Sounds like WotC have been feeding those orcs a boatload of performance enhancers between editions...
Relevant Orcs
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
Sounds like WotC have been feeding those orcs a boatload of performance enhancers between editions...
Fanaelialae
Legend
I doubt it.
Based on the fact that Monte stated that fighter BA (and therefore, presumably, all BA) scales more slowly, I think [MENTION=98772]Ichneumon[/MENTION] has the right idea.
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
I think this sounds like an awful idea. As I level up, I want to be able to find that the foes that were significant threats now aren't anymore, and when I level up more I want them to be little more than inconveniences.
When the enemies that you're facing are the same enemies that you've been facing over the life of the game, just scaled up, then that contributes to making every level feel just like every other level; there's no sense of progress or scale.
I say, bleh. Give me a hero who used to struggle against an orc now not break a sweat fighting a band of them.
When the enemies that you're facing are the same enemies that you've been facing over the life of the game, just scaled up, then that contributes to making every level feel just like every other level; there's no sense of progress or scale.
I say, bleh. Give me a hero who used to struggle against an orc now not break a sweat fighting a band of them.
This is my hope too. We're currently running a Pathfinder E8 campaign and that was something we noticed - Level 1-3 monsters are still going to be relevant, although the numbers or other factors may need to increase.
Which is how it should be, IMO.
On the other hand, I can see there being some sort of dividing line - say orcs are relevant to level 10, at which points orogs or the like take over.
But ideally I would prefer that there isn't that clean a division. As an example, a level 15 Fighter encounters a standard patrol of orcs (say 8). He looks at them and realizes they're no real threat to him unless they get lucky. He now has the option of diplomacy, intimidation, or calling for an initiative roll.
At level 1, he had three different options - death, slavery/being seasoned with delicious spices, or running.
At level 5-10, he figures he could maybe take a couple out before they get him, so his options are still running, death, slavery, or now he can try diplomacy.
Szatany
First Post
The problem with this approach is that you need a separate stat block for each of those versions (solo5, elite10 etc.). It should be doable with a single stat block (and looks like 5e is aiming at this).
This also suggests a few other intriguing possibilities.
While a flattened to-hit curve has been mentioned, keeping orcs a threat means that they need to keep being able to hit you. Will DDN remove or flatten progressively increasing AC/defenses? AC might be determined solely by armor type, Dex, and whatever race/class advantages you have.
Level range reduced to 1-20, and +X items removed from the core math of the game. If WotC want monsters like orcs to remain a threat throughout a party's career, implementing these two facets isn't necessary, but it would make their goal a lot easier.
While a flattened to-hit curve has been mentioned, keeping orcs a threat means that they need to keep being able to hit you. Will DDN remove or flatten progressively increasing AC/defenses? AC might be determined solely by armor type, Dex, and whatever race/class advantages you have.
Level range reduced to 1-20, and +X items removed from the core math of the game. If WotC want monsters like orcs to remain a threat throughout a party's career, implementing these two facets isn't necessary, but it would make their goal a lot easier.
trancejeremy
Adventurer
I really don't like this at all. That's a very big complaint I have about MMORPGs - you never feel like you get getting more powerful (despite usually filling up skill bars), because you're always fighting the same things, they've leveled with you as well.
Basic things like orcs, bandits, wolves, bears, etc should not pose problems to mid or high level characters, unless they too are legendary and rare exceptions, not the norm.
That said, I do agree with the more width idea - characters should grow quickly, but their combat ability should not grow nearly as fast. I think BECMI was the closest to right in this aspect
Basic things like orcs, bandits, wolves, bears, etc should not pose problems to mid or high level characters, unless they too are legendary and rare exceptions, not the norm.
That said, I do agree with the more width idea - characters should grow quickly, but their combat ability should not grow nearly as fast. I think BECMI was the closest to right in this aspect
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!).
At least, that's what I hope. As much as I love Pathfinder, the power curve is way too steep. Running a sandboxy megadungeon is hard because if the APL goes too far off the level ACR, it gets unfun fast.
ExploderWizard
Hero
I think thats the idea. You can tackle a single orc at the start and perhaps a whole tribe by yourself by the time you are ready to clear your hex.
The scaling of everything is something I hope they get away from. Levelling past everything and having an orc just flat out not be able to hit you feels like an MMO.
If they simply let hit points do thier job and watch for bonus bloat, this could be really great.
