Relevant Orcs

[Reynard]

Even fairly low resistance (DR) could accomplish that.

Certainly. On a related note, I hope we see a return of "hit only by magic weapons" -- not for everything, DR has its place and it's a cool mechanic, but some things should just be immune to normal damage. Also, I hope they modify damage type DR so that any old "magic damage" automatically gets through.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Certainly. On a related note, I hope we see a return of "hit only by magic weapons" -- not for everything, DR has its place and it's a cool mechanic, but some things should just be immune to normal damage. Also, I hope they modify damage type DR so that any old "magic damage" automatically gets through.

I prefer DR / magic (or resistance to non-magic).

In some cases immunity might be more appropriate (such as for ghosts) but in general I think a high DR / resistance is better. If I can somehow figure out how to drop a mountain on a werewolf or gargoyle, it definitely should not survive. Or, put another way, the only things that should have complete immunity to non-magical attacks should be things that could be reasonably expected to survive having a mountain dropped on them.

I also hope resistance/immunity isn't overused. If it's appropriate (a golem) then fine, but I think this sort of thing is seen too often, making it less interesting. If in doubt, leave it out.

 

[Oni]

I am incredibly happy to hear that bigger numbers for the sake of bigger numbers looks like it will be going to the wayside. I think it will definitely benefit the game to have the power curve flattened. That whole add half your level thing from 4e used to drive me nuts because it was just there to prop up the power curve and let you write bigger and bigger numbers on your character sheet.

 

[jmucchiello]

I don't think the point is to have scaling orcs, I think the point is to flatten the power curve in such a way that the DM doesn't have to scale them to use them throughout the campaign, like he did in 3.x (add class levels!) and 4E (use level 8 orc crusherators!).

Except this is how 2e, 1e, a BD&D and OD&D treat orcs. They don't scale. This is my first "It's not D&D" idea I've heard from the dev team. I'm not happy.

I want superheroes at 20th level. I had them in 1e, 2e, and 3e. I abandoned orcs around 4th level in 1e, 2e, and 3e. Why shouldn't I have this in D&D++ as well?

 

[Reynard]

Except this is how 2e, 1e, a BD&D and OD&D treat orcs. They don't scale. This is my first "It's not D&D" idea I've heard from the dev team. I'm not happy.

I want superheroes at 20th level. I had them in 1e, 2e, and 3e. I abandoned orcs around 4th level in 1e, 2e, and 3e. Why shouldn't I have this in D&D++ as well?

4th level? That's a pretty big step for having almost no attack or damage improvement, a few more spells and some extra hit points.

I think you either had unusual experiences or are perhaps misremembering the Basic and AD&D orc issues. The biggest impact of those first few levels is improved survivability via higher hit points and versatility for casters. PCs don't get better saves or attacks until 4th at the earliest, meaning that orcs not only remain viable but actually become more interesting because the PCs aren't so fragile.

As to superheroes -- what feels more superheroes than slaughtering scores of orcs in a single round? Also, I don't think anyone was talking about normal orcs being relevant at epic/end game levels.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Except this is how 2e, 1e, a BD&D and OD&D treat orcs. They don't scale. This is my first "It's not D&D" idea I've heard from the dev team. I'm not happy.

I want superheroes at 20th level. I had them in 1e, 2e, and 3e. I abandoned orcs around 4th level in 1e, 2e, and 3e. Why shouldn't I have this in D&D++ as well?

That's true of 3e, I'll grant you. (Unless you added class levels, in which case your epic orcs could be a threat at epic levels.)

Not necessarily true of 2e. At least not in my experience. We encountered orcs well past 4th level in those days.

They haven't said that at level 20 orcs will still be a threat. They just said that orcs will be viable longer. So, presumably, no one has said that you can't have what you're looking for.

Now if your complaint is that you don't want orcs to be a threat after 4th level, I'd counter that they could still be a threat in earlier editions (aside from 3e) when encountered in large enough numbers. Hence, a good reason for them to remain so.

 

[Umbran]

Apropos of nothing...

...It occurs to me that 'The Relevant Orcs' would be a good name for a metal-filk band.

 

[Number48]

When it comes to 3E, I wouldn't use orcs against 1st level players. They had x3 crit axes and it isn't fun to go from full hit points to dead in your first combat. Orcs were level 2+.

 

[GM Dave]

I build monsters to fit my players.

When I want my players to mow through a group of orcs like they are wielding hedge clippers then I look at what their average bonus to hit is, their average amount of damage and then generate the monsters that I want with the appropriate 'name' attached.

If my players have a +3 to +5 bonus at first level then this works out to opponents usually having an AC 10 or 11 in 3e terms. If there damage is roughly d6 to d8 then I set the hit points at around 5 each (some take 2 hits to go down but most go down on the first blow). If I want to make the players feel tougher then I'll drop the damage to d4.

Players happily wade through dozens of monsters made like that.

If I want a 'tougher' goblin or orc then I'll describe something like strange tattoos, larger size, and bulging muscles. Surprise, the AC now is up to 13 (I tend to keep AC's lower for monsters as my players like the feel they hit more than miss), and up the HP to 15 or 20. I use a few less of these and don't raise the damage they do too much (d4+1 or d6) and now the players feel the 'difference' in these 'super' orcs.

From that base design core, I can add on extras to make the various orcs or other monsters feel different. If they are fire breathing newts then I'll tack on a 'burning hands' attack as a special ability. Slavemasters get whips that entangle like a grapple or an entangling bag depending on how I feel.

I start with the capabilities and tactics of my players and create challenges to their styles of play.

Sometimes I'll use more open areas and fit my team with plenty of archers and sometimes I'll use twisty environments or ambushers that keep the fight close and personal.

This does two things;

1> Monsters are not a flat forever description in the MM but a living tool that can be used to describe any type of play. This is how to keep monsters relevant at all levels. (It is actually the mechanic behind ages of dragons so level 1 parties and level 20 parties can face dragons and feel they are challenged).

2> Players can read the MM all they want and still not know what for sure the monster ahead of them 'might' do or how 'tough' a fight it will be. This keeps the fear and wonder in the game.

 

[jmucchiello]

That's true of 3e, I'll grant you. (Unless you added class levels, in which case your epic orcs could be a threat at epic levels.)

Not necessarily true of 2e. At least not in my experience. We encountered orcs well past 4th level in those days.

Probably true, I rarely ever used orcs. I always preferred the goblin/hob/bugbear chain of monsters. And as HD 1-1 critters in 1e/2e goblins were fodder for fighters who could kill one per segment up to his class level. A horde of goblins is 5 minute warm up for a high level party (1 round = 1 minutes, remember).