Where are my kingdom-level threats? [lack of scaling kills flavor]

[Belial_the_Leveler]

OK, you got big red dragon terrorizing villages in the area. High-level heroes needed to stop it, right?



Nope! The couple hundred villagers all shoot their trusty hunter's bows at it for a couple of rounds and the dragon dies horribly due to ridiculously low AC and lack of DR in this edition. Then the villagers split the dragon's treasure among themselves.


This also applies to other high-level enemies. Even the King of Hell dies to peasants and other 1st lvl mortals. How he retains his title when much fewer devils could do him in is anyone's guess. Or why he is a world-class threat. I mean, mid-sized medieval or classical-age city is around 30-40 thousand people, with two thousand guardsmen and other warriors in it or so. You'd need a dozen Asmodei at least to seriously threaten it.

Now imagine what kind of threat you'd need for an entire large kingdom. A single roman legion could kill any statted threat in the edition several dozen times over and the Roman Empire could field dozens of them.

[micahwc]

Presumably the king of Hell doesn't attack Rome without a few dozen legions of daemons on his side.

[LaserFace]

You're right, villagers are not only known for supreme discipline and military organization skills, but they have Dragon Radar that allows them to mobilize before a Red Dragon attacks. And when it does, none of the villagers have any problem laying their life on the line, because they know that they have a 10% chance of piercing the dragon's hide with their arrows, and on average only 86 hits are needed to deal lethal damage. This means that if the Dragon wants to stand a chance, he needs to be supremely efficient with his multiattack and cone of fire weapon, the latter of which might only kill 10 villagers in a single round. So, Dragons would be foolish to attack villages composed of 1000+ people (we'll assume 860 are strong adults ready for combat, the 140 remaining are useless children (like ages 4 and under) and useless old people (like ages 90 and above); everyone else is ready with their bows).

Oh wait I forgot about Frightful Presence. Whatever, I'm sure like at least half these guys can pass a DC 19 Wisdom save.

Regardless, yeah, they fight til death with no regard for personal safety, because they know a Cleric from the next town knows Resurrection and he'll bring everyone back after being paid all that money that the Dragon was conveniently storing in his stomach.

[Wrenn]

Those villagers have, at best, a 10 in their attributes, giving them little to no hope in making saves against the dragon's breathe. They would also be dealing very little damage to it while having very little hp themselves. Plus, the red dragon brings along fire elementals.

Remember, hp and damage are the scaling factors in this edition, not AC and to hit.

[Beige]

any statted threat to date goes up to CR8... out of 20 :smallamused: it's a bit early to say there's nothing dangerous, don'tcha think? :smalltongue:

because nothing at cr 8 in ANY edition has been a threat to a kingdom. a small village, yes, not a kingdom.

and remember, just because the PCs are limited in their highest AC and stats, dosen't mean the monsters are. in fact, as stated in the rulebook, their explicitly not - this editon, we may have to accept some monsters beat class levels

plus, peasants will get slaughtered by a dragon no matter how big a horde - they can hit it one in 10 times, and around 90ish hits to bring it down, and that's ignoring one minor problem - space and range. at most, around the dragon, you can get 320 people at once in shooting range*, and if you do thanks to the dragon's breath, about an eighth of them (the whole army, not those in range -if its in front of the dragon, it is going to fry) WILL die each round thaks to its breath alone, leaving aside both the claws and tail it can also use each round thanks to the advantages of being a dragon to kill every other peasant nearby - plus, if the dragon feels like it or somehow notices itself loosing, it can just fly out of range of those bows and incinerate them

if they can even attack the dragon, considering 90% of them will fail fearful presence and be unable to attack the beast at all, so our number to reliably bring it down in one shot jumps from 860, to 8600.

so yeah, 8600 c1 people can theoretically beat a c8 critter. I wonder how many you need for c20, eh :smalltongue: - also, we have a term for 8600 people armed and fighting for a cause. I think we call it... an army

* peasants don't get longbows.

[EvilAnagram]

Okay, we have a small farming village. Let's say, 200 adults of reasonable health. Ancient Red Dragon attacks, so the village has to defend itself. Let's take a look at what happens.

Well, unfortunately there aren't a lot of bows in the village. Learning how to use a traditional bow effectively in combat takes years upon years of practice, and these are farmers with enough on their minds without having to put ten thousand hours into bowmanship. There are maybe five or six peasants in this village who are skilled enough to shoot a bow well, and they each have one bow apiece because peasants don't collect fancy weapons. Even if we arm the entire town with bows, 190 of those 200 will have a +0 to +2 in their DEX and no proficiency, so they can only hit on a crit. In fact, there will be maybe ten people who can hit on a 19 or lower. So that's ten hits that we'll say average 2d6+1 damage. Except the Dragon resists nonmagical damage, so it will be ten hits of (2d6+1)/2, or about forty damage.

And then we have the talented people, the hunters and crossbow-wielding law enforcement. They'll probably have a +5 to hit (2 proficiency, plus a very charitable DEX). So, they need a 17 to hit, a 20% chance. So the ten of them will hit for a combined total of about 2d8+6 damage. We'll say 15.

Halved by the dragon's resistance.

After taking 48 points of damage, the dragon breathes fire from above in a 90' cone. The area affected by this attack is over six thousand square feet. It's about 250 5'x5' squares in a grid system. This kills the entire village.

The dragon moves on because dragons do that.

In cities, the numbers change, but there will generally never be enough capable bows in range to stop an Ancient Dragon without a fight.

[JRutterbush]

Nope! The couple hundred villagers all shoot their trusty hunter's bows at it for a couple of rounds and the dragon dies horribly due to ridiculously low AC and lack of DR in this edition. Then the villagers split the dragon's treasure among themselves.Well... no. What actually happens is one of two things:

One: the dragon raids the local countryside from its lair deep in the mountains. It steals cattle and maidens, burns down some buildings, then goes back home to chow down. The villagers attempt to slay the dragon... but half of their number die to wandering creatures from the elemental plane of fire on the way to its lair, then another dozen die to the dragon's Lair Action on Initiative 20, when it releases a blast of lava underneath them. Then after the first ones takes the first shot, it uses wing attack to fly into the middle of the villagers. Then when its actual turn comes up, it immediately kills the rest of the villagers with a breath weapon.

Two: the villagers gather together and lay in wait for the dragon the next time it comes raiding. Half of them die to the first breath weapon, then the rest die over the course of a few turns from multiattacks, since "a couple of rounds" is more than long enough for the dragon to kill them all. And it's even faster if its breath weapon recharges. Even if it looks like the peasants might win, the dragon just flies up too high for them to shoot it, retreats to its lair, then comes back the next day with a horde of fire elementals and fire drakes and razes the entire countryside to burning embers.



This also applies to other high-level enemies. Even the King of Hell dies to peasants and other 1st lvl mortals. How he retains his title when much fewer devils could do him in is anyone's guess. Or why he is a world-class threat. I mean, mid-sized medieval or classical-age city is around 30-40 thousand people, with two thousand guardsmen and other warriors in it or so. You'd need a dozen Asmodei at least to seriously threaten it.

Now imagine what kind of threat you'd need for an entire large kingdom. A single roman legion could kill any statted threat in the edition several dozen times over and the Roman Empire could field dozens of them.You seem to be missing the part where many of the more supernaturally powerful enemies (the sorts of things that threaten campaign worlds) are immune or at least resistant to non-magical weapon damage.

[Wrenn]

For sure. I'd have to dig up where I read it, but monster CR's will go up to 30(?). Now I can't remember for sure, but it was higher than 20. Their attributes also scale much higher than character attributes.

[hawklost]

And how many peasants have just been completely wiped out by that dragon? Can the dragon dive in, fire breath away about 10-20 peasants and just leave? Why would the dragon continue to attack after getting too injured and be killed? Why do the peasants (who all have to save vs fear) stay away after half their numbers either flee or are destroyed in a single strike?

As for Roman legionaries, are we calling them effectively CR 1? CR2? CR 1/2? How much better are you defining them over the peasant? They could field about 50 roman legions at the height of the empire with an average of 25-30 (Which required an Empire the size of 50-60 Million people to support). Their legions consisted of over 4000 troops, which is more than double your town guard numbers. So yes, a Legion could probably take out a Dragon, but you have to mobilize a huge force to do it and even then, the dragon might just fly off to its lair where you will probably lose half your forces even getting to it.

Note also that if you think of the world of DnD, it is far far more unstable than the our world. You might have a couple of Legions, but so does Mr Evil and The Overlord and every other BBEG out there. You have to keep yours to protect your borders and your towns and you don't get a chance to send them out for something like a Dragon unless it is really threatening you and then it just goes to easier pickings (making your Legion worthless in chasing it).

finally, 4000 people should be able to kill a Dragon if he stays and fights, even in 3e anything without DR would die from 4000 people shooting it (4000/20 = 200 Auto hits = average of 700 damage in a single round assuming all 4000 people shoot a bow, that doesn't matter your AC). The question comes down to, why are you only facing a single dragon without any other things attacking?

[Z3ro]

Sure the villagers can shoot down that demon. Let's call it a Pit Fiend. Assuming they all have silvered arrows, then sure, they can take it down eventually.

[Demonic Spoon]

To put it another way...

Have you ever read any good fantasy where the only thing the protagonists contributed to the story is showing up and killing the BBEG because the protagonists are just that much better than everyone else?

[Wrenn]

Found it. Tarrasque preview. CR 30, Str and Con 30.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1819-Who-Wants-To-See-THE-TARRASQUE-D-D-5th-Edition-Style#.VAd_HXi9LCQ

Also, here's your full on ancient red

https://m.facebook.com/dungeonsanddragons/photos/pcb.10152601950836071/10152601944991071/?type=1&theater

[BRC]

Personally, I like it.

Yes, you miss out on the whole "THE GREAT MONSTER THAT SCATTERED ARMIES BEFORE IT AND ONLY THE FEW LEGENDARY HEROES COULD STAND AGAINST!" factor by a bit.

But you gain so much more.

First of all, the UNBEATABLE MONSTER thing was never truly around. Enough commoners with crossbows could kill anything without damage reduction, even if they could only hit it on a natural 20.

But, assuming NPCs get standard proficiency bonus and Dex +1, your Militia Crossbowmen will be shooting at +3, so that's roughly a 1/4th chance of hitting an AC 19 Adult Red Dragon.

So, a hundred militia crossbowmen vs A Red Dragon, the Dragon is going to be eating about 20 crossbow bolts a turn. Average Damage per bolt is 5. So that's about a hundred damage a turn.
It will wipe a bunch of them out each turn with , but let's ignore that.

So yes, the Rules don't support the King sending in a group of high-powered adventurers instead of his army of commoners.

