D&D 5E XP Chart and High-level NPCs

[S'mon]

Yeah, I think this is a big point. As we sort of touched on in the conversation that spawned the "solo AC-min/maxed fighter vs. an army" scenario, due to Bounded Accuracy the relatively rapid level acceleration just doesn't feel that out of balance to me. High level characters are powerful, but they are far from gods. And there's no specific reason every high HD NPC is going to 1) have 100% of the class abilities that a PC gets, and more importantly 2) have the same amount of magic items, optimal feats, optimal spell choices, etc.

For example: A 20th level NPC fighter with no magic gear who wields a brace of rapiers is intimidating as hell, and could tear up a couple of people in a duel. Certainly. But he's far from a universal problem-solver or PC-invalidator. Or, let's look at a 20th level magic-item-less sorcerer whose high level spell list is, let's say.... L6: True Seeing, Move Earth; L7: Plane Shift, Reverse Gravity; L8: Earthquake; L9: Time Stop. He's got plenty of power (and a fun earth/physics theme!), but again, he is hardly a show-stopper powerhouse that can solve every problem himself.

It's all in how you build the NPCs, the world, and the encounters.

I definitely find that 5e mechanics supports my worldbuilding in my Wilderlands campaign, whereas Pathfinder really fights it, and 4e says "don't think about it". High level 5e characters are
powerful, but don't leave me wondering "why does this city bother with an army when the
local wizard/priest/druid is vastly more powerful than all of them put together?" The mechanics seem much closer to the fiction than I have seen before, certainly in 1e/2e/3e/4e.

 

[pemerton]

I find it nearly impossible to justify anyone going from 1st level to 20th level in 7 weeks. Anyone in the game world is going to see the PCs do that and want to duplicate it.

I think there are two aspects to this.

First, there is the "others want to duplicate aspect". I agree with the other posters in this thread who have stated that the XP system is not a model of how people in the gameworld improve their capabilities, but rather is a device for tracking the progress of the PCs as played by the players in what is, after all, a roleplaying game. As Gygax described it in his DMG (p 85):

Players who bolk at equating gold pieces to experience points should be gently but firmly reminded that in a game certain compromises must be made. While it is more "realistic" for clerics to study holy writings, pray, chant, practice self-discipline, etc. to gain experience, it would not make a playable game roll along. Similarly, fighters should be exercising, riding, smiting pelts, tilting at the lists, and engaging in weapons practice of various sorts to gain real expertise (experience); magic-users should be deciphering old scrolls, searching ancient tomes, experimenting alchemically, and so forth; while thieves should spend their off-hours honing their skills, "casing" various buildings, watching potential victims, and carefully planning their next "iob". All very realistic but conducive to non-game boredom!​

The second aspect is the verisimilitude (or otherwise) of the PC heroes' tremendous rise to power. I think that is an issue. In my 4e game, the PCs have taken around 6 months to transform from local heroes fighting goblins in the forest to demigods and emergent primordials of cosmic significance.

What makes it (more-or-less) work in practice is that the game has taken over 6 years to play, and so while it is absurdly quick within the gameworld, it isn't experienced as being that quick by us, the real people sitting around the table.

I definitely find that 5e mechanics supports my worldbuilding in my Wilderlands campaign, whereas Pathfinder really fights it, and 4e says "don't think about it".

<snip>

The mechanics seem much closer to the fiction than I have seen before, certainly in 1e/2e/3e/4e.

In the case of 4e, I've found it's more about letting the fiction follow the mechanics. Which therefore becomes very non-Conan-esque once you move through mid-Paragon!

 

[S'mon]

In the case of 4e, I've found it's more about letting the fiction follow the mechanics. Which therefore becomes very non-Conan-esque once you move through mid-Paragon!

I find with my FR 4e group, the scope of what the PCs are doing has not changed much from mid-Paragon (Demon Queen's Enclave) to current 25th level - they are currently overthrowing the rulership of drow city Ched Nasad, menaced by Orcus demons, and it's a lot like the stuff they were doing in Phaervorul 12 levels previously. NPC statting is done relative to the PCs, so drow guards who would have been 13th level standard monsters 12 levels ago are now 21st level minions with about the same xp value. When I say the mechanics don't support the fiction in 4e, I mean that mechanical statting all has to be done subjectively - relatively to the PCs - rather than there being an objective sense of "these are the stats a drow guard has", the way it works in other editions.
3e/PF is much worse - in PF a 6th level adventure will have 3rd level drow guards and an 18th level adventure will have 12th level drow guards to provide a challenge to the PCs, but the existence of an army of 12th level drow guards would have a huge impact on the game world.
In 5e you can use the same drow guard stats at 6th level and at 18th, I like that.

 

[Ranes]

Sorry but I just want to rewind for a second to the OP's phrase, 'using the Tarrasque as a unit of measurement', because it's cheered me up more than anything else I've read so far today. It also reminds me of this.

Er, we now return you to the scheduled programme.

 

[Ristamar]

Also on the subject of the 20th level fighter vs. the army... It's a fun thought exercise, and I'm definitely of the opinion that he really stands no chance. Bounded Accuracy in action.

Unless I was running a very loose game, I doubt I would break out the battlemat and minis for a 20th level fighter that wanted to brawl against 1,000 well trained soldiers, or even 100 of them. D&D isn't adept at modeling huge swarms of combatants, even with extrapolations like the mob combat rules. At some point you have to improvise with common sense. I'd allow him to get in a few swings, but I'd also make it clear that if he doesn't withdraw and flee soon, he'll be overcome by sheer numbers.

The same could be said of the official falling damage rules. By RAW, a healthy 20th level barbarian with average hit points and an average or better CON will always survive a fall from 10,000 feet since falling damage caps at 20d6 damage. However, that is clearly absurd, so adjudication beyond the normal rules is necessary.

Granted, I am assuming the vastly outnumbered fighter doesn't have much magic at his disposal. Access to broad AoE attacks, extreme mobility (e.g. teleportation), summoned creatures, and effects that can drastically manipulate the battlefield would notably increase his chances.