The WOW method to monsters? Would you hate it?

[DragonLancer]

Why is there a need to explain why Gnolls and other humanoids can gain levels? If humans and other player races can do it so can the monsters.

I've been using levelled humanoids since 3.0 was released. Its one of the better aspects of the third edition rules.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Why is there a need to explain why Gnolls and other humanoids can gain levels? If humans and other player races can do it so can the monsters.

I've been using levelled humanoids since 3.0 was released. Its one of the better aspects of the third edition rules.

As has been stated, it is not having the monsters gaining levels that is the problem. I have no difficulty whatsoever with a 12 level warband of elite gnolls running around pillaging human settlements.

The idea of the typical level of the gnolls being encountered being based on the party's is where my disbelief suspenders go *TWANG!* Sorry, but low level schmucks is the norm for any race, including human.

That said, the fact that 3.x has leveling the monsters as a core mechanic is one of the two things that I like best about the system. (The other is the fact that this time around there are workable rules for creating magic items.)

The Auld Grump

 

[DragonLancer]

As has been stated, it is not having the monsters gaining levels that is the problem. I have no difficulty whatsoever with a 12 level warband of elite gnolls running around pillaging human settlements.

The idea of the typical level of the gnolls being encountered being based on the party's is where my disbelief suspenders go *TWANG!* Sorry, but low level schmucks is the norm for any race, including human.

I understand that, but if you look at most D&D products there are higher level characters everywhere, whether they be commoners, mages or fighters. So I'm not sure why monsters with class levels far above their base brethren is any different than having humans, elves and dwarves having class levels above the racial base.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I understand that, but if you look at most D&D products there are higher level characters everywhere, whether they be commoners, mages or fighters. So I'm not sure why monsters with class levels far above their base brethren is any different than having humans, elves and dwarves having class levels above the racial base.

However in most D20 supplements you will also find the the Village of Schmucky does in fact have more 1st level experts than 12th level wizards.

The Tribe of Gnollschmuck will consist of mostly low level warriors.

In the Village of Schmucky there may be the 12th level adventuring band of Pelor's Pounders, but there will be a lot more low level commoners and experts than the members of the band.

The Gnoll raiding party of Breaktooth may be 12th level, when they raid the Village of Schmucky they will kill most of the people with the ease of a hot knife through butter.

When Pelor's Pounders retaliates they will chop most of the tribesfolk of Gnollschmuck into dogfood. It is only when Pelor's Pounders finally catch up with Breaktooth that either will face a real challenge in the scenario.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* I am a 12th level hero, I don't need to have good spelling!

 

[Remathilis]

My latest idea is to go with the "zone" method of world desgin. That is, there is a mostly peaceful neutral zone where PCs begin (and they are low level) and everything is accordingly low level. When they go to other cities and farther from civilzation, orcs and monster increase in power.

This method allows for high level orcs and low level ones to exist in different areas.

The downside is that its not entirely realistic and slightly artificial in design. I guess its the tradeoff.

 

[Tonguez]

The downside is that its not entirely realistic and slightly artificial in design. I guess its the tradeoff.

But is it?

The area around the main city has had years of patrols and adventures hunting monsters and forcing the bad elements out into the hinterlands.
Ergo Only when You wonder into the hinterlands are you going to face those 'bad elements' be they rampaging 12 level gnolls, red dragons or Liche Kings.
On the other hand weak gnoll family X is going to try and leave the hinterlands and find acceptance in the more peaceful and settled lands close to the patrolled urban centers. Which means that they will be encountered by the low level PCs who are just starting out.

Of course if the low level PCS wonder off into the Hinterlands where they know the scary monsters live - then I say let them get eaten!

 

[Dragonblade]

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

Your playing a game where wizards cast spells! What makes a low-level game any more "believable" than a high level game? Its all subjective.

The epic level rules don't work if you try to hold every creature and NPC to default baseline assumptions. Nor do they work in a low-magic setting. Because for one thing, the rules system they are designed for doesn't really work for low-magic well in the first place.

In that context, I agree, they are crap. But if you use those rules in a high magic, high level game, they work fine. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying high level D&D is the be all end all. Or that you are a bad DM if you don't use the epic level rules. In fact, if you prefer a low-magic, low-level game, then you probably will hate the epic level rules.

I'm just saying, in general, adding levels to monsters can make high level games run more smoothly. It works just fine for me in my games, and it can work just fine in other people's games.

If you don't like the epic rules or high level games, then more power to you. But that has more to do with YOU, and your preference for a certain play style, than it does with the rules themselves. I mean the number of children who hate asparagus is vastly more than the number of children who hate chocolate cake, but that's simply personal taste, it has nothing to do with asparagus actually being bad. Quite the opposite in fact. Obviously, popular opinion does not equal truth or fact.

