Relevant Orcs

[Jack99]

This would definitely improve things. I liked 4e's way of scaling monsters, but being able to use monsters right out of the book for a long time while still having them be relevant would definitely be more awesome. While you could use higher level standard and elite monsters alone against the party, it could be tricky to balance if you still wanted a combat where people didnt miss most attacks and had the fight drag on and on. I want quick and lethal.


This short message was brought to you by Tapatalk and my iPad

 

[GM Dave]

Two Points

1> I'd suggest looking at Chris Perkins' Dungeon Master's Experience column for his discussion on having various encounters of mix-matched level and how he solves things to keep lower level encounters foes interesting against his now Epic level players. He has one article on a ship full of goblins. He has another one this week of two paragon level BBEG but they get a nice assist from Devils that they summon into the adventure.

2> I think the designers of 5e have realized that it is easier to adjust the monster to fit the players then it is to fit the players to the monster. Player's getting bonus for every level they gain and every item and feat they gain creates a large spread of combat ability within a group. In 3.5/PF I've seen the swing as much as 15 to 20 or more in the late teen levels between a fighter and a rogue or wizard (In to hit and AC bonuses).

The same monster can not realistically have the defenses and attack be built to fight those two very different targets without one complaining they can never hit and the other complaining they never miss.

Removing those bonuses or keeping them almost non-existent makes it easier for the GM to create monsters or opponents that can hit and be hit by the whole group (nothing is worse then waiting ten to twenty minutes to get your turn to roll a d20 to try and hit and being told that you need a 19 or better to do anything).

 

[the Jester]

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.

No thanks. Let's have as many monsters as possible.

 

[Sammael]

Let's say we return to the old method of challenge calculation: party level vs monster level.

For an orc to be a threat to a 1st level party of 4 characters, said orc needs to be a level 4 creature. That sounds about right (and fairly scary, particularly if a lone party member comes across a lone orc). I'd personally still design the orc as a level 0 creature, and add 4 levels of fighter to him, but whatever.

A 5th level party (party level 20) would still find a small orc band (5 orcs) challenging.

For a 10th level party, a level 8 orc chieftain, level 8 orc shaman and 6 orcs are a threat.

At 15th level, we need 15 orcs, or 11 orcs with a chieftain and a shaman.

Even at level 20, enough orcs may pose a challenge (not individually, but if they attack en masse).

Is this what we really want, though? Do we want the power curve to be this flat?

Personally, I want the orcs to remain relevant until level 10 or so. After that, orcs should become little more than nuisances. If I still want a dangerous encounter with orcs at level 15, I will need to add class levels and templates to those orcs, essentially turning the orcs into another party of characters.

 

[Incenjucar]

I find myself feeling that this is going to prove related to WotC dropping the ball on Epic in 4E... 5E may simply not include Epic play except in some module they can fail to support.

 

[Number48]

This is very interesting. I approve of keeping players scared longer. I just wonder how they are going to design this so the group can eventually have that shot at an ancient red.

Also, the fighter per example doesn't gain much more BAB, he gains more options. At what level does the sheer number of options get overwhelming? I want to do more than swing a sword every round, but if there are more shticks on my character sheet than I can remember in my head, then we aren't really describing a character in a story anymore.

 

[Khaalis]

I give a "thumbs up" to the idea of creatures being a threat for a longer (if not indefinite) period. I have always hated the "monster ladder" where at 1st level you fight kobolds, at 2nd level goblins, at 3rd level orcs, etc. I have also never understood why PC races can excel and become "heroes" (level up) but every orc/kobold/goblin in the world is always a low-level mook. its a trope that I would love to see go away.

I would much rather have the freedom of picking encounter creatures based on the need/flavor of the game than on its "CR/Effective Level". I like how Fantasy Craft has a system where every creature can be scaled (rather easily) from Level 1 to 20. If you want to have a game centered on a conflict with orcs, they can remain an enemy from beginning to end. I like a system where its possible for a level 1 party to actually have an encounter with say, a dragon.

I doubt D&D will go as far as FC did with scalability of monsters, but anything that moves in that direction, and away from the 'monster ladder' is a good thing IMHO.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

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).

Why?

 

[Li Shenron]

I like the idea of flattening the power curve, and giving the PCs more aces up the sleeve instead of scaling numbers up.

But...

If a goblin remain a serious threat for many levels, when are the "big guys" such as dragons, liches and balrogs going to become beatable opponents? Because while it may be fine for my PCs to still be threatened by goblins, I am not so sure I want dragons, liches and balrogs themselves to be threatened by goblins! If they're all to be in the game, and the PCs are supposed to still be afraid of goblins when they're high-level enough to challenge a dragon, doesn't it mean that the dragons too can still be challenged by goblins?

I could understand if the both high-level PCs and dragons are both challenged by 100 goblins, but I have a hard time seeing how the combat rules can handle such a scenario smoothly.

 

[delericho]

Count me as another who is unsure about this approach. I don't mind a slight expansion to the level range where orcs are a threat (3e was too narrow; 4e is actually about right). Unless they beef up the "ganging up" mechanics, so that the single orc is a threat at 1st level and the band of orcs is a threat at 10th. (Replace with the start and end of the Heroic tier if using different level assumptions.)

But in "Lord of the Rings", ordinary orcs were just not a threat to Aragorn or Boromir, even in large numbers. Were it not for that single high-level orc (film version), or the hundreds with bows (book version), Boromir could have just kept on slaying them all day without an issue.

And consider this: giants are expected to be significantly more powerful than orcs, right? And we want our PCs to eventually be able to fight giants, right? (After all, can't do "Against the Giants" without giants!) So, then, how do you keep orcs relevant throughout the level range while still allowing giants to become a viable challenge? (Not to mention dragons, demons, and other upper-level nasties...)