will work.

A small band of orcs will be a tough fight for a group that's just starting out. As they gain more experience, they can tackle a larger band. At a higher level, say 10th, the orc band will need to be part of an encounter with multiple foe types. But the group can't ignore the orcs, as these monsters will still be able to hurt them enough to matter.

If this really is a part of D&D Next, they might be able to trim down the monster list, keeping it focused on iconics and popular foes with high traction. (Same thing, kinda!)

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

At level 5, a solo orc that can kick the entire parties ass. (level 5 solo)
At level 10, the party can now fight and maybe defeat two orcs. (2 level 10 elites)
At level 15, it's a pretty even fight between the party and the same number of Orcs. (4-5 normal level 15 enemies)
Level 20 the PC's can take on an army of Orcs. (30 minions)

This is how I run it in 4E and it works perfectly for me.

 

[Reynard]

I hope it is more in line with Basic and AD&D, where PCs took longer to get better, with the addition of newfangled player-oriented fiddly bits. Maybe the fighter gets a +1 BAB only ever odd level, but a feat every even level (or the 5E equivalent thereof). If the orcs start out strong and "feats" take the form of options rather than numbers, then they could be viable for quite some time.

 

[Reynard]

At level 5, a solo orc that can kick the entire parties ass. (level 5 solo)
At level 10, the party can now fight and maybe defeat two orcs. (2 level 10 elites)
At level 15, it's a pretty even fight between the party and the same number of Orcs. (4-5 normal level 15 enemies)
Level 20 the PC's can take on an army of Orcs. (30 minions)

Please no.