But, think about how often these situations will actually come up in-game. The rules are an abstraction. A DM can easily say "This red dragon defeated the King's army singlehandedly" and it still works in the story. Or maybe there are other, perfectly legitimate, reasons why the king won't sent a few hundred crossbowmen to try to kill the Dragon (Perhaps being that said crossbowmen refuse to try to fight said dragon, as reflected by the Frightful Presence ability, or the fact that a large number of them will die).

And that's only if you are insistent on a single monster being able to threaten a kingdom by itself.

So, you lose one very specific scenario (A Single Monster Threatens the land, and the King would be perfectly willing to send countless soldiers to their deaths to kill it). And even then, you can STILL have that happen unless you insist on sitting down and actually rolling it out.

Now, lets see what you gain. Specifically, the idea of the PC's, legendary heroes that they are, being challenged by large groups of enemies.

3.5 had what I called the "Town Guard Problem", which is to say that, assuming your town guard were first level, with the Captain maybe being as high as fourth or fifth (which seems to generally fit how things go), before long the PCs reach a point of power where they are basically exempt from laws because the non-adventuring forces of society don't pose a threat to them. Same goes for the standard mooks in the enemy army.

You can introduce more powerful guards and mooks, true, but that breaks the sense that the PCs are the Heroes of Legend, Much more powerful than others. Being 6th level is great, but if there are 5th level characters in the town militia, you don't feel that special. Plus, it introduces some odd narrative questions. If the Evil Sorceror had 5th level footsoldiers at his disposal, why were the PC's fighting 1st level footsoldiers earlier.

Alternatively, the classic "Horde" scenario, in which a seemingly endless number of foes are storming in, and the PC's need to escape or hold the line in some way. Those are much more fun if the PCs can hack through individual enemies quickly. In 3.5, if the individual members of the Horde were powerful enough to be able to deal damage to the PC's, they would also be tough enough to survive their attacks. So, the Endless Horde of enemies would either be too tough (If the enemies were individually a threat), or just a slog (if the enemies couldn't land a hit).

In terms of when the dice are actually going to be rolled, the new system works better.

[Mr.Moron]

"Kingdom-level threat" doesn't have to be a big dumb monster. So what if peasants with bows can shoot down a dragon (I'd be willing to bet they can't though), there are always other routes to go.

What if a horrid plague is spreading through the country. It is slow to kill but debilitating and spreading rapidly. A simple DC 10 Knowledge[Religon] check (or news from the court's sages), reveals the nature the disease:

The Plague is magical ailment, as much curse as anything. The last time it appeared it was the first sign of growing rift in reality that served as a bridge between the dark realm and this one. While this clearly heralds some great misfortune in the future, that only makes the matter at hand all the more pressing.

The ritual that will cleanse the land is well known and in truth fairly simple. However, it requires the use of sacred crystals that only grow in the valley of Arshon. The valley is in the middle of the land of white earth. A sealed continent that lies south across the Sea of Rage. The sacred land does not tolerate armies upon it, so only a small group can make the journey. The PCs are the only ones left strong enough to possibly make the journey that have not yet succumb to the plague.

I mean that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure given some time just about any GM could come up with something a bit less silly. If the mechanical tweaks in 5e have really taken"I'm a big monster and I'm being all "ROAR" up in your countryside" away as a plot point, it's kind of a minor causality.

[LordVonDerp]

When has a major threat to civilization not had an army?

[TheOOB]

A monster doesn't need to be able to topple a major city solo to be a major threat.

[BRC]

Also, with your Roman Legion statement, I did some math.

Assuming the entire Legion
can only hit on a natural 20.
Deals 1d8 +1 (Average 5) damage per hit.
Gets in one attack each.

Wikipedia puts a Roman Legion at 5,400 soldiers.

I did some quick math, 5,400/20 (Since only nat 20s hit), times 1.02 (Those who are dealing double damage because they are confirming their crits with a second natural 20) times Five (Damage per hit) came out to 1,417.5 damage.
Obviously damage reduction and the like would change that, But saying "No Statted Monster could defeat a Roman Legion!" isn't saying much, especially since the most powerful monster we've seen statted is an Ancient Dragon.

[hawklost]

Also, with your Roman Legion statement, I did some math.

Assuming the entire Legion
can only hit on a natural 20.
Deals 1d8 +1 (Average 5) damage per hit.
Gets in one attack each.

Wikipedia puts a Roman Legion at 5,400 soldiers.

I did some quick math, 5,400/20 (Since only nat 20s hit), times 1.02 (Those who are dealing double damage because they are confirming their crits with a second natural 20) times Five (Damage per hit) came out to 1,417.5 damage.
Obviously damage reduction and the like would change that, But saying "No Statted Monster could defeat a Roman Legion!" isn't saying much, especially since the most powerful monster we've seen statted is an Ancient Dragon.

Ummm, you don't need to confirm a Crit anymore. You Crit on a 20, no extra dice rolling required.

So 5400/20=270..... 270 x 4.5 x 2 (Crit rolls dice twice) = 2430 + 270 (the +1) = 2700 damage.

We are also assuming that they all succeed in their Save vs Fear
That the Dragon is in range of every single one of them
That they all used a 1d8 weapon with a +1 to the stat
They are all going on the exact same turn (otherwise the Dragons Legendary Actions come into play) but are not using Swarm Tactics
And that the Dragon did not harm or kill any of them in an attack yet (which doesn't really matter except for the numbers)

[IAmTehDave]

Personally, I like it.
Yes, you miss out on the whole "THE GREAT MONSTER THAT SCATTERED ARMIES BEFORE IT AND ONLY THE FEW LEGENDARY HEROES COULD STAND AGAINST!" factor by a bit.

But you gain so much more.

First of all, the UNBEATABLE MONSTER thing was never truly around. Enough commoners with crossbows could kill anything without damage reduction, even if they could only hit it on a natural 20.

But, assuming NPCs get standard proficiency bonus and Dex +1, your Militia Crossbowmen will be shooting at +3, so that's roughly a 1/4th chance of hitting an AC 19 Adult Red Dragon.

So, a hundred militia crossbowmen vs A Red Dragon, the Dragon is going to be eating about 20 crossbow bolts a turn. Average Damage per bolt is 5. So that's about a hundred damage a turn.
It will wipe a bunch of them out each turn with , but let's ignore that.

So yes, the Rules don't support the King sending in a group of high-powered adventurers instead of his army of commoners.

But, think about how often these situations will actually come up in-game. The rules are an abstraction. A DM can easily say "This red dragon defeated the King's army singlehandedly" and it still works in the story. Or maybe there are other, perfectly legitimate, reasons why the king won't sent a few hundred crossbowmen to try to kill the Dragon (Perhaps being that said crossbowmen refuse to try to fight said dragon, as reflected by the Frightful Presence ability, or the fact that a large number of them will die).

And that's only if you are insistent on a single monster being able to threaten a kingdom by itself.

So, you lose one very specific scenario (A Single Monster Threatens the land, and the King would be perfectly willing to send countless soldiers to their deaths to kill it). And even then, you can STILL have that happen unless you insist on sitting down and actually rolling it out.

Now, lets see what you gain. Specifically, the idea of the PC's, legendary heroes that they are, being challenged by large groups of enemies.

3.5 had what I called the "Town Guard Problem", which is to say that, assuming your town guard were first level, with the Captain maybe being as high as fourth or fifth (which seems to generally fit how things go), before long the PCs reach a point of power where they are basically exempt from laws because the non-adventuring forces of society don't pose a threat to them. Same goes for the standard mooks in the enemy army.

You can introduce more powerful guards and mooks, true, but that breaks the sense that the PCs are the Heroes of Legend, Much more powerful than others. Being 6th level is great, but if there are 5th level characters in the town militia, you don't feel that special. Plus, it introduces some odd narrative questions. If the Evil Sorceror had 5th level footsoldiers at his disposal, why were the PC's fighting 1st level footsoldiers earlier.

Alternatively, the classic "Horde" scenario, in which a seemingly endless number of foes are storming in, and the PC's need to escape or hold the line in some way. Those are much more fun if the PCs can hack through individual enemies quickly. In 3.5, if the individual members of the Horde were powerful enough to be able to deal damage to the PC's, they would also be tough enough to survive their attacks. So, the Endless Horde of enemies would either be too tough (If the enemies were individually a threat), or just a slog (if the enemies couldn't land a hit).

In terms of when the dice are actually going to be rolled, the new system works better.

I think people seem to miss this when they look at these things from a pure mechanics standpoint: Sure a Legion of Generic Soldier Types can take out a red dragon while simultaneously losing nearly all of their membership, if the Red Dragon chooses to stay and fight instead of wiping out decades worth of training hours every attack then going home to heal to full for the next day's attack. But that's a pretty #@*%ing boring story to tell in D&D, IMO.

It might be interesting in, say, a Miniatures game. I'm sure you can model that attack in Warhammer or something. That might be a fun thing to do. But if it's happening in a D&D game? The LoGST vs Dragon battle isn't being rolled, it's described. And the description is: "Whatever the DM feels needs to happen in this battle to make it so the PCs are the ones who need to go to this dragon's lair and kill it." (in so many words)

Because otherwise, the PCs are window dressing to the DM's movie.

[BRC]

Ummm, you don't need to confirm a Crit anymore. You Crit on a 20, no extra dice rolling required.

So 5400/20=270..... 270 x 4.5 x 2 (Crit rolls dice twice) = 2430 + 270 (the +1) = 2700 damage.

We are also assuming that they all succeed in their Save vs Fear
That the Dragon is in range of every single one of them
That they all used a 1d8 weapon with a +1 to the stat
They are all going on the exact same turn (otherwise the Dragons Legendary Actions come into play) but are not using Swarm Tactics
And that the Dragon did not harm or kill any of them in an attack yet (which doesn't really matter except for the numbers)
My calculations were according to 3.5 rules. The OP was complaining that no monsters we'd seen yet could defeat a Roman Legion, implying that there SHOULD be monsters that can defeat a roman legion singlehandedly. I was attempting to demonstrate what that would mean in an earlier edition.
I'm not that familiar with 4th, so I did it with 3.5. And I'm busy so I just did things really quickly.

[Tehnar]

Personally, I like it.

Yes, you miss out on the whole "THE GREAT MONSTER THAT SCATTERED ARMIES BEFORE IT AND ONLY THE FEW LEGENDARY HEROES COULD STAND AGAINST!" factor by a bit.

But you gain so much more.
3.5 had what I called the "Town Guard Problem", which is to say that, assuming your town guard were first level, with the Captain maybe being as high as fourth or fifth (which seems to generally fit how things go), before long the PCs reach a point of power where they are basically exempt from laws because the non-adventuring forces of society don't pose a threat to them. Same goes for the standard mooks in the enemy army.

