What's wrong with scaling (and levels, bonuses, advancement, etc)?

[NewJeffCT]

I thought the point of leveling is that your character gets more powerful - a goblin that was a threat to a level 1 PC is a mere annoyance to a level 5 or level 8 PC.

While I don't do it often, I do throw encounters at the party that are well below level sometimes - i.e., the time my six level 6 PCs were attacked by 20 or so goblins that added up to a level 4 encounter, which was a piece of cake for them. They killed the goblin leader and a majority of the other goblins soon broke & ran... a few rounds of action and only a few minutes of gaming, but it served to show the players how much they had grown. The campaign had started with 3 quick goblin encounters that were combined to be the same power as this one level 4 encounter.

(Likewise, I can also throw a level 16 encounter at my level 8 PCs, just to show them their are things out there that can kick their butts... however, if that happened, I'd likely give the PCs some sort of escape route)

Sure, most encounters are tailored to be at, or close, to the player's level. However, it makes the gaming world seem more real to me if there is a wide range of encounters. There were almost 4 goblins to each PC, why wouldn't they jump the players?

 

[Kzach]

I thought the point of leveling is that your character gets more powerful - a goblin that was a threat to a level 1 PC is a mere annoyance to a level 5 or level 8 PC.

Two things.

Aside from the example you mentioned, the increase of power is an illusion and nothing more.

The second thing is that the example you mentioned can be better represented WITHOUT scaling.

What people don't seem to understand is that in a non-scaling system, the character still levels up and still gains more power. It's simply that the math stays relatively the same or with very small increases. The true power increase doesn't lie in gaining bigger numbers because the only situation that creates is requiring creatures with bigger numbers to combat. Instead, the character's power grows through versatility and options, as do the monsters.

This is already well represented by 4e through powers and non-bonus granting feats. What you can do at 30th-level is far and away more powerful than what you can do at 1st-level. So that 1st-level goblin is still pretty much irrelevant to you since you have so many and much more powerful options at your disposal to deal with it. Having said that, it adds a sense of realism because even though the 1st-level goblin can be easily dealt with, it's still a viable threat when it has a sword at your throat.

So that 30th-level devil that can summon in other devils and reshape reality and regenerates and is immune to fire and can wreathe itself in an aura of flames is still a challenge for 30th-level characters. But it's a challenge because it has more abilities and powers and options, not because stabbing it through the heart with a spear won't kill it simply because the spear can only do 1d8+4 damage.

 

[Vascant]

I think this comes down to a DM issue and what his players enjoy, there is no right or wrong answer.

For me, I don't set encounters up based on the current level of the players, I design them that make sense for the monster/creature/trap and the area it is located in. Ask anyone in my group, if you are 1st level then decide to follow up on a dragon rumor and it turns out to be true. You just became lunch. In my DMing style I view myself more as a manager and less of a story teller, the players are free to interact with world and my job is to handle the ripples of interaction.

This goes into the new world I am creating for my next campaign, I am mapping out a huge area in the underground. The players will get there through multiple paths, this will add new challenges I think other then always just the sword or hit points. Being able to breath, see and eat should always be the first priority and this kind of environment will really bring that to the forefront.

 

[SkidAce]

Likewise, as RangerWickett pointed out, the revolving treadmill of bigger numbers to beat a foes bigger number beggars the question "Why bother?". I now realize that AD&D 1 & 2 AC's didn't need to scale because hit points did so.

In older games, your higher level character may be hitting the troll more often, but he's got more hit points you have to get through than the orc with the same AC (Likewise, your character has enough hit points now to survive the troll's attacks, without having to have an AC through the roof).

Increasing a monster's AC AND it's hit points is just silly, especially if your doing it to counter the PC's increase in attack value AND damage output.

I agree with RangerWickett and you on many of the points. But dont mind equal level opponents maintaining and equal level chance to "hit" etc. across levels.

