Relevant Orcs

[JamesonCourage]

I like higher bonuses to attack (although I basically scale bonuses at half speed), but I also have a rule in my RPG that each time you need to defend yourself in a round, that defense takes a penalty. This means that if you get attacked 5 times, it takes a -4 by the 5th attack. It keeps low level warriors dangerous. You can be high level, but if you see a squad of 20 elven archers, you think long and hard before picking a fight with them.

My preferred approach is to scale the numbers at about half the normal rate, but also increase options as you level. However, make sure that high numbers of enemies can potentially be pretty deadly. When you're level 15, a basic goblin warrior isn't much of a problem, but a hundred of them means you're probably best off making a hasty retreat, bottlenecking them, or intimidating/negotiating with them.

Make higher numbers of enemies pretty scary. That BBEG's army in that movie? Scary. That BBEG's army in that book? Scary. The eternally-warring savage barbarian tribes to the north beginning to form an alliance? Scary. I'd rather not see individuals devastating armies, personally. Maybe give them the tools to handle them in smaller numbers (force walls to bottleneck, tactics checks to maneuver them in such a way that only 5 can get at you at once, etc.), or give them tools to handle them in larger numbers (mass battle rules, negotiating rules, fame rules, etc.).

I want low levels to be dangerous in concept, but let that be decided by volume at higher levels. Just my preferences, obviously. As always, play what you like

 

[Lord Vangarel]

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.

Not if the higher level monsters have damage resistance. Let's say they change the mechanic slightly so a hit always does a minimum of 1 point regardless of damage resistance but then make it high enough that without the right type of weapon the goblin isn't doing anything else other than on a critical. If the pc's have weapons/feats to bypass this but the goblins don't the goblins remain a threat if there's enough of them because AC and BAB have a minimal power curve. Likewise the goblins are a threat to the pc's if there's enough of them.

 

[Szatany]

Why?

Because of simplicity. If I have one stat block to represent fighting orc, I can have another one for spellcasting orc and a 3rd one for an orc beastmaster or whatnot. In 4e I would need 5 blocks for warriors, and another 10 for casters and beast masters, just to cover players from level 1 to 20.

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,

A "goblin" won't, but 20 goblins will.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I really like the idea of a flatter hit/ac curve than we've had for a while for several reasons.

Primarily, because of the benefits in world building - it reduces the range of 'untouchable' options in monsters. From 3e onwards we have endlessly scaling ac, which meant that low level creatures become insignificant threats. And as importantly for me, it raised the question of how on earth those villages and towns defended themselves against marauders without a bevy of high level people about?

A flatter to hit curve means that village militia could realistically defend their villages from many local threats, and that helps support the vision of 'living worlds' that I like to design and run.

Do I think this means that parties have to fight orcs their entir life? No. Does it mean that I think orcs will provide the same level of threat for the parties entire life? No. It just means that for a great deal of time orcs will be relevant to the party in one way or another, without having to customise them for the party (the dreaded monsters level up with the party effect).

Cheers

 

[vagabundo]

I kinda like the idea of a 100 goblins sneaking into a dragons lair and - while maybe not killing it - annoying it enough that I goes on a rampage. Maybe it hires the PC's to clear out the "infestation".

Inflation was silly anyway, the same chance just bigger numbers. Bah. Anyway add my vote of +1 to the pile. However my players may not be happy with this turn of events.

 

[avin]

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

I agree.

After a certain point I don't want Orcs to be a threat. Orcs should not be a threat to the Archmage of Wherever

Now I disagree. I want a level 15 orc mercenary on Sigil. I want to be able to build a campaign where Orcs form a party of extraordinary orcs can kill an Archmage.

Not for entire six levels, that's horrible, but I need to be able to do it when I feel like.

Like adding class levels in 3E or bumping up my orcs on 4E's Monster Builder.

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

\o/

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

Yes, please. I understand some DMs want to focus their stories in a somewhat tolkienesque setting, but other people still like Dark Sun and Planescape.

We need monsters for that.

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.

This and AND an EZ Mode option for building them up like 4E's Monster Builder.

 

[avin]

blah blah blah

Can't give XP before spread around more... but, exactly this.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

the flatter curve does not mean, that giants are out of reach... just the opposite.

If they only are +3 higher in attack bonus, and maybe not at all higher in AC but have much more hp an damage, you can bring it down with a lot of people. If you scale AC, to hit, HP and damage, monster are out of reach fast, as offense and defense scale quadratic

Older editions had only "Attack bonus" and "HP" scale. So offense and danger scaled linear.
(In the case of casters, damage scaled instead of attack bonus)

 

[fjw70]

At level 5, a solo orc that can kick the entire parties ass. (level 5 solo)
At level 10, the party can now fight and maybe defeat two orcs. (2 level 10 elites)
At level 15, it's a pretty even fight between the party and the same number of Orcs. (4-5 normal level 15 enemies)
Level 20 the PC's can take on an army of Orcs. (30 minions)

This is how I run it in 4E and it works perfectly for me.

This is how I run 4e as well. I really like this but want to be able to do it in 5e using the same basic stat block.

 

[ferratus]

I have to say, even more important to me than growing in power compared to the monsters (fighting more or more powerful creatures) is growing in power compared to monster defenses.

I would also like to have my fighter's attack bonus grow in relation to monster defenses, even in regards to to monsters of his level. I would also like a good spread of monster defenses depending on what armor they are wearing and the specific character concept. I would used increased monster hit points and an increased damage per attack to counter the this slow but steadily improving attack bonus that PC's have.

In other words, this is a mechanic where I want to go back to 1e/2e. If I have a 75% chance to hit at every level, I don't care if it is an orc or a balrog. It's all the same grind to me.