You can introduce more powerful guards and mooks, true, but that breaks the sense that the PCs are the Heroes of Legend, Much more powerful than others. Being 6th level is great, but if there are 5th level characters in the town militia, you don't feel that special. Plus, it introduces some odd narrative questions. If the Evil Sorceror had 5th level footsoldiers at his disposal, why were the PC's fighting 1st level footsoldiers earlier.

Alternatively, the classic "Horde" scenario, in which a seemingly endless number of foes are storming in, and the PC's need to escape or hold the line in some way. Those are much more fun if the PCs can hack through individual enemies quickly. In 3.5, if the individual members of the Horde were powerful enough to be able to deal damage to the PC's, they would also be tough enough to survive their attacks. So, the Endless Horde of enemies would either be too tough (If the enemies were individually a threat), or just a slog (if the enemies couldn't land a hit).


But 5e is even worse in this regard. You can't be a Hero of Legend if you are threatened by town millitia. I mean if you want to play a Hero of Legend, 5e is not the edition for you. Sure it may say you are level 20, but compared to commoners or goblins, you are not much better then them. At best at level 20 you are as powerful as a lvl 6 3.5 character (in comparison to the baseline commoner or goblin). You can come up with RP reason's why that is not so, but the mechanics tell a different tale.

IF you are familiar with the anime/manga Berserk, or the Wheel of Time series you will see that there is no way 5e mechanics can replicate characters from either of those stories at all. Berserk maybe goes up to the 100 man slayer part, and WoT maybe goes up to The Dragon Reborn. The power scale of 5e characters is really low. Even Shadowrun characters scale better then 5e ones do.

Being threatened by town militia and being able to defeat (personally) kingdom threatening monsters at the same time does not make any sense. Its like saying you can take both Klichko brothers in the ring, but can lose in a barfight with random drunks (assuming no surprise).

[BRC]

But 5e is even worse in this regard. You can't be a Hero of Legend if you are threatened by town millitia. I mean if you want to play a Hero of Legend, 5e is not the edition for you. Sure it may say you are level 20, but compared to commoners or goblins, you are not much better then them. At best at level 20 you are as powerful as a lvl 6 3.5 character (in comparison to the baseline commoner or goblin). You can come up with RP reason's why that is not so, but the mechanics tell a different tale.

IF you are familiar with the anime/manga Berserk, or the Wheel of Time series you will see that there is no way 5e mechanics can replicate characters from either of those stories at all. Berserk maybe goes up to the 100 man slayer part, and WoT maybe goes up to The Dragon Reborn. The power scale of 5e characters is really low. Even Shadowrun characters scale better then 5e ones do.

Being threatened by town militia and being able to defeat (personally) kingdom threatening monsters at the same time does not make any sense. Its like saying you can take both Klichko brothers in the ring, but can lose in a barfight with random drunks (assuming no surprise).

You're underestimating the power of numbers.

In Berserk, Guts kills a hundred soldiers. This is consider a Huge Deal, and a symbol of how powerful he is. Guts is also supposed to be a badass of truly legendary proportions. This is evidenced by the fact that he can kill a hundred soldiers. Killing a hundred 1st level warriors in 3.5 isn't much of an achievement for even mid level characters. Once you get your AC to 22 (Not that difficult), only one in twenty hits is going to actually hurt you.
Massed groups of enemies SHOULD be a threat.

The Town Militia isn't going to be threatening the Heroes unless they have truly overwhelming numbers.

[Wrenn]

Here it is, stats for a commoner from the starter. 10 AC, 4 hp, 10 in all attributes, +2 to hit with a club for 1d4 damage.

No threat to a dragon at all.

[Dark Tira]

Here it is, stats for a commoner from the starter. 10 AC, 4 hp, 10 in all attributes, +2 to hit with a club for 1d4 damage.

No threat to a dragon at all.

But sadly a huge threat to a cat. Worst change from 3.5!

[Shining Wrath]

Found it. Tarrasque preview. CR 30, Str and Con 30.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1819-Who-Wants-To-See-THE-TARRASQUE-D-D-5th-Edition-Style#.VAd_HXi9LCQ

Also, here's your full on ancient red

https://m.facebook.com/dungeonsanddragons/photos/pcb.10152601950836071/10152601944991071/?type=1&theater

676 hit points.
Immune to non-magical weapons.
Immune to magic missile, line, or ranged touch attack spells with a 1 in 6 chance that it's not just immune, but it sends your spell right back at you.
In case you missed that: IMMUNE TO MAGIC MISSILE. I don't think your peasant is going to do much with a thrown rock.
The 3/day "I choose to succeed at this save" bit.
5 attacks a turn after Frightful Presence.

Yes, this takes on an army. It even takes on an army with low-level PCs as officers.

[Beige]

Also, with your Roman Legion statement, I did some math.

Assuming the entire Legion
can only hit on a natural 20.
Deals 1d8 +1 (Average 5) damage per hit.
Gets in one attack each.

Wikipedia puts a Roman Legion at 5,400 soldiers.

I did some quick math, 5,400/20 (Since only nat 20s hit), times 1.02 (Those who are dealing double damage because they are confirming their crits with a second natural 20) times Five (Damage per hit) came out to 1,417.5 damage.
Obviously damage reduction and the like would change that, But saying "No Statted Monster could defeat a Roman Legion!" isn't saying much, especially since the most powerful monster we've seen statted is an Ancient Dragon.

you forgot the dragon's DC 19 frightening presence - which would immobilize a major percentage of that legion from being able to fight for a round. also, the dragon is resistant to regular damage - so those legionnaire's will be doing much less damage

plus, only 300ish of them could get into range to attack at once - and that's if the dragon bothers to come down from the sky to even fight, rather than just strafe them with it's at will fire breath.

[LordVonDerp]

Ummm, you don't need to confirm a Crit anymore. You Crit on a 20, no extra dice rolling required.

So 5400/20=270..... 270 x 4.5 x 2 (Crit rolls dice twice) = 2430 + 270 (the +1) = 2700 damage.

We are also assuming that they all succeed in their Save vs Fear
That the Dragon is in range of every single one of them
That they all used a 1d8 weapon with a +1 to the stat
They are all going on the exact same turn (otherwise the Dragons Legendary Actions come into play) but are not using Swarm Tactics
And that the Dragon did not harm or kill any of them in an attack yet (which doesn't really matter except for the numbers)

Roman legions have immunity to fear due to decimation.

EDIT: they'd also definitely have the shield Master feat, 20+ HP, more than a +1 from stats,

[Beige]

I dunno - if the choice was a 1/10 chance of being beheaded for cowardice, or a 1/8 chance the dragon breaths in your direction

would be hilarious if there was one quick legionaire with better initiative. "c'mon guys - we have the numbers. follow me!" *legendary action* "well bugger"

[EvilAnagram]

I dunno - if the choice was a 1/10 chance of being beheaded for cowardice, or a 1/8 chance the dragon breaths in your direction

would be hilarious if there was one quick legionaire with better initiative. "c'mon guys - we have the numbers. follow me!" *legendary action* "well bugger"

I know we're mixing games (and genres, and formats), but if Space Marines can No Know Fear against a Chaos Daemon Prince, Legionnaires can face a dragon.

[Dark Tira]

I know we're mixing games (and genres, and formats), but if Space Marines can No Know Fear against a Chaos Daemon Prince, Legionnaires can face a dragon.

Well as long as we're throwing everything to the wind. Dragons might be Kingdom-level threats, but legionnaires represent an EMPIRE. The scaling is all wrong! Also someone needs to stat out legionnaires as a swarm.

[LordVonDerp]

I dunno - if the choice was a 1/10 chance of being beheaded for cowardice, or a 1/8 chance the dragon breaths in your direction

would be hilarious if there was one quick legionaire with better initiative. "c'mon guys - we have the numbers. follow me!" *legendary action* "well bugger"

Roman shield formation negates breath attacks. Also 1/10 chance of being beheaded and 9/10 chance of being forced to kill your best friend/lover.

[Sartharina]

But 5e is even worse in this regard. You can't be a Hero of Legend if you are threatened by town millitia.Yes you can. Even the greatest Heroes of Legend in the real world would find themselves genuinely threatened by a sufficiently-dedicated Town Militia.
I know we're mixing games (and genres, and formats), but if Space Marines can No Know Fear against a Chaos Daemon Prince, Legionnaires can face a dragon.
It takes Super Legionaires. Remember - Space Marines are genetically-engineered supersoldiers put through training through hell on top of that. Roman Legionaires are more like the Imperial Guard.

[rlc]

But 5e is even worse in this regard. You can't be a Hero of Legend if you are threatened by town millitia. I mean if you want to play a Hero of Legend, 5e is not the edition for you. Sure it may say you are level 20, but compared to commoners or goblins, you are not much better then them. At best at level 20 you are as powerful as a lvl 6 3.5 character (in comparison to the baseline commoner or goblin). You can come up with RP reason's why that is not so, but the mechanics tell a different tale.

IF you are familiar with the anime/manga Berserk, or the Wheel of Time series you will see that there is no way 5e mechanics can replicate characters from either of those stories at all. Berserk maybe goes up to the 100 man slayer part, and WoT maybe goes up to The Dragon Reborn. The power scale of 5e characters is really low. Even Shadowrun characters scale better then 5e ones do.

Being threatened by town militia and being able to defeat (personally) kingdom threatening monsters at the same time does not make any sense. Its like saying you can take both Klichko brothers in the ring, but can lose in a barfight with random drunks (assuming no surprise).

Nah, it's more like you can take both Klichko brothers, but you can lose to the world's largest bar that happens to be full of random drunks who are all really mad at you. And using their bottles to throw at and/or cut you.

[Beige]

Roman shield formation negates breath attacks. Also 1/10 chance of being beheaded and 9/10 chance of being forced to kill your best friend/lover.

I'm pretty sure grouping together as close as possible does something to a 90' line of fire hot enough to melt metal, but I'm pretty sure negating it isn't one of them :smallbiggrin:

[Yuki Akuma]

Shields don't grant a bonus to Dexterity saves against AoEs. The shields do literally nothing to help.

[rlc]

unless, of course, they're artifacts, but then you won't have 5400 of them,

[Raimun]

Heh, this reminds me of Witcher:

"Listen: two years ago peasants from some God-forsaken hole near Mahakam were plagued by a dragon devouring their sheep. They set out together, battered the dragon to death with stanchions, and did not even think it worth boasting about."

-The Last Wish, Andrzej Sapkowski

Perhaps this has always been a thing but those peasants just haven't bothered to boast about it or write songs about it.