So at 1st level a creature goes down in three hits, and when you are 15th level a 15th level creature goes down in three hits? When you run into a lower level creature it may go down in one hit. And a higher level creature may take five or six.

An equal level opponent is a 50/50 proposition if you will. He leveled up like you did or is simply very dangerous. It's a fair fight...just like you and the 1st level goblin was.

Now not everyone allows characters to rampage against encounters they are clearly superior to, so this "increase in skill" may not be apparent to all.

But my group can tell they have gained skill when the goblins ambush them, thinking they are just peasant travelers.

Thoughts?

 

[SSquirrel]

If you have 30 HP at 1st level and 30 HP at 15th level, that 1st level orc will always be a threat. That's just great if I'm playing Rolemaster or WFRPG where any enemy you run into can, and should be expected to be, a threat. That isn't D&D tho. D&D has always been much more high fantasy in my eyes. If I wanted to play a game that was much grittier and closer in feel to something like Conan, I would. That isn't what I want tho. D&D has never done "everything will always be a threat to you" well and I don't see any compelling reason to start now.

As for removing the plusses, I'm ok with an inherent bonuses system. Let all magic items scale up as you go. Are you level 1-5? It's a +1. 21-25? It's a +5. The magic items crit bonuses and such could all reference these smaller tiers for determining damage. We already have 3 adventuring tiers, Heroic, Paragon and Epic. Make a spot on the character sheet for Character Tier and it breaks each tier into 2. You just change this field every 5 levels and your magic sword of fire says "Does +1d6 fire damage per character tier on crit". Your magic staff of teleporting says that once per day you can "Teleport 3 squares+1 square per character tier". Whatever.

I'm very against the numbers not scaling tho. Those low level monsters that were a threat early on will be only an annoyance at high level and, that is how it should be in D&D. IMO, clearly

 

[billd91]

I agree wholeheartedly.

The only thing that I'd add is this - if the designers are going to work out "the maths" and try to make it work across all levels, please DON'T include assumed magic item bonuses. I found the games 'worked' better when the occasional magic item made a clear (if small) difference, rather than somewhat forcing the DM to hand out magic items or upgrades like candy to give the PCs a chance of keeping up with the monsters (or introduce whole new 'automatic bonuses' rules or something).

Cheers

Can't XP you right now, but I would if I could.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Can't XP you right now, but I would if I could.

XP him for you.

 

[Mercurius]

Dragonblade, I really like your ideas about magic items--they pretty much spell out some of the thoughts I've had, but in a more cogent form.

I just watched Thor for the first time last night and it reminded me of this thread (see link above), because the movie really emphasized how much magic items effected the power of the different individual - whether it was Mjolnir or Odin's spear or (seemingly) Heimdall's sword. The magic items meant something, they were game-changers--they were all artifacts, really.

Now admittedly all of the characters I mentioned are divinities, so it makes sense for the magic items to be uber-powerful. But shouldn't the same basic principle apply at any level? I hate the fact that when a party of 7th level characters finds a +2 longsword, they scoff and talk about selling it for cash. That works for video game D&D, but not for an immersive imaginative experience, at least for my tastes!

The problem is two-fold, imo: One, the assumptions of the game that have led to "the magic" being taken out of magic items; this could be called, in honor of AD&D, "A Monty Hall Hangover." It seems to have gotten worse with each edition and culminated with 4E. Secondly, DMs need to take responsibility for this. No matter what the assumptions of the game, edition, or setting, the DM can decide how magic items are handled in their specific campaign.

I haven't been DMing my group for sometime due to time restraints and burnout, but we're alternating DMing and I am tentatively planning a new campaign for early in 2012. After running a 4E campaign for a couple years, I'm thinking about re-working some of the basic assumptions of the game, including magic items. I'll try to flesh them out and start a new thread at some point in the next few days.

