The WOW method to monsters? Would you hate it?

[I'm A Banana]

It depends.

In a world like Eberron where most of the NPC's are low-level, I would expect most hostile NPC tribes to be pretty low-level, too.

In a world like FR where most of the NPC's are high-level, I would expect most hostile NPC tribes to be pretty high-level, too.

I don't get the logic that says you can have 20th level NPC humans running around, but 20th level NPC gnolls is off-limits....

It's a matter of world-building. How common are powerful NPC's in general? In WoW, they're definately not rare (Hello, level 40 merchant!), so having powerful enemy NPC's isn't a very drastic diversion. It's because monsters are endemic and populous to almost rediculous levels, so there's never a lack of things to fight against. You can gain levels easily.

In a typical D&D world, high-levels are less common, in general. You don't have high-level merchants; you have high-level ancient heroes, the likes of which the world has not seen since.

IMC, I'll vary the levels....there's no reason the human regent, the living hero of the empire, should be level 20 but the goblin king should be capped at 5...but I'm not going to have level 13 merchants running around in general.

 

[Janx]

So, Whizband, your players only meet monsters, never humanoid villains?

Gez has got it right. Replace "gnoll" with the word human in the example text. Does it make sense for their to be a tribe of 12th level humans running around? Sitting in a cave waiting to kill PCs?

I think some of us are under the assumption that any intelligent creature can vary in skill level (and experience). Thus justifying the assignment of classes to them.

Thus, an orc can get better at killing humans
The reverse of this, is that a bear doesn't really get much better at killing humans

Some of us would also assume that the distribution of experienced "monsters" is similar to what the PC races experience. The majority is low level, with the numbers at subsequent levels being fewer and fewer.

The result when operating under those assumptions are:
most gnolls you meet will be low level, stock from the MM
some gnolls are better, possibly even 12th level.
Barring unusual circumstances, the level distribution across the population will follow the same curve as it does for human civilizations (as defined in the DMG).

Thus, a small tribe of 12th level gnolls is improbable. A few 12th level gnolls leading a large tribe is likely. A party of 12th level gnolls bent on the PCs destruction is also feasible (NPCs exist at whatever level the DM needs to make a challenge and tell a good story).

Note, NPCs are NOT quite the same as a generic population. Some NPCs are defined FROM the generic population (usually as PCs talk to them). Some are added to the generic population for flavor.

Just some thoughts,
Janx

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Well while I understand what your saying if you want realism technically those bloodthristy 12th level Gnolls wouldn't know that they're 12th level let alone that the low level town is full of low level humans.

Um...no. If I'm a seventh-dan black belt kenjutsu master, I certainly know my own skill level. And if the low level town is filled with untrained peasants, I certainly know that I could slaughter dozens of them with relative ease.

PCs and NPCs in a D&D campaign may not use the metagame concept of "levels" to express their prowess, but they can certainly judge how skilled they are, and make somewhat accurate assessments of how skilled others are, based on gathered information.

That said, I'd expect the 12th-level gnolls to be well-aware that the low-level town is easy pickings for raiders of their ferocity.

 

[Dragonblade]

I find it amusing that the people who have a problem with high level gnolls are generally the people who can't handle high level D&D in general.

Its all relative people. High level D&D plays perfectly fine if you scale up NPC and monster levels.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I find it amusing that the people who have a problem with high level gnolls are generally the people who can't handle high level D&D in general.

Its all relative people. High level D&D plays perfectly fine if you scale up NPC and monster levels.

No the problem that people are having is the silly idea of an entire tribe of 12th level gnolls, and the PCs only running into appropriate level creatures. Guess what? Most critters are going to be lower level creatures of their type. The gnoll described in the MM is the most common variety encountered. It is the 12th level PCs who are rare.

I find it amusing that you make the assumption that people who don't do so have a problem running high level games.

The Auld Grump

 

[I'm A Banana]

The reverse of this, is that a bear doesn't really get much better at killing humans

I'd disagree...there are "problem bears" or "problem wildcats" that make a habit of coming around humans and not being easily intimidated by them, making them better at killing humans....I don't think you have to be sentient to earn XP....