[Yuki Akuma]

Consider: four dudes killing a beast that usually takes dozens to hundreds of people to take down is still pretty impressive.

[Mr.Moron]

Shields don't grant a bonus to Dexterity saves against AoEs. The shields do literally nothing to help.

The shield rules are also making something of an assumption of a single person in a fairly small brawl with 4-12 total fighters or so. It's not sensible to say an interlocked wall of shields beyond the scope of an adventuring party would behave in an indentical fashion.

We've got no rules to cover the scenario so it's silly to talk about what shields do or don't do, or honestly resovling 1000s of attacks. It's stretching the game engine so far beyond its design specifications as to border on absurdity. Sometimes I seriously suspect I'm running afoul of poe's law when I'm reading these discussions.

(and please nobody link that gosh-darned apollo 13 meme with the "I don't care what it's designed to do." caption Yeesh)

[Sartharina]

Frankly, I'm annoyed shields don't apply to dex saves to avoid AoEs

[Shining Wrath]

The shield rules are also making something of an assumption of a single person in a fairly small brawl with 4-12 total fighters or so. It's not sensible to say an interlocked wall of shields beyond the scope of an adventuring party would behave in an indentical fashion.

We've got no rules to cover the scenario so it's silly to talk about what shields do or don't do, or honestly resovling 1000s of attacks. It's stretching the game engine so far beyond its design specifications as to border on absurdity. Sometimes I seriously suspect I'm running afoul of poe's law when I'm reading these discussions.

(and please nobody link that gosh-darned apollo 13 meme with the "I don't care what it's designed to do." caption Yeesh)

I would think that if you put a RL legion up against a hypothetical RL dragon, the dragon would use it's extremely superior mobility to flank the legion. "Above" is a pretty valid direction to flank them from in a 3D battle. And the centurions have no communication method except yelling especially loudly.

[Mr.Moron]

I would think that if you put a RL legion up against a hypothetical RL dragon, the dragon would use it's extremely superior mobility to flank the legion. "Above" is a pretty valid direction to flank them from in a 3D battle. And the centurions have no communication method except yelling especially loudly.

Right. I'm not making a statement as to winner in a dragon vs roman legion fight.

What I'm saying is that the lines of argument being used in this thread.

"Well. You make 5000 Attack Rolls hitting on 20s..."
or
"Interlocked shields wouldn't do anything against fire breath"
or
"95% of them would fail against Frightening Presence"

are silly. These are rules written for small party combat against a handful of monsters. They're an abstraction meant to facilitate modeling a specific class of scenarios in the game world. Drawing them out to try and make conclusions about how an entirely unrelated scenario should play out from a narrative standpoint... we'll I'm not a fan of it.

[EvilAnagram]

Right. I'm not making a statement as to winner in a dragon vs roman legion fight.

What I'm saying is that the lines of argument being used in this thread.

"Well. You make 5000 Attack Rolls hitting on 20s..."
or
"Interlocked shields wouldn't do anything against fire breath"
or
"95% of them would fail against Frightening Presence"

are silly. These are rules written for small party combat against a handful of monsters. They're an abstraction meant to facilitate modeling a specific class of scenarios in the game world. Drawing them out to try and make conclusions about how an entirely unrelated scenario should play out from a narrative standpoint... we'll I'm not a fan of it.

I think you make a valid point, but if you look at the first post the OP is complaining about the survivability of large-scale threats against simplistic contrivances from a RAW point of view rather than a narrative one. This necessarily frames this as a rules-focused discussion.

Naturally, the kingdom realizes the threat it faces when it suddenly comes under attack from a dragon in the dead of night. The king sends out a group of heroes to deal with this threat while the city watch recover from the night's attack and the castle guard take precautions to secure the king.

No dragon marches out onto an open field to meet an army in battle. Who dignifies monkeys by playing by their rules?

[MeeposFire]

I actually like this as it explains why things like dragons don't just kill everything (high level PCs are supposed to be very rare). It is too dangerous for a dragon to attack with no thought or plan. On the other hand they are strong enough that with a decent plan they can annihilate small communities easily with little fear. If faced with larger forces that is when it recruits allies (say goblins or orcs).

As for the towns yes if they all stand together they may be able to kill the dragon but the cost is way too high. Many would die and even if the king does not care morally they will care that their money making source (ie tax revenue and creators of materials) will be decimated for potentially a generation or more. For a king it is probably prudent to pay some adventurers to take care of the problem rather than depleting your military or your work force in a fight with a dragon (remember you may need those when another country invades while you are weak).

[Zanos]

Yes you can. Even the greatest Heroes of Legend in the real world would find themselves genuinely threatened by a sufficiently-dedicated Town Militia.
D&D is a fantasy game.

[MeeposFire]

D&D is a fantasy game.

And in many examples of fantasy literature the heroes can be defeated by a large number of mooks (hence why they are often captured). Granted they may be able to take down a bunch with them but a sufficiently large number of enemies is still intimidating. This is something that is hard to impress on previous versions of D&D. Pre 3e had less HP and resources and 4e had minions but in both cases neither are really great at showing this. 3e does not really try at all. In most stories the heroes do not directly confront the army straight on (except of course when they have an army) even if in D&D you certainly could.

Defeating an army of enemies should not be a battle that you just walk up and destroy. It should be a fight that takes tactics and you should feel pressured by the numbers of low powered enemies. I think 5e will allow for that sort of simulation.

[Zanos]

And in many examples of fantasy literature the heroes can be defeated by a large number of mooks (hence why they are often captured). Granted they may be able to take down a bunch with them but a sufficiently large number of enemies is still intimidating. This is something that is hard to impress on previous versions of D&D. Pre 3e had less HP and resources and 4e had minions but in both cases neither are really great at showing this. 3e does not really try at all. In most stories the heroes do not directly confront the army straight on (except of course when they have an army) even if in D&D you certainly could.

Defeating an army of enemies should not be a battle that you just walk up and destroy. It should be a fight that takes tactics and you should feel pressured by the numbers of low powered enemies. I think 5e will allow for that sort of simulation.
In many. Not all, or even a majority. The legendary figures in most fantasy series(not necessarily only books) I enjoy would not consider taking down a militia of 100 commoners to be a large undertaking unless they cared for the commoners lives. Taking down an army is rarer, but still not uncommon. A level 20 character should be the best of the best, and 5e does not replicate this satisfactorily.

Note that this is not a feature I expected in 5e. I knew it would be like this, and will not be purchasing it. But it is a weakness of the system.

[Oscredwin]

Real world example:

Wyatt Earp was the most legendary lawman in the West. He once had to protect a murderer from a mob of his friends trying to break him out. He knew that they could all take him (20+ cowboys) but he was able to intimidate them because no one was willing to go first (and get killed).

High level heros can beat a group, but large armies should be a challenge.

[Demonic Spoon]

In many. Not all, or even a majority. The legendary figures in most fantasy series(not necessarily only books) I enjoy would not consider taking down a militia of 100 commoners to be a large undertaking unless they cared for the commoners lives. Taking down an army is rarer, but still not uncommon. A level 20 character should be the best of the best, and 5e does not replicate this satisfactorily.

Note that this is not a feature I expected in 5e. I knew it would be like this, and will not be purchasing it. But it is a weakness of the system.


Example? I can't think of any off the top of my head, barring perhaps half-gods and various other kinds of partially-divine entities from Greek mythology.

Also, prior iterations of D&D only allowed people to do that kind of thing with powerful magic items that gave you properties which let you basically ignore attacks from common things. You can do this in 5e too if you really want to.

[Grynning]

Yeah I don't really see what the problem is with a big 'ol army being about the same threat level of a big 'ol dragon. It's a gorram army. 4 people fighting 1000 is well within the scope of heroic epics. And to the poster that said 5E characters can't fight an army because of bounded accuracy, I disagree. See below.

If we are going to try and break this 1000 v. 4 fight down in 5E terms, you have to consider line of sight, and range. If we assume the standard 5 foot space model, and the heroes get in close where the numbers matter less, they are only getting attacked 8 times per round at most, not 250 apiece. No heroes would really be dumb enough to just stand there and eat ranged attacks without cover. Let's assume that they use the "guard" 1st level monster template, which is pretty close to a spear and shield wielding legionnaire. There is no flanking rule, so the only way for the enemies to capitalize on their numbers is to use the help action in pairs, so that's 4 attacks at advantage or 8 attacks without it with a +3 to hit that deal 4 damage if they land. That's very survivable for 17-20th level 5E characters, and they will probably be killing at least 4 guys per turn each. If they have a defensive position to hold and a party member who can throw some heals, they could probably fight that army all day since they'll be getting hit even less.

[MeeposFire]

In many. Not all, or even a majority. The legendary figures in most fantasy series(not necessarily only books) I enjoy would not consider taking down a militia of 100 commoners to be a large undertaking unless they cared for the commoners lives. Taking down an army is rarer, but still not uncommon. A level 20 character should be the best of the best, and 5e does not replicate this satisfactorily.

Note that this is not a feature I expected in 5e. I knew it would be like this, and will not be purchasing it. But it is a weakness of the system.

Really so what fantasy are you using? Note we are not talking about things like super heroes which is a very different model. LotR, Shannara, I think Dresden, and most other things that sell fantasy to me do not have the heroes just casually killing armies. When I think of the times where they need to fight an army they typically need an army or they have to employ a cunning plan. They do not just march themselves out and kill the entire army on their lonesome. The examples I can think of are wholly or in part gods (or similar) which are not typical humans adventuring like say the typical group of adventurers.

I like how higher level adventurers are high value and can kill many but are not invincible. A high level wizard can kill many with a single spell but must be careful not to be exposed because they will be killed in short order. A high level fighter can be killed quickly in the open BUT if that same fighter puts himself at a hard point where he is protected from the masses he could hold that area nearly indefinitely (think the Spartans holding the pass).

It is certainly cool for a short period of time to be so powerful that nobody can touch you and you can defeat armies by just plowing through them but to me it gets really old really fast.

[Zanos]

Example? I can't think of any off the top of my head, barring perhaps half-gods and various other kinds of partially-divine entities from Greek mythology.

Also, prior iterations of D&D only allowed people to do that kind of thing with powerful magic items that gave you properties which let you basically ignore attacks from common things. You can do this in 5e too if you really want to.
Are we referring to figures that were historically legendary(as in, they may have actually existed), or fictional characters that were legendary in their own world? I am referring to the later, in case there is any confusion.

And you don't need magic items in 3.5 to accomplish this, although it would help. Anyone that can get decent AC/DR/Self Healing could probably drop an army of a thousand warriors without breaking a sweat. A level 20 crusader with fairly mundane gear could probably do it, to say nothing of the full casters. Dependency on magic items is one of the things in 3.5 that I'm glad was worked out of the system, though.