 

[Kzach]

If you have 30 HP at 1st level and 30 HP at 15th level, that 1st level orc will always be a threat. That's just great if I'm playing Rolemaster or WFRPG where any enemy you run into can, and should be expected to be, a threat. That isn't D&D tho. D&D has always been much more high fantasy in my eyes. If I wanted to play a game that was much grittier and closer in feel to something like Conan, I would. That isn't what I want tho. D&D has never done "everything will always be a threat to you" well and I don't see any compelling reason to start now.

Umm... gonna have to disagree here.

First of all, monster levels only came into being when 3e was introduced. Before then, it was always hit dice, and hit dice were based more on an inconsistent internal logic that only applied to monsters than it was on any sort of 'level equivalency'.

Second of all, hit points were an entirely different beast in D&D before 3e. The average hit points of a 20th-level wizard in 2e were about 35 (assuming every level was rolled and no Con bonus). An average goblin could do 1d6 damage. The AC and THAC0 would make it difficult but not impossible for the goblin to hit. Now... it's not exactly a 'threat', but at the same time it's not completely irrelevant either.

The only characters with massive hit points were warriors and even then, only the ones with big Con bonuses. Damage didn't significantly increase like it does in 3e/4e either. And even the hit chances weren't substantially different for anyone but warriors.

Taking out scaling in 4e doesn't mean there aren't increases in attack chance, damage, or hit points. It simply means that the changes aren't massive like they are currently.

The point is that advocates of taking scaling math out of 4e are, whether they realise it or not, wanting a D&D MORE like older editions of D&D, NOT less.

 

[SSquirrel]

Umm... gonna have to disagree here.

First of all, monster levels only came into being when 3e was introduced. Before then, it was always hit dice, and hit dice were based more on an inconsistent internal logic that only applied to monsters than it was on any sort of 'level equivalency'.

Right, but equivalent hit dice monsters were definitely a match for players and things like kobolds and goblins would quickly be left behind in the danger department, barring framing 8 kobolds on each target like Dragon Mountain

Second of all, hit points were an entirely different beast in D&D before 3e. The average hit points of a 20th-level wizard in 2e were about 35 (assuming every level was rolled and no Con bonus). An average goblin could do 1d6 damage. The AC and THAC0 would make it difficult but not impossible for the goblin to hit. Now... it's not exactly a 'threat', but at the same time it's not completely irrelevant either.

The only characters with massive hit points were warriors and even then, only the ones with big Con bonuses. Damage didn't significantly increase like it does in 3e/4e either. And even the hit chances weren't substantially different for anyone but warriors.

The average housecat could kill a L1 Wizard in older editions of the game. That is NOT the D&D I want to go back to. Ever. That 20th level group that had a lowly goblin swinging at them would probably only get hit on an 18 or better once magic items were taken into account. That doesn't make them much of a threat.

Taking out scaling in 4e doesn't mean there aren't increases in attack chance, damage, or hit points. It simply means that the changes aren't massive like they are currently.

The point is that advocates of taking scaling math out of 4e are, whether they realise it or not, wanting a D&D MORE like older editions of D&D, NOT less.

No I think those advocates are very aware of what they want and the same people wanting it are the same ones I see in threads complaining about 4E or how much better Basic or 1E were than anything else. The problem is the rest of the world has moved on (as far as game design goes) and if I wanted to go back to that, I have a full set of BECMI and 1E hardbacks already. Not to mention a boatload of 2E.

I dont' want to go back to each class having a different XP or attack advancement chart. I don't want to go back to alignment really mattering and paladins trying to detect evil and using it to justify killing someone who stole a loaf of bread. I LIKE the attempts at evening the playing field between casters and melee. I LIKE a single table for advancement. I LIKE feeling like I can always contribute, b/c I have yet to run into a situation where my character is completely useless, which used to happen much more often in games I played in older editions. I LIKE not having to worry about party mix so much, "No rogue. I hope the DM isn't a huge fan of traps".

Yes, I drifted a bit there , but my point remains. If I wanted a system that didn't do what the current one does and had those characteristics people want to put back in the next version of D&D, I can already play those whenever I want. I don't want to.