Relevant Orcs

[Nivenus]

So I take it we're seeing plot immunity then, as that one thread described it (scaling HP and damage but not AC or attack)? I'm cool with that (though I prefer rocket tag).

Getting away from the endless treadmill of 4e's level scaling would probably be a good idea, though I hope it doesn't come at the cost of 4e's monster blocks.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

This says to me, that we'll see a complete lack of attack bonus scaling from going up levels.

I think it's likely we'll see a feat that adds +1 to attacks. And if you choose it, you are taking feats away from getting better at one of the other silos(exploration and social), since it appears D&D Next is trying to emphasize the other silos more, this might be more of a disadvantage. Especially if your DM is playing with quick combat rules. When that +1 to hit only helps you for 40 minutes in a 5 hour long session, it becomes less important.

Thus, as they said in the panel, you can choose to specialize as you see fit within the 3 silos. But the people who choose NOT to specialize in combat aren't really penalized because the difference between them and someone who did specialize is +1.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Oh, and I think they'll accomplish this not just through a lack of scaling attack bonuses, but have there be scaling damage bonuses instead.

After all, that way 20 Orcs who each get +0 to hit and do 1d8 damage each could be as dangerous as the enemy who has +5 to hit and does 4d8+48.

 

[Rechan]

The last campaign I was in, we fought goblins & hogoblins for 6 levels. I was so bored.

After a certain point I don't want Orcs to be a threat. Orcs should not be a threat to the Archmage of Wherever - he should be able to turn them to cinders and concern himself with dragons and drow. What's the point of higher levels if you can't graduate from fighting rats and skeletons? And if Orcs are still a threat at higher levels, then what the hell is a mind flayer? A beholder?

Hell, this is how early editions were. I mean, that's why we have multiple humanoids. Kobolds and goblins were the weakest. Orcs had higher HD. Then Bugbears and gnolls had more HD (bigger and badder). If Orcs are still a threat, then what's the point of those other things?

 

[Reynard]

Here's teh relevant quote from the seminar transcript:

ON MONSTERS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS

Monte: Instead of the fighter getting a better and better attack bonus, he instead gets more options to do stuff as he goes up in level, and his attack bonus goes up at a very modest rate. I think it offers a better play experience that the orc/ogre can remain in the campaign, and people can know how the monster would work from a previous experience, but they remain a challenge for longer.
Jeremy: The Monsters are in the design teams hands now and we'll be moving to development in the next few weeks. What I can say about this goal that Monte is talking about is that we're working ot provide the DM with really good world building tools. And it's important to provide information about the orcs place in D&D while making sure that a Monster remains relevant as the characters level up. They're might be an orc shaman, an orc champion or whatever for higher levels, but we also want the basic orc to be relevant at higher levels. We want it to be really easy for the DM to open the Monster Manual and drop an orc or iconic monsters into the game.

I think that is pretty clear, insofar as it has been defined and is likely subject to revision based on feedback, that we're going to see a flatter power curve coupled with more interesting active options. I imagine elements like the old-edition "attacking many low HD creatures" which manages to both keep hordes of goblins relevant AND make players feel like badasses -- both good thing IMO.

 

[Belphanior]

As it stands right now (4e), monsters are relevant for about 5 levels. If Critter X are typically level 6 then you typically can expect to encounter them around levels 4 to 8. It's possible to go a bit beyond but it's not really ideal.

If they flatten the bonus-curve a bit you might extend that 5-level range into a 10-level range. That makes them more significant but it's not like you'll never out-level the monsters.

Possibly they could also extend the power of leader-type monsters, who are elites (ie. much harder to kill) and provide significant upgrades to their followers. That way you can take some basic orcs and give them a shaman of Gruumsh who gives the other orcs bonuses to hit and/or damage, essentially leveling up the basic ones for as long as the shaman lives.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The last campaign I was in, we fought goblins & hogoblins for 6 levels. I was so bored.

After a certain point I don't want Orcs to be a threat. Orcs should not be a threat to the Archmage of Wherever - he should be able to turn them to cinders and concern himself with dragons and drow. What's the point of higher levels if you can't graduate from fighting rats and skeletons? And if Orcs are still a threat at higher levels, then what the hell is a mind flayer? A beholder?

Hell, this is how early editions were. I mean, that's why we have multiple humanoids. Kobolds and goblins were the weakest. Orcs had higher HD. Then Bugbears and gnolls had more HD (bigger and badder). If Orcs are still a threat, then what's the point of those other things?

Numbers. If it takes 6 orcs to provide the danger that 2 or 3 gnolls provide then there is still a meaningful difference.

I like powerful characters who can lay the smackdown on 20 orcs if they had to.

What don't like is a character able to take on an infinite number of anything just because it has been outleveled.

Tucker's kobolds FTW!!!

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

The last campaign I was in, we fought goblins & hogoblins for 6 levels. I was so bored.

After a certain point I don't want Orcs to be a threat. Orcs should not be a threat to the Archmage of Wherever - he should be able to turn them to cinders and concern himself with dragons and drow. What's the point of higher levels if you can't graduate from fighting rats and skeletons? And if Orcs are still a threat at higher levels, then what the hell is a mind flayer? A beholder?

Hell, this is how early editions were. I mean, that's why we have multiple humanoids. Kobolds and goblins were the weakest. Orcs had higher HD. Then Bugbears and gnolls had more HD (bigger and badder). If Orcs are still a threat, then what's the point of those other things?

But was your boredom because goblin and hobgoblins were all that you fought for six levels?

You need diversity, you need new challenges to keep the game fresh and interesting, but at the same time, I really like the idea that even though you are 10th level a squad of orcs might take a little effort. If you are careless or just stupid, they should be an actual threat.

 

[RoboCheney]

On the flipside, this could mean your first-level party could take on things like ogres, trolls, umber hulks, and whatnot in small enough quantities.

I'm at least of the opinion that those increasing numbers are an important part of what makes you feel more powerful when you level. At 10th level you should be frying bigger fish than orcs anyhow.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The last campaign I was in, we fought goblins & hogoblins for 6 levels. I was so bored.

After a certain point I don't want Orcs to be a threat. Orcs should not be a threat to the Archmage of Wherever - he should be able to turn them to cinders and concern himself with dragons and drow. What's the point of higher levels if you can't graduate from fighting rats and skeletons? And if Orcs are still a threat at higher levels, then what the hell is a mind flayer? A beholder?

Hell, this is how early editions were. I mean, that's why we have multiple humanoids. Kobolds and goblins were the weakest. Orcs had higher HD. Then Bugbears and gnolls had more HD (bigger and badder). If Orcs are still a threat, then what's the point of those other things?

I don't think the idea is to force people to use goblinoids for 6 levels. That's why you have variety in the MM. Additionally, that seems more an issue for the DMG (providing advice to DMs about variety in a campaign).

However, there's a definite advantage to being able to use orcs in adventures for a wide range of levels. I like the idea that I, as a DM, might be able to use goblins against a level 6 party (instead of being shoehorned into using ogres because goblins are too low level, or being forced through the rigmarole of adding a bunch of class levels to the goblins and diluting their "goblinishness").

I'd be a little surprised if goblins and orcs will be a serious threat at epic levels (aside from perhaps a full-blown army of them), but widening the range is a good design goal, IMO. I'd like to minimize the number of times that I have to go back to the drawing board with an idea for an adventure, just because the creature I wanted to feature is the wrong level.