[Grynning]

See here's the problem with the 3.5 model though - casually slaughtering guys who are no real threat to you isn't particularly heroic. 3.5 characters are completely beyond the ken of reality after mid levels, and yeah, they can just murder the hell out of low-level threats no problem, but that isn't because that's what the system was intended to do, it's because of wonky math where the numbers just keep getting bigger the whole game. This isn't how fantasy works in any novel I've ever read. No hero is ever secure and confident that he can walk into an army because "welp, my AC and hit bonus are so high they only hit on a nat 20 and I only miss on a nat 1, cakewalk time." They steel themselves and face down a horde of invaders because dammit, they're the only one left to fight and they'll take as many with them as possible (or some other suitably badass kind of situation).
5th Ed is very math conscious and bounded accuracy is there because it's much more dramatic if the wave after wave of mooks you're fighting does cause you some damage and wears you down gradually, and that horde is actually the threat it should be.

[Demonic Spoon]

Are we referring to figures that were historically legendary(as in, they may have actually existed), or fictional characters that were legendary in their own world? I am referring to the later, in case there is any confusion.

And you don't need magic items in 3.5 to accomplish this, although it would help. Anyone that can get decent AC/DR/Self Healing could probably drop an army of a thousand warriors without breaking a sweat. A level 20 crusader with fairly mundane gear could probably do it, to say nothing of the full casters. Dependency on magic items is one of the things in 3.5 that I'm glad was worked out of the system, though.


I'm aware that you're referring to fictional characters, but most fictional fantasy characters, barring ones that have earth-shattering magic, don't straight up kill entire armies. To make the ever-common LOTR comparison - Legolas is certainly a very powerful character capable of taking on powerful enemies individually or quite a fair number of mooks, but would almost certainly die against a couple hundred orcs by himself, at least in any kind of straight-up fight. LOTR isn't interesting because the heroes are just so damn strong that they casually walk up to any threat and kill it in a straight up fight. I would go so far as to say that if your heroes are powerful enough to just waltz up to whatever the BBEG is and kill him in a straight up fight, the story probably isn't very interesting or heroic.



In 3.5, no character is going to drop a thousand warriors without either powerful magic (e.g. you're a full caster), or damage reduction so high that they literally can't hurt you. AC and self healing won't help you, because even if only 1000 / 20 = 50 level 1 warriors with crossbows hit you every round, that's still 4.5*50=225 damage per round, assuming you get 22+AC with purely mundane equipment.

[Zanos]

Really so what fantasy are you using? Note we are not talking about things like super heroes which is a very different model. LotR, Shannara, I think Dresden, and most other things that sell fantasy to me do not have the heroes just casually killing armies. When I think of the times where they need to fight an army they typically need an army or they have to employ a cunning plan. They do not just march themselves out and kill the entire army on their lonesome. The examples I can think of are wholly or in part gods (or similar) which are not typical humans adventuring like say the typical group of adventurers.

I like how higher level adventurers are high value and can kill many but are not invincible. A high level wizard can kill many with a single spell but must be careful not to be exposed because they will be killed in short order. A high level fighter can be killed quickly in the open BUT if that same fighter puts himself at a hard point where he is protected from the masses he could hold that area nearly indefinitely (think the Spartans holding the pass).

It is certainly cool for a short period of time to be so powerful that nobody can touch you and you can defeat armies by just plowing through them but to me it gets really old really fast.
As an aside, I find it deeply ironic that people draw on LotR frequently to form their iconic vision of a spellcaster, when no such thing truly exists in that universe. I am not looking for a LoTR emulator when I play tabletop games. Characters that powerful do exist in LoTR, however. Gandalf, were his powers not restrained, could likely accomplish such a feat. Other entities of great power existed in the expanded lore, such as Ancalagon the Black. What's wrong with wanting to run a group of heroes that could face off against a dragon bigger than a mountain? Entities of such power are usually not heroes, but what's wrong with having the character you've been playing for over a year of weekly sessions being powerful enough to tangle with the biggest dogs?

And your "to me" there should provide enough context for you. The universes you listed are primarily low-fantasy, not high-fantasy. In my view, a high level character isn't a big deal in a kingdom or even their home plane, they're a big deal in the multiverse.

A strength of 3.5 was that the spectrum from 1-20 supported a large number of different power points for different types of campaigns. It bothers me that these options have been stripped from the game. I play games of scale. At level 20, my player's characters defend the multiverse, and are largely unconcerned with the day to day problems of kingdoms and mortals. They don't fight an army of Orcs, they fight Atropus, The World Born Dead, and it's undead servants. Is it wrong for me to object to a product that removes this option from the game?

[MeeposFire]

Oddly one common complaint in previous versions of D&D is that characters like Legolas and Aragorn are realtively low level based on what they can do in the stories. The narrrative makes them sound like they are awesome but in older D&D (particularly 3e) they simply are not by the numbers.

Oddly 5e makes these characters potentially more epic sounding (at least in terms of level) because what they do is possible as higher level martial characters and that the thing sthat could potentially kill them in the story are also possible in game.

The fellowship took on the group of goblins and trolls that attacked at first in Moria but once they found out that they were about to be swarmed by hundreds of goblins or more they ran. This is something that some types of D&D does not model well once you are powerful.

[MeeposFire]

As an aside, I find it deeply ironic that people draw on LotR frequently to form their iconic vision of a spellcaster, when no such thing truly exists in that universe. I am not looking for a LoTR emulator when I play tabletop games. Characters that powerful do exist in LoTR, however. Gandalf, were his powers not restrained, could likely accomplish such a feat. Other entities of great power existed in the expanded lore, such as Ancalagon the Black. What's wrong with wanting to run a group of heroes that could face off against a dragon bigger than a mountain? Entities of such power are usually not heroes, but what's wrong with having the character you've been playing for over a year of weekly sessions being powerful enough to tangle with the biggest dogs?

And your "to me" there should provide enough context for you. The universes you listed are primarily low-fantasy, not high-fantasy. In my view, a high level character isn't a big deal in a kingdom or even their home plane, they're a big deal in the multiverse.

A strength of 3.5 was that the spectrum from 1-20 supported a large number of different power points for different types of campaigns. It bothers me that these options have been stripped from the game. I play games of scale. At level 20, my player's characters defend the multiverse, and are largely unconcerned with the day to day problems of kingdoms and mortals. They don't fight an army of Orcs, they fight Atropus, The World Born Dead, and it's undead servants. Is it wrong for me to object to a product that removes this option from the game?

That is a false argument there is no reason why you couldn't have Atropis in the game. The stats would surely be different but you could have an epic threat that is world threatning and i don't see anything in the system that prevents that.

Remember it was not the AC and whatnot that made Atropis a threat it was actually what he does to the world on his aproach and then in combat he was a challenge for a high level party. In 5e you could certainly do both of those.

[Zanos]

That is a false argument there is no reason why you couldn't have Atropis in the game. The stats would surely be different but you could have an epic threat that is world threatning and i don't see anything in the system that prevents that.

Remember it was not the AC and whatnot that made Atropis a threat it was actually what he does to the world on his aproach and then in combat he was a challenge for a high level party. In 5e you could certainly do both of those.
Considering that Atropus deleterious effects are resisted with saving throws, and the non will save proficient fighter 20 has the same will save bonus as a fighter 1, this is not actually the case. The fighter has a no better chance of not going insane than a horde of commoners with crossbows.

I think there should be a large gulf in power between legendary heroes of epic proportions and a commoner. I am not looking for a LoTR emulator. High level characters are not merely very skilled individuals. A level 20 character should be a force that would give a demigod slight pause before they messed with them.

[mephnick]

A strength of 3.5 was that the spectrum from 1-20 supported a large number of different power points for different types of campaigns. It bothers me that these options have been stripped from the game. I play games of scale. At level 20, my player's characters defend the multiverse, and are largely unconcerned with the day to day problems of kingdoms and mortals. They don't fight an army of Orcs, they fight Atropus, The World Born Dead, and it's undead servants. Is it wrong for me to object to a product that removes this option from the game?

I have a great solution for you and I'll give you three guesses what it is.

The last two don't count.

[Zanos]

I have a great solution for you and I'll give you three guesses what it is.

The last two don't count.
Keep playing 3.5? I fully intend to. I said that in the first post I made that I had little interest in 5e. I'm only here arguing about it because it's mandatory. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/08/23)

[hawklost]

Considering that Atropus deleterious effects are resisted with saving throws, and the non will save proficient fighter 20 has the same will save bonus as a fighter 1, this is not actually the case. The fighter has a no better chance of not going insane than a horde of commoners with crossbows.

I think there should be a large gulf in power between legendary heroes of epic proportions and a commoner. I am not looking for a LoTR emulator. High level characters are not merely very skilled individuals. A level 20 character should be a force that would give a demigod slight pause before they messed with them.

Well, true, if you choose to have your extraordinary person have no Wisdom, he is no better than a first level Fighter. Of course, you had 5 stat increases you could have used to Make him better but you seem to have chosen to ignore that possibility. You could have also given him a feat to give him Prof for it, but again, you ignore that because your argument fails when you consider that he had the ability to gain his power that way and ignored it (Commoners do not have that option).

Its no better argument than saying "My Wizard can't push the boulder up the hill any better at 20th level than at 1st because I never did anything to increase his Athletics or his Str! He should just be able to do it because!"

As for lvl 20 should be a force that demigods would fear. Even in 3.5 that is pure BS, Demigods had resistance to anything that was not a demigod, so they could laugh at a lvl 20 character who could explode armies with a blink and the Demigod wouldn't even notice the attack.

[Zanos]

Well, true, if you choose to have your extraordinary person have no Wisdom, he is no better than a first level Fighter. Of course, you had 5 stat increases you could have used to Make him better but you seem to have chosen to ignore that possibility. You could have also given him a feat to give him Prof for it, but again, you ignore that because your argument fails when you consider that he had the ability to gain his power that way and ignored it (Commoners do not have that option).

Its no better argument than saying "My Wizard can't push the boulder up the hill any better at 20th level than at 1st because I never did anything to increase his Athletics or his Str! He should just be able to do it because!"
A wizard could push the boulder up the hill with telekinesis, actually.
Feats are optional feature of the system, by the way, so taking a feat for a proficiency is not available by default. Ability score increases could grant a boost to wisdom to up that garbage save, but that still won't put it within striking distance of many higher level effects.



As for lvl 20 should be a force that demigods would fear. Even in 3.5 that is pure BS, Demigods had resistance to anything that was not a demigod, so they could laugh at a lvl 20 character who could explode armies with a blink and the Demigod wouldn't even notice the attack.
That varies greatly depending on the individual demigod. Many of them are within striking range of a 20th level 4 man party. Imhotep is famously weak for a god, as an example.