I'm just trying to get people to open their minds and realize there is more to D&D than the common mantra of "low-level is good, high-level is bad."

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Your playing a game where wizards cast spells! What makes a low-level game any more "believable" than a high level game? Its all subjective.

Because in the real world most people are 'low level', living lives of quiet desperation. I would quote Leonardo daVinci, but the censors might get annoyed. His statement about what most people were good for was, ummm, earthy. Most people go through their lives without great challenge, and it is through challenge that growth occurs. I would place myself as a 3rd level expert for example, with co-workers who would quallify as levels 1-4. And are clients are definitely commoners! (Sorry, I am in a cynical mood tonight, bad day at work.)

The epic level rules don't work if you try to hold every creature and NPC to default baseline assumptions. Nor do they work in a low-magic setting. Because for one thing, the rules system they are designed for doesn't really work for low-magic well in the first place.

In that context, I agree, they are crap. But if you use those rules in a high magic, high level game, they work fine. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying high level D&D is the be all end all. Or that you are a bad DM if you don't use the epic level rules. In fact, if you prefer a low-magic, low-level game, then you probably will hate the epic level rules.

I'm just saying, in general, adding levels to monsters can make high level games run more smoothly. It works just fine for me in my games, and it can work just fine in other people's games.

If you don't like the epic rules or high level games, then more power to you. But that has more to do with YOU, and your preference for a certain play style, than it does with the rules themselves. I mean the number of children who hate asparagus is vastly more than the number of children who hate chocolate cake, but that's simply personal taste, it has nothing to do with asparagus actually being bad. Quite the opposite in fact. Obviously, popular opinion does not equal truth or fact.

I'm just trying to get people to open their minds and realize there is more to D&D than the common mantra of "low-level is good, high-level is bad."

The argument would work better if the high level (epic) rules weren't bad. They are, so High-level (epic) is bad!

*EDIT* Notice that I am blaming the rules, not the concept. It is the way that the concept was implimented that completly ruins it for a lot of people.

And for what it is worth I have run high-level (non-epic) games just fine without beefing every gnoll up to match the PCs. We have not run up to level 20, but level 17 has been achieved before the campaign wrapped. And the wrap was planned in from the beginning.

A lot of what you advocate sounds like exactly why I do not enjoy either epic or MMORP games. Don't try to create a realistic setting, throw bigger monsters at them instead! Don't worry about the effect of this massive amount of treasure (equal to most kingdom's treasuries) entering the economy, come up with bigger weapons for them to spend it on! Who cares where the money goes after that?

Bah. It is a story told by an idiot - full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The Auld Grump, why yes, I am cranky tonight, why do you ask?

 

[S'mon]

My latest idea is to go with the "zone" method of world desgin. That is, there is a mostly peaceful neutral zone where PCs begin (and they are low level) and everything is accordingly low level. When they go to other cities and farther from civilzation, orcs and monster increase in power.

This method allows for high level orcs and low level ones to exist in different areas.

The downside is that its not entirely realistic and slightly artificial in design. I guess its the tradeoff.

I do something like this, I always have, well before 3e - there are high-powered areas in my campaign world where 20th level Thrinian Knights loaded with magic items battle dragon-riding Chaos Lords, and there are low-powered areas where Imarran Empire homesteaders contend with goblin raiders. These areas are (normally) widely separated spatially, but do exist in the same campaign world. Of course warriors from a high power area (Thrinian Knights) can easily trash equivalent troops from a low power area (Old Imarran Empire) but that's not unhistorical IMO; think of Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire, or Lucullus' Romans defeating the Asia-minor armies of Mithridates & co at 20-1 odds. IMC high-power Thrinia has a population around 700,000 while the Old Imarran Empire is 16 million or so, so even though Thrinians may be worth 10 or 20 Imarrans they can't just waltz in and take over without considerable effort.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

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.

Actually, only very few NPCs in the Forgotten Realms are high-level - most people there are fairly low-level as well. The ones who are high-level are famous and noteworthy, and whole units that consists of fifth level fighters are elite. Units that are higher than that are pretty much non-existent.

I have no problems at all with individuals surpassing that - including monsters. But they should be famous throughout the region, and at the highest levels, throughout the world.

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....

Individual 20th level characters are one thing. Whole groups of 20th level NPCs shatter my suspension of disbelief, whether they are humans or gnolls.

It's a matter of world-building. How common are powerful NPC's in general?

Fairly rare when compared to the general population. High-level PCs will meet them much more often than most people, but that's because theiy are a power in their own right, and they will seek these people out to foil their plans, or vice versa.

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.

I have no problem with a 20th level goblin king - but he should be extremely famous, one of the big heroes of his race, and humans in neighboring nations should fear his name.

Of course, his reputation will attract high-level PCs... but that's okay. At this level, PCs should be able to topple entire nations by themselves.