Relevant Orcs

[Ichneumon]

Running into a simple band of orcs shouldn't faze a high-level party, but encountering a large throng of orcs outside a demon lord's citadel might. As the PCs increase in level, the way in which they encounter perennial threats like orcs or goblins should change.

For high-level parties, these monsters will occupy the same role as minions do in 4e. I predict that the minion as a specific creature type will be gone in DDN.

 

[Zaukrie]

I like the concept of flattening the power curve, while offerering more options, but i'll need to see it in action. I agree with both those that say Orcs should still be an issue, but that also want to feel like they are more powerful....tough call.

 

[Glade Riven]

That reminds me - Star Wars Saga had a mechanic for grouping lower level units into a single squad based unit (mechanically equivelent to turning Stormtroopers into a Stormtrooper Swarm), and even scaling it up for mass battles. Something similar could work with 5e - I know I've considered using it in Pathfinder.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The flatter scaling also makes adjusting adventures easier, especially if combat is reasonably fast. With 3E and 4E, it's not usually a good idea to make an encounter tougher by adding more of the same creatures. This is probably still true to a certain extent because of fight dynamics, but if you are using a published adventure that is a bit too low in level, or you have a slightly larger party than normal, slapping a few extra orcs in there is now a valid tool in the arsenal.

 

[Rechan]

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

Yes. 8 out of 10 encounters were goblinoids. Even if they had funky new powers (Which they did not), I want to see different things.

So my complaint is that I don't want to keep facing them. Also, that after a certain point, I want to be beyond the reach of something I fought at low levels.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yes. 8 out of 10 encounters were goblinoids. Even if they had funky new powers (Which they did not), I want to see different things.

So my complaint is that I don't want to keep facing them. Also, that after a certain point, I want to be beyond the reach of something I fought at low levels.

I believe this is more of a DM adventure design variety problem than a failing of any system.

 

[The Human Target]

I approve of the idea.

The less of a power curve exists in the game, the more use I can get out of products like monster books and adventures.

Thats a good thing to me.

 

[Ainamacar]

Yes. 8 out of 10 encounters were goblinoids. Even if they had funky new powers (Which they did not), I want to see different things.

So my complaint is that I don't want to keep facing them. Also, that after a certain point, I want to be beyond the reach of something I fought at low levels.

I agree with EW, this doesn't seem like a problem with goblinoid levels per se.

---

Increasing attacks and defenses is the crudest way to represent power in the game, and because the d20 itself never changes also the most problematic if relied upon too heavily (such as when the differences between the best and worst defenses becomes ridiculous). It is almost certainly the least interesting as well. The main thing is that the PCs should wipe the floor against lesser threats, which is not the same as blanket immunity. I don't get much satisfaction from eliminating enemies whose presence is necessarily inconsequential because they only hit on a 20. I do get satisfaction if their presence induces the PCs to use their mighty abilities to counteract a credible threat, less so if it is the same basic threat produced by that enemy 10 levels earlier. As I see it, the proper way to kill 3 orcs at level 1 is pitched combat. The proper way to kill 15 orcs at level 15 isn't a +20 bonus, it's prismatic spray.

In other words, I want enemies to "minionize" smoothly without needing to change their stats (which robs a sense of continuity) but also without making their presence in the combat mathematically pointless. It is the changing interaction with a static monster like the basic orc grunt that best highlights, at least for me, the growth of the PCs. 3e basically kept continuity but the power curve meant monsters didn't stay relevant for long. 4e tried to do both with a mediocre compromise: scaling monsters kept a semblance of continuity if you didn't look too hard but utterly failed to change the role of that monster in a fight and thus highlight the PCs' improvement. On the other hand, the minion mechanic achieves some basic goals (a credible enemy that can be removed quickly) but sacrifices the sense of monster continuity almost entirely -- one big reason some people were uncomfortable with the notion of the level 25 minion.

 

[Incenjucar]

It'll be interesting to see how many level 1 monsters you need to kill a great wyrm gold dragon in this edition.

 

[mach1.9pants]

This is really exciting, I am hoping it works!