[MeeposFire]

Considering that Atropus deleterious effects are resisted with saving throws, and the non will save proficient fighter 20 has the same will save bonus as a fighter 1, this is not actually the case. The fighter has a no better chance of not going insane than a horde of commoners with crossbows.

I think there should be a large gulf in power between legendary heroes of epic proportions and a commoner. I am not looking for a LoTR emulator. High level characters are not merely very skilled individuals. A level 20 character should be a force that would give a demigod slight pause before they messed with them.

I don't think this example really works for you. The difference between a level 1 fighter and a level 20 fighter is 6 points in the will save. What difference does that make against that particular save? Not much. 3e has well known issues where saves for effects against your bad saves eventually become almost no chance which is why getting immunities was generally better. That is the issue in 3e yes your numbers improve but in many cases it does not matter. Wizard BAB rarely matters at high levels for example even though it improves and may as well not even exist.

Oddly despite having not as high numbers (and having even more chances to improve said numbers in many ways) you probably have a better chance to save in 5e since at least in concept you are closer to your DCs than you were in 3e.

Regardless in both editions it would probably be best to make yourself immune or highly resistant to the effects of insanity because putting yourself at that risk is just foolish in both editions.

So far I believe you will see all the classic high level enemies make an appearance in the MM so I don't see any reason why you can't have those high level style adventures. About the only thing I see no longer working is killing armies of low level enemies with little fear.

[Noldo]

I am quite confident that lack of treats bigger than the world is very much the intended result of the limited scaling. From world building perspective a world where there are creatures, whether they are monsters or characters, that can waltz through an army makes very little sense. If the characters may outgrow the society, it does not make any sense for the society to exist in its current form since the characters surely are not the first of their kind in the history of the realm…

Perhaps at one point we get an extension to the game where the adventure is taken to the planes, and the characters may grow to match the world beyond their world.

[Logosloki]

Dragons are raiders by nature, they know to hit something hard, pull what they want and dust out before anything can form some kind of defence.

A single dragon is very much a small kingdom level threat, only as long as it doesn't land in a clearing of a radius of 121 feet with heavy cover after that with a few hundred commoners armed with crossbows, spaced evenly so they can all attack, wait in ambush so they get the first round. All this happening in daylight so that nothing obscures their vision.

Dragons aren't really good on their own for higher level campaigns though. If you are moving to medium kingdoms or large kingdoms/empires then you need to scale appropriately. Instead of a Dragon you are looking at a brood or several dragons in a loose confederacy. Instead of being alone or in small families they have their own standing armies that are looking to invade and live in fortified positions, holding cities of their own within their territory.

[Tehnar]

You're underestimating the power of numbers.

In Berserk, Guts kills a hundred soldiers. This is consider a Huge Deal, and a symbol of how powerful he is. Guts is also supposed to be a badass of truly legendary proportions. This is evidenced by the fact that he can kill a hundred soldiers. Killing a hundred 1st level warriors in 3.5 isn't much of an achievement for even mid level characters. Once you get your AC to 22 (Not that difficult), only one in twenty hits is going to actually hurt you.
Massed groups of enemies SHOULD be a threat.

The Town Militia isn't going to be threatening the Heroes unless they have truly overwhelming numbers.

If he is a badass of legendary proportions 1/6th into the manga, what about the other 5/6? Especially after the Dragonslayer and Berserk armor?

Yes, killing 100 lvl 1 warriors in 3.5 is a medium level feat, and not a impressive one at that. Thats why 1st level warriors no longer are worth any XP, and the characters move on to fighting demons, undead and abberations with some giants in the mix. Guts does the same. 5e does not. It stops at the 100 man slayer.

The same thing happens with Wheel of Time, Mistborn/Stormlight archive, Riftwar series, and many others. You just don't have the power level in 5e to pull of feats from those stories.

[ambartanen]

Considering that Atropus deleterious effects are resisted with saving throws, and the non will save proficient fighter 20 has the same will save bonus as a fighter 1, this is not actually the case. The fighter has a no better chance of not going insane than a horde of commoners with crossbows.
So you think it's better that your characters overcome the BBEGs powers by virtue of simply existing rather than taking some proactive steps to defends themselves? And, besides, what kind of piss-poor negligible will save does Atropus* require that a level 20 fighter has a good chance of beating it? With the best magic protection they can get their hands on and no multiclassing, the fighter is looking at around a +11 will save while a cleric can expect something in the +29 range by default. Now even a 10 wisdom fighter who put zero effort in improving their will has a +0 to a 20th level cleric's +11 which is less of a difference so a DC 15 save is a challenge to the fighter without being insultingly easy for the cleric.

*I have no idea who that is but it really sounds like a great villain for an Exalted game. If you are interested in a game where the players regularly fight insanity-inducing abominations the size of mountains and can stand their ground against most gods, you should really check it out. Mechanically, it works a lot better at that power level than 3e and Pathfinder.


I think there should be a large gulf in power between legendary heroes of epic proportions and a commoner. I am not looking for a LoTR emulator. High level characters are not merely very skilled individuals. A level 20 character should be a force that would give a demigod slight pause before they messed with them.

We don't have stats on demigods so we don't know for sure but I see no reason why a 20th level party wouldn't be a challenge for one. I am still not sure what kind of fantasy stories people read/watch/play where the BBEGs threaten the world by killing individual peasants or the heroes fight thousands of nameless mooks at a time. The only example I can think of is one of the later Sword of Truth books where the main character kills off a thousand elite enemy soldiers with a wave of his hand but that was unintentionally funny and just stupid. Besides, the BBEG still threatens the world because he has a really big army so it's hardly an example of this.


The same thing happens with Wheel of Time, Mistborn/Stormlight archive, Riftwar series, and many others. You just don't have the power level in 5e to pull of feats from those stories. When does someone in WoT fight an army on their own and win? I never finished the series but based on the first twelve books both the good and bad guys always fought with or around their armies. In fact, the most powerful people in the world actually get beaten by thirteen first level casters (random Aes Sedai) multiple times in the series so that's even weaker than 5e characters. Maybe you are thinking of the times Rand tries to take out armies with his magic but invariably fails and finds out it was a terrible mistake to even try (yeah, he does that multiple times too. The savior of the world isn't all that bright).

I don't even think anyone in Riftwar ever attempts to fight armies single handedly. The whole series starts out with a situation where the best application of powerful magic is to transport your army to where it needs to be. Similarly, no one tries fighting armies in Stormlight- the most awesome badasses are shown to be such by taking out a few dozen guards which is exactly the power level of 5e. Mistborn characters do lead some losing fights against armies but they still never defeat any and always have to retreat. Of course, the very specific nature of magic in Sanderson's stories prevents you from using vanilla 5e but that has nothing to do with a power level.

[rlc]

The shield rules are also making something of an assumption of a single person in a fairly small brawl with 4-12 total fighters or so. It's not sensible to say an interlocked wall of shields beyond the scope of an adventuring party would behave in an indentical fashion.

We've got no rules to cover the scenario so it's silly to talk about what shields do or don't do, or honestly resovling 1000s of attacks. It's stretching the game engine so far beyond its design specifications as to border on absurdity. Sometimes I seriously suspect I'm running afoul of poe's law when I'm reading these discussions.

(and please nobody link that gosh-darned apollo 13 meme with the "I don't care what it's designed to do." caption Yeesh)

shields are usually made of wood or metal. wood burns and metal gets really hot, really fast. how thick are these gloves our heroes and commoners are wearing?


:smalltongue:

[Falka]

Most high level creatures have damage inmunity to non-magic weapons, so even 1000 commoners wouldn't hurt them.

[LordVonDerp]

I'm pretty sure grouping together as close as possible does something to a 90' line of fire hot enough to melt metal, but I'm pretty sure negating it isn't one of them :smallbiggrin:

Reread the shield master feat.

[Tehnar]

So you think it's better that your characters overcome the BBEGs powers by virtue of simply existing rather than taking some proactive steps to defends themselves? And, besides, what kind of piss-poor negligible will save does Atropus* require that a level 20 fighter has a good chance of beating it? With the best magic protection they can get their hands on and no multiclassing, the fighter is looking at around a +11 will save while a cleric can expect something in the +29 range by default. Now even a 10 wisdom fighter who put zero effort in improving their will has a +0 to a 20th level cleric's +11 which is less of a difference so a DC 15 save is a challenge to the fighter without being insultingly easy for the cleric.

*I have no idea who that is but it really sounds like a great villain for an Exalted game. If you are interested in a game where the players regularly fight insanity-inducing abominations the size of mountains and can stand their ground against most gods, you should really check it out. Mechanically, it works a lot better at that power level than 3e and Pathfinder.

It seems that you know very little about 3.x. A level 20 character has at least 6 base + 5 resistance + 1 luck + 4 morale (and probably +2 from a ability score, even if he started with 10), for a total of +18. And that is with no save optimization. The +29 for the caster cleric is reasonable though.




When does someone in WoT fight an army on their own and win? I never finished the series but based on the first twelve books both the good and bad guys always fought with or around their armies. In fact, the most powerful people in the world actually get beaten by thirteen first level casters (random Aes Sedai) multiple times in the series so that's even weaker than 5e characters. Maybe you are thinking of the times Rand tries to take out armies with his magic but invariably fails and finds out it was a terrible mistake to even try (yeah, he does that multiple times too. The savior of the world isn't all that bright).

I don't even think anyone in Riftwar ever attempts to fight armies single handedly. The whole series starts out with a situation where the best application of powerful magic is to transport your army to where it needs to be. Similarly, no one tries fighting armies in Stormlight- the most awesome badasses are shown to be such by taking out a few dozen guards which is exactly the power level of 5e. Mistborn characters do lead some losing fights against armies but they still never defeat any and always have to retreat. Of course, the very specific nature of magic in Sanderson's stories prevents you from using vanilla 5e but that has nothing to do with a power level.

Dumai wells, Batle of Maradon, Lord Algarin's Manor, to name a few. I think you also forgot about the battle at the end of the Eye of the World.

*spoiler alert*
In the Riftwar series, the destruction of the Imperial arena qualifies I think. Also a character drops a moon on a planet at a later point.

In the Stormlight series, the very first scene depicts such a battle after which the Heralds decide to depart. Full Shardbearers depict time and time again how superior they are against a army.

[rollingForInit]

It seems that you know very little about 3.x. A level 20 character has at least 6 base + 5 resistance + 1 luck + 4 morale (and probably +2 from a ability score, even if he started with 10), for a total of +18. And that is with no save optimization. The +29 for the caster cleric is reasonable though.




Dumai wells, Batle of Maradon, Lord Algarin's Manor, to name a few. I think you also forgot about the battle at the end of the Eye of the World.

*spoiler alert*
In the Riftwar series, the destruction of the Imperial arena qualifies I think. Also a character drops a moon on a planet at a later point.

In the Stormlight series, the very first scene depicts such a battle after which the Heralds decide to depart. Full Shardbearers depict time and time again how superior they are against a army.

The magic in D&D is supposed to be at leat somewhat balanced with martial classes. In some way.

The magic in Wheel of Time is not. Comparing the two makes sense. A real Channeler, if properly converted to a D&D Wizard, would have a near unlimited amount of spell slots (or at least much much much more than any class has ordinarily), would have absurd attack rolls and saving throws that automatically fail, and their spells would deal ridiculous amounts of damage. A non-channeler cannot, outside of surprise, kill a Channeler. You simply cannot "save" against being bound up in Air or being literally torn into pulp by an Asha'man. If Channeler looks at you and wants you dead, you die. Period. There's no competition. That is why they can tear apart armies. The awesome, but non-magical, fighters don't do that. You don't see Lan cutting up entire armies on his own. Even in the first book when they ride through the Blight, Moiraine has to heal him occasionally.

Again, in Stormlight, there's no intent to be fair with the system. A full Shardbearer is near-invincible. That's how it's supposed to be. Kaladin can tear through armies because the magic is overpowered.

And even if we were to assume that the magic in those books was meant to be moderately balanced, it's literature. It's not a game. There is no randomness, there's no chance. If the author wants a skilled blademaster to have a stroke of luck and cut through an army, the authors just needs to decide that the character crits on every attack roll and that the enemies simply miss. Luck, divine intervention, or whatever. Hell, even in D&D the DM can "cheat" if it fits the story; certainly and author does the same.

A game of D&D will rarely be epic in the same way, because there is always a risk of failure, and chances are that you will not be able to do something that is statistically almost impossible. The statistically unlikely is what mostly happens in books.

[Tehnar]

The magic in D&D is supposed to be at leat somewhat balanced with martial classes. In some way.

The magic in Wheel of Time is not. Comparing the two makes sense. A real Channeler, if properly converted to a D&D Wizard, would have a near unlimited amount of spell slots (or at least much much much more than any class has ordinarily), would have absurd attack rolls and saving throws that automatically fail, and their spells would deal ridiculous amounts of damage. A non-channeler cannot, outside of surprise, kill a Channeler. You simply cannot "save" against being bound up in Air or being literally torn into pulp by an Asha'man. If Channeler looks at you and wants you dead, you die. Period. There's no competition. That is why they can tear apart armies. The awesome, but non-magical, fighters don't do that. You don't see Lan cutting up entire armies on his own. Even in the first book when they ride through the Blight, Moiraine has to heal him occasionally.

Again, in Stormlight, there's no intent to be fair with the system. A full Shardbearer is near-invincible. That's how it's supposed to be. Kaladin can tear through armies because the magic is overpowered.

And even if we were to assume that the magic in those books was meant to be moderately balanced, it's literature. It's not a game. There is no randomness, there's no chance. If the author wants a skilled blademaster to have a stroke of luck and cut through an army, the authors just needs to decide that the character crits on every attack roll and that the enemies simply miss. Luck, divine intervention, or whatever. Hell, even in D&D the DM can "cheat" if it fits the story; certainly and author does the same.

A game of D&D will rarely be epic in the same way, because there is always a risk of failure, and chances are that you will not be able to do something that is statistically almost impossible. The statistically unlikely is what mostly happens in books.

I am not asking that magic and martials function the same way they do in WoT as they do in DnD land. What I am asking for is for characters to be able to experience different power levels, like they do in literature. How exactly they do that, I do not care at this moment. What matters is that they can go through several noticeably different power levels.

Kaladin, Rand, Pug, Darth Vader all went from farmboy/peasant/slave to hero. At the top of their power level they no longer care about fighting common soldiers. And that is totally OK, because they did care at some point but then moved on. Now its about intergalactic, multiuniverse shattering threats. So a character that can go through the whole spectrum of power, not just a single color.

[ambartanen]

It seems that you know very little about 3.x. A level 20 character has at least 6 base + 5 resistance + 1 luck + 4 morale (and probably +2 from a ability score, even if he started with 10), for a total of +18. And that is with no save optimization. The +29 for the caster cleric is reasonable though.
I gave them both a +5 cloak of resistance because 3e characters would be stupid to not get the best one possible at the first opportunity. Beyond magic item bonuses though (which should be the same for both characters), a 20th level cleric will have at least 34 wisdom and a 12 base save for 18 more points on a will save. If you had the points to spare on your fighter (even though it's only your fourth most useful stat at most), you can assume a 12 or 14 wisdom instead of a 10 and reduce the difference to a mere 16-17. Notice that, as they level up, the fighter keeps getting worse and worse at will saves compared to CR-appropriate encounters and clerics/druids/monks. To even have a hope of keeping up on saving throws, a fighter has to invest in a few feats and a half dozen magic items that have no other use to him; even then fighters only get a 5% chance of success on saves against a semi-optimized spellcaster at 20th level.

The point is that 5e allows a DM to challenge high level characters in such a way that someone good at the save has at least a bit of a challenge while someone bad at it still has a chance to succeed and players don't even have to search through a hundred pages of magic item descriptions to find the right shinies to buy in town. That is by no means a bad thing.


Dumai wells, Battle of Maradon, Lord Algarin's Manor, to name a few. I think you also forgot about the battle at the end of the Eye of the World.
Dumai wells had hundreds of "wizards' on one side against several dozen "wizards" plus a few thousand soldiers on the other. Not sure what the battle of Maradon is but it probably happens in the last two books judging by a cursory glance at the wiki.


*spoiler alert*
In the Riftwar series, the destruction of the Imperial arena qualifies I think. Also a character drops a moon on a planet at a later point.

Uh... the Imperial arena isn't even a fight? It's just one wizard throwing lightning bolts at civilians who run away in panic. Most of the deaths weren't even caused by magic. As for dropping moons on planets, you are welcome to conduct epic ritual magic that does stuff like that as a culmination of a campaign. It really isn't something anyone does in the middle of a fight... well, outside final fantasy, I suppose.


In the Stormlight series, the very first scene depicts such a battle after which the Heralds decide to depart. Full Shardbearers depict time and time again how superior they are against a army.

You keep giving counterexamples to your own claims. The whole premise of the whole story is that even the Herlads always had to unite all of humanity because they are utterly incapable of winning by themselves. They actually needed disorganized warriors with bronze age technology to have a hope of winning!

Full shardbearers might also be the only magic in all of Sanderson's books that's easy to translate to DnD terms since it's the magic artifacts doing all the work there- they are full plates that make you immune to non-magic damage (among other things) and blades that ignore armor/natural armor/shields and instakill anyone they hit.

Anyway, the whole point is not to find one scene in a book or movie that cannot be easily represented by the 5e rules- there are plenty of those. I am asking for a situation where the coolness of the story comes from just heroes facing down huge armies virtually single handed. Two such examples would be 300 and Legend by David Gemmell- they are both stories about a few hundred mofos/one old dude with an axe that just go stand in one spot and kill legions of nameless evil extras. So, yes, such stories exist, they are just an almost negligible minority of all fantasy.

Edit: You really watched the original Star Wars trilogy and thought Vader could face down an army single handed? Why does the Empire even bother with storm troopers and Death Stars if Vader can just go win wars on his own?

[obryn]

It's like we've already forgotten about Necromancer Ned's Skelly Bros and now we're back to talking about mere commoners with bows. :smallfrown:

e: I'm a poet, and I didn't know .... that fact about myself.

[Fwiffo86]

It's like we've already forgotten about Necromancer Ned's Skelly Bros and now we're back to talking about mere commoners with bows. :smallfrown:

e: I'm a poet, and I didn't know .... that fact about myself.

Incorrect.... I equate 1 SSU (Standard Skeletal Unit) to 1.8 SCU (Standard Common Unit).

So, basically, 10 Skelly bros = 18 commoners. If my estimation math is correct that is.

I have almost the entire MM-lite for 5e converted to SSUs.

[Z3ro]

In the Stormlight series, the very first scene depicts such a battle after which the Heralds decide to depart. Full Shardbearers depict time and time again how superior they are against a army.

And yet, in the Stormlight books, a coordinated attack by soldiers is depicted as pretty much the only way to take out a shardbearer without another shardbearer. Kind of like how 5e represents it.

[rollingForInit]

I am not asking that magic and martials function the same way they do in WoT as they do in DnD land. What I am asking for is for characters to be able to experience different power levels, like they do in literature. How exactly they do that, I do not care at this moment. What matters is that they can go through several noticeably different power levels.

Kaladin, Rand, Pug, Darth Vader all went from farmboy/peasant/slave to hero. At the top of their power level they no longer care about fighting common soldiers. And that is totally OK, because they did care at some point but then moved on. Now its about intergalactic, multiuniverse shattering threats. So a character that can go through the whole spectrum of power, not just a single color.

Perhaps they'll add epic levels?

Even though I agree that the scaling is worse in 5e than 3.5 or 4th, perhaps a bit too low ... there's still a huge difference between a level 20 and a level 1. Perhaps not in AC scores and to hit (although +2 compared to +11 is pretty significant), but also in terms of class abilities and feats.

[Giant2005]

You just need to hit that kingdom of yours with a bigger critter. Red Dragons just aren't that big in the grand scheme of things and they aren't designed to be threatening to a kingdom. If they were, they would be a lot higher than CR 17 for instance.
Hit that kingdom with a Terrasque and things will go a lot differently - those commoners will require the same natural 20 to hit that they needed in every other edition.

[Demonic Spoon]

Kaladin, Rand, Pug, Darth Vader all went from farmboy/peasant/slave to hero. At the top of their power level they no longer care about fighting common soldiers. And that is totally OK, because they did care at some point but then moved on. Now its about intergalactic, multiuniverse shattering threats. So a character that can go through the whole spectrum of power, not just a single color.


Darth Vader doesn't care about fighting common soldiers because he has his own legions of common soldiers to throw at problems, not because he could single-handedly kill all things himself.

[obryn]

Incorrect.... I equate 1 SSU (Standard Skeletal Unit) to 1.8 SCU (Standard Common Unit).

So, basically, 10 Skelly bros = 18 commoners. If my estimation math is correct that is.

I have almost the entire MM-lite for 5e converted to SSUs.
You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. I salute you.

e: Also, I'm not sure if I'd consider it a failing of the system that it doesn't adequately handle "Rand Al'Thor" and "Jeff, who just learned to cast his first cantrip" within 20 levels. That seems like a pretty reasonable restriction to me.