The gnoll described in the MM is the most common variety encountered. It is the 12th level PCs who are rare.

This does depend on the campaign setting. Like I said, WoW has high-level merchants and epic-level NPC's just lounging around the local villa. Of course, high level in WoW doesn't really allow you to reshape time and space in your own image, so all those levels really don't have a whole lot of effect on the verisimilitude. In some situations, 12th level PC's won't be rare, they'll just be part of the surroundings.

 

[Dragonblade]

No the problem that people are having is the silly idea of an entire tribe of 12th level gnolls, and the PCs only running into appropriate level creatures. Guess what? Most critters are going to be lower level creatures of their type. The gnoll described in the MM is the most common variety encountered. It is the 12th level PCs who are rare.

I find it amusing that you make the assumption that people who don't do so have a problem running high level games.

The Auld Grump

Why is that silly? And why are 12th level PCs rare? The Gnoll described in the monster manual is the baseline creature without class levels or being advanced at all. Thats it. There is no reason they should be always that way other than blind adherence to tradition.

I have never seen any DM who insists on populating their world with baseline monsters and level 1 NPC commoners ever DM an epic level campaign in that same world. Never. Because they can't.

And with good reason; the game would break down and the PCs would be walking gods. This is proven every time a DM says he doesn't like high level games because of "verisimilitude" or its not "gritty" enough, or there is too much reliance on magical widgets and so on and so forth.

In other words, they don't like DMing high level games because the characters at high levels with their magical gear and such, are too powerful in comparison to baseline monsters, NPCs, or assumed magic level of the campaign world. And they are right, of course.

You are then faced with two solutions. Either limit your game to low-level, low-power, and low-magic (and in my opinion, low-fun). Or embrace high levels, let the PCs reach for the stars and simply level up the monsters to match.

Adding levels to monsters and NPCs is a natural solution, and it keeps D&D fun and challenging for both players and DMs on into high and even epic levels.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Why is that silly? And why are 12th level PCs rare? The Gnoll described in the monster manual is the baseline creature without class levels or being advanced at all. Thats it. There is no reason they should be always that way other than blind adherence to tradition.

I have never seen any DM who insists on populating their world with baseline monsters and level 1 NPC commoners ever DM an epic level campaign in that same world. Never. Because they can't.

And with good reason; the game would break down and the PCs would be walking gods. This is proven every time a DM says he doesn't like high level games because of "verisimilitude" or its not "gritty" enough, or there is too much reliance on magical widgets and so on and so forth.

In other words, they don't like DMing high level games because the characters at high levels with their magical gear and such, are too powerful in comparison to baseline monsters, NPCs, or assumed magic level of the campaign world. And they are right, of course.

You are then faced with two solutions. Either limit your game to low-level, low-power, and low-magic (and in my opinion, low-fun). Or embrace high levels, let the PCs reach for the stars and simply level up the monsters to match.

Adding levels to monsters and NPCs is a natural solution, and it keeps D&D fun and challenging for both players and DMs on into high and even epic levels.

So you can only think of those two options... how limited.

Think about it, there are plenty of people who do neither of your 'two' options. Trust me on this one.

The Auld Grump

 

[S'mon]

I have never seen any DM who insists on populating their world with baseline monsters and level 1 NPC commoners ever DM an epic level campaign in that same world. Never. Because they can't.

I mostly do this - my monsters are mostly baseline, my commoners actually average 2nd-level Expert, but from the perspective of the 18th level PCs, near enough. And I ran deity games for 10 years in 1e/2e, just ask Upper_Krust/Thrin if I couldn't GM it.
A good GM can run games of any level while keeping the setting plausible. A bad GM can't maintain plausibility and to challenge the high-level PCs resorts to using tribes of 12th level gnolls sitting in caves.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

And sometimes it is because they, and their players, think that the epic rules are crap. Not everyone, or even most people in my experience, want an epic game. And the fact that you seem to think that by not using the craptacular epic rules they are bad GMs...

Some people would rather have a believable gaming world than have super monkeys to fight.

The Auld Grump