Scaling: How many level 1 characters should it take to defeat a level 10 character?

[Hussar]

I think people are WAYYY overthinking this.

Look, the basic meaning of the question is pretty simple: How much stronger should a 10th level character be than a 1st level character?

Honestly, I'm hoping for a flatter curve, so, around 3-5 should be about right. That reins in the whole HP inflation and defense inflation that you see in most of D&D. Even in 1e, a 10th level PC's AC is likely so far into the stratosphere that the 1st level characters cannot even hit him.

I rather hope that they pound that quite a bit flatter. That means I don't have to wait until half the campaign is over before I can introduce different critters.

 

[Hassassin]

just a note:

3rd edition: it is more than 16. (going up 2 levels means doubling your power)
Level 9 = 16*level 1 (at least in theorie)

4th edition: it is 5 to 8 (going up 4 levela is doubling your power)
Level 9 = 4*level 1 (at least in theorie)

By the formulas it is 20-24 for 3e and 5 for 4e. In practice neither works that way: 3e DMG says not to use more than 12 creatures (7 levels lower) and 4e no more than four levels lower, because the encounter level system doesn't work with that large differences.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes, this is why i sadid "in theorie"

I however tried so extreme numbers and in 4e (though the fight was dramatic) 2 monsters of level +7 (lvl 13 vs lvl 6) were an equal challenge.

And I guess, a beginner party of 5 could win vs a lvl 10 character. I guess however it heavily depends whether the 5 man party can set themselves up well and who wins surprise/initiative.

 

[Hassassin]

Yes, this is why i sadid "in theorie"

Ok, in theory if you extrapolate beyond the supported range of levels.

I however tried so extreme numbers and in 4e (though the fight was dramatic) 2 monsters of level +7 (lvl 13 vs lvl 6) were an equal challenge.

And I guess, a beginner party of 5 could win vs a lvl 10 character. I guess however it heavily depends whether the 5 man party can set themselves up well and who wins surprise/initiative.

I haven't played enough 4e to know what happens with more extreme level differences, but I know it doesn't work in 3e. For example, 24 1st level wizards don't have much of a chance of hurting a 10th level wizard with access to spells like lesser globe of invulnerability, improved invisibility and fly.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Of course they do, if they don´t find him in the open and he is prepared to fight exactly in those few secods where his spell protects him.

If they spread out well enough and hold back and check if he is magically prtoected, all can simultaneously fire of their one magic missile from long rane IIRC resulting in unpreventable 24d4 + 24 damage or about 84 damage. Which is enough to kill the mage outright. And they can even do this a second time if it actually wasn´t enough.

edit: the fighter may have a 50-50 chance, as 84 damage most probably will allow him to survive the first attack. The second volley however will bring him close to zero and some attacks with the crossbow could then kill him.

 

[gyor]

Heroic tier characters shouldn't be able under normal circumstances to harm an Epic character period. A thousand level 1 orcs wouldn't even dent Moradin's armour for example.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Heroic tier characters shouldn't be able under normal circumstances to harm an Epic character period. A thousand level 1 orcs wouldn't even dent Moradin's armour for example.

In early versions of D&D the term "Heroic Tier" or "Epic Tier" has no meaning and no rules that make them meaninful. There is simply the comparison in power/survivability of one level versus another when facing each other in combat. And that's sort of the point. If a single 1st level character DOES stand even a reasonable chance of defeating a 10th level character the concept of Tiers as 4E has embraced is blown out of the water.

Frankly I'm quite interested to see a version of D&D that has a very flat power curve across PC levels and thus tells that whole "tier" concept to take a hike.

 

[SensoryThought]

I hope it's not too many. My biggest issue with the 4e monster math is that, if you're a low-level character, you cannot fight (e.g.) a vampire. Go play for 3 years until you're level 7, then a single vampire will be a difficult encounter.

I want to fight vampires, dangit!

Not the case with 4e in my experience. You can adjust monster levels easily using the 4e builder and just call it a 'lesser vampire'. You can also change the balance of minions, which can modulate encounter difficulty.

But it is generally best if you don't change monster levels by more than 5, which means level 1s shouldn't be fighting ancient dragons or greater vampires, but frankly I'm alright with this.

The new 4e DDI monster builder is great, its a shame it took until the end of 4e support for them to release it.



Sent from my Lumia 800 using Board Express

 

[Hussar]

In early versions of D&D the term "Heroic Tier" or "Epic Tier" has no meaning and no rules that make them meaninful. There is simply the comparison in power/survivability of one level versus another when facing each other in combat. And that's sort of the point. If a single 1st level character DOES stand even a reasonable chance of defeating a 10th level character the concept of Tiers as 4E has embraced is blown out of the water.

Frankly I'm quite interested to see a version of D&D that has a very flat power curve across PC levels and thus tells that whole "tier" concept to take a hike.

I strongly disagree with this. In any edition of the game. A 1st level character has virtually no chance of ever defeating a 10th level character outside of maybe shanking him in his sleep. A 10th level AD&D character has so many HP that he can stand there and take anything that the 1st level character can dish out, for several rounds, before beginning to get worried. Heck, the 10th level MU can simply beat the 1st level MU to death with a club and not even bother with spells.

Let's be honest here, every later edition made the power curve flatter than the one before it. A 10th level 3e PC can easily be challenged by many things in the game. A 10th level 1e PC is a god. By 10th level, AD&D groups were invading the ABYSS. By 10th level, a 3e PC is still on the Isle of Dread.

 

[Buugipopuu]

A problem with the 'flatter power curve' some people are advocating is that it breaks most campaign settings. If a 10th level character can be downed by half a dozen first level characters, there will be no solo 10th level characters in the world, as they'll have all been slain by the first group of mercenaries looking to make a name for themselves that hears of them. Hiring a squad of goons to take out your enemies becomes far cheaper and easier than doing it yourself. It ceases to be plausible that a dragon could terrorise any decent-sized settlement, because he stands a good chance of losing to the town guard.

If a 10th level character can be killed by a reasonable number (less than 20) of 1st level characters, the only 10th level characters around will be ones with their own armies to prevent people simply hiring thugs to kill them.

I want to fight vampires, dangit!

Then just make 7th level characters and start a game at 7th level. Nobody says every game has to start at level 1.