[Oscredwin]

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. I salute you.

e: Also, I'm not sure if I'd consider it a failing of the system that it doesn't adequately handle "Rand Al'Thor" and "Jeff, who just learned to cast his first cantrip" within 20 levels. That seems like a pretty reasonable restriction to me.

Rand Al'Thor has to be at least a little toned down for a game like this. He's literally one of the best swordsmen in the world while also being the most powerful wizard (see also Richard from SoT). If he was available as a class in the game, why did Lan, Matt, Perrin, and Nynaeve choose their inferior classes? Either a madness penalty, only one player had permission, or his class was a "weak at low levels OP at high levels" class which is just bad design.

Alternatively, he's handled by the new Gestalt rules (which we haven't seen) as a fighter//sorcerer or fighter//warlock or fighter//wizard. Assuming he's built on the gestalt rules and they work like the ones in 3.5 (better of the two HD, all proficiencies on both classes, all class features on both classes) would something like that be a good Rand Al'Thor?

[Leliel]

*I have no idea who that is but it really sounds like a great villain for an Exalted game. If you are interested in a game where the players regularly fight insanity-inducing abominations the size of mountains and can stand their ground against most gods, you should really check it out. Mechanically, it works a lot better at that power level than 3e and Pathfinder.

He's the mind of what is essentially an undead asteroid, born from the beheading of the first being to exist. He floats around from world to world, ramming them to flood the world in negative energy and provoke extinction-level zombie apocalypses.

He is not a good example for "normal high-level play", on the basis of being a classically Lovecraftian god. Hell, you don't defeat him so much as hit him hard enough in the Avatar that he runs off to lick his wounds. In fact, I dare say he and other Elder Evils should be rare and likely unique from Elder to Elder, the kind of power that allows casual crushing of armies without divine stricture is something really weird in and of itself. Armies exist for reasons.

Guts? To continue the example, killing 100 men is actually around the apex of his abilities; the anime covers the actual first arc, when he's just a competent mercenary, reliant on the others in his band and the people who hire them to win wars. 5e arc, right there (which continues past it, admittedly, but I consider the death of the Sea God a similar feat, on the basis that the Sea God was essentially an army unto itself).

[EvilAnagram]

I'm sorry, but why are we conceding that a level 20 party can't face an army and win? I can think of half a dozen spells that can rip an army to pieces. Let's say you have a Paladin, Barbarian, Wizard, Ranger, and Druid. Your first round would at the very least cut an army of 200 militiamen in half. Your second round would leave a few stragglers alive at the most. How long does a larger army's courage last with losses like that?

[Demonic Spoon]

I'm sorry, but why are we conceding that a level 20 party can't face an army and win? I can think of half a dozen spells that can rip an army to pieces. Let's say you have a Paladin, Barbarian, Wizard, Ranger, and Druid. Your first round would at the very least cut an army of 200 militiamen in half. Your second round would leave a few stragglers alive at the most. How long does a larger army's courage last with losses like that?

Note that we've explicitly been excluding full casters from this discussion.

How is that party going to kill an army without the wizard or druid? Also, 200 militiamen is pretty small to be called an army.

[Shining Wrath]

In many. Not all, or even a majority. The legendary figures in most fantasy series(not necessarily only books) I enjoy would not consider taking down a militia of 100 commoners to be a large undertaking unless they cared for the commoners lives. Taking down an army is rarer, but still not uncommon. A level 20 character should be the best of the best, and 5e does not replicate this satisfactorily.

Note that this is not a feature I expected in 5e. I knew it would be like this, and will not be purchasing it. But it is a weakness of the system.

Hurin in the Silmarillion? "At him they cast nets, and loosed blunted arrows". Also described as "the mightiest warrior among mortal men". Killed 70 trolls and countless orcs, but eventually they got him.

Or Boromir, who died "with only orcs to oppose him".

Corwin of Amber taken prisoner in his assault upon Amber in the first book?

If you've got more iconic fantasy heroes in mind than Tolkien and Zelanzy, bring 'em. I myself am perfectly satisfied that in most high fantasy, one man does not defeat an army.

[Sartharina]

Considering that Atropus deleterious effects are resisted with saving throwsAnd possibly a hitpoint wall in 5e.

[EvilAnagram]

Note that we've explicitly been excluding full casters from this discussion.

How is that party going to kill an army without the wizard or druid?
Okay, take the Ranger. A Hunter ends up with tons of spells and non-spell AoE attacks that would let him cut down an army all by himself. As long as he takes measures to protect himself, he'll be fine.

A Fighter or Barbarian charges right into the fray and doesn't stop attacking. Archers won't really be able to target them through the crowd, and after the first twenty foes fall before their blades (round 3-4) their enemies will be a bit more reluctant to join in the fray. Two against two hundred could easily turn into a route, even without Clerical support. That's certainly an epic feat, and it's perfectly possible even if you're facing a trained military.

Monks vary in their ability to do this depending on the build. An Avatar Monk could easily take out massive groups and simultaneously erect great defenses to control for his party. The other builds would have more difficulty, but their Unarmored Defense and attacks should carry them through for a while, and if they're backed up by fighters, Barbarians, or Paladins then they're a lot better off.

Paladins have it much easier. With their phenomenal capstones and awesome spells, they'll be taking on armies by themselves no problem.

Rogues, admittedly, should not be taking on full armies. Of course, why would a Rogue want to? He's a Rogue. He should be strafing the army from cover and leading them into traps. A Rogue could stage a house-to-house guerrilla resistance all by himself, which would be awesome, but he'd die in an open field. Because Rogues shouldn't ever meet an enemy with the enemy having advantage.


Also, 200 militiamen is pretty small to be called an army.

How often in fiction do people actually kill more than that in a battle? How often do they face armies of thousands and slaughter them all? It's rare, and it's not necessary for a character to be heroic. Harry Dresden couldn't face down an army of thousands, and he's a powerful wizard. Even against the Red Court, he needed backup that included more powerful wizards and the old man. His adventures are awesome fantasy fun. Even Hurin in the Silmarillion wasn't facing more an a couple hundred when he was captured, and they were purposefully avoiding killing him. An army of 200 is small for an army, but it's enormous compared to a single person.

Let's say an army of 500 soldiers (each a challenge of 1 SSU, obryn) charged a group of five heroes. A Monk of the Way of the Elements, an Oath of the Ancients Paladin, a Ranger Hunter, a Battle Master Fighter, and a Barbarian Berserker. The heroes erect defenses of some sort to protect against arrows from afar because duh. No system will have you surviving long against ranged attacks from hundreds of people.

As the army makes its way towards you, the Ranger does his thing. Every round they take to close the distance, they lose another twenty men. When they finally do, they face a fighting force that kills more than fifty of them a turn for the first few turns, and keeps racking up massive kill numbers for the first six or seven rounds before plateauing around fifteen-to-twenty kills a round. That's a group that won a battle.

Even against larger armies, they're going to drive their enemies into a route because no one wants to charge at the incarnation of nature's fury and the half-naked demigod who just burned thirty men to death. And don't even bring up those crazy bastards who just slaughtered twenty guys in twelve seconds with nothing but a sword and an axe. Nuh. Uh.

[Z3ro]

Note that we've explicitly been excluding full casters from this discussion.

How is that party going to kill an army without the wizard or druid? Also, 200 militiamen is pretty small to be called an army.

A raging barbarian with heavy armor mastery is pretty invulnerable to a low-level army, all by himself.

[Tvtyrant]

In many. Not all, or even a majority. The legendary figures in most fantasy series(not necessarily only books) I enjoy would not consider taking down a militia of 100 commoners to be a large undertaking unless they cared for the commoners lives. Taking down an army is rarer, but still not uncommon. A level 20 character should be the best of the best, and 5e does not replicate this satisfactorily.

Note that this is not a feature I expected in 5e. I knew it would be like this, and will not be purchasing it. But it is a weakness of the system.

Since this is the biggest reason I am playing 5E I would say it is a strength of the system not a weakness. I want Huron to lose when countless Orcs overrun him, and armies to be legitimate response to enemies.

[BRC]

Plus, sufficiently powerful characters CAN defeat armies, they just need to use some strategy besides "Stand in an open field and let the whole army attack me at once".

Lets go back to our Ancient or Adult Red Dragon trying to topple a kingdom. Yes, the Dragon will lose if it sits there while the army shoots it with crossbows. But if it wants to topple the kingdom, it's not going to do that. It's going to swoop in at night, light the castle on fire, and kill the royal family and the generals. It's going to send the soldiers running in terror, then it's going to leave.
It's going to know that a few hundred, determined soldiers armed with ranged weapons pose a threat to it, so it's going to take steps to prevent that from happening. It's going to attack where the army isn't, or when the army is sleeping. It's going to use chaos and fear to stop the army from massing for the volleys that might threaten it. Soldiers will panic and run, generals who would keep them in line will die.

Saying that a monster can't singlehandedly threaten a kingdom because it can't beat the army in open combat is like saying a group of criminals can't rob a bank because they couldn't take on the SWAT team.

[ambartanen]

How often in fiction do people actually kill more than that in a battle? How often do they face armies of thousands and slaughter them all? It's rare, and it's not necessary for a character to be heroic. Harry Dresden couldn't face down an army of thousands, and he's a powerful wizard. Even against the Red Court, he needed backup that included more powerful wizards and the old man. His adventures are awesome fantasy fun. Even Hurin in the Silmarillion wasn't facing more an a couple hundred when he was captured, and they were purposefully avoiding killing him. An army of 200 is small for an army, but it's enormous compared to a single person.

I agree with you entirely and that's why we are saying being able to slaughter thousands vastly inferior combatants in a single uninterrupted fight is neither required nor expected of a powerful hero or villain. One of the original complaints was that thousands of pathologically fearless villagers proficient with longbows who are not turned off by the very likely death of all their loved ones and themselves can very likely take down a CR 20 critter. Many of us are arguing that that isn't a problem just an extremely unlikely situation.

Similarly, a group of 20th level characters if left unopposed should be able to turn the tides of most even vaguely equal battles without necessarily being able to take on the armies of a whole Empire by themselves.

[MeeposFire]

Yes high level characters should be able to defeat an army but it should be a challenge that requires actual effort and thought. I think the current 5e rules support that. At least to me that is how I have been feeling.

[LordVonDerp]

Plus, sufficiently powerful characters CAN defeat armies, they just need to use some strategy besides "Stand in an open field and let the whole army attack me at once".

Lets go back to our Ancient or Adult Red Dragon trying to topple a kingdom. Yes, the Dragon will lose if it sits there while the army shoots it with crossbows. But if it wants to topple the kingdom, it's not going to do that. It's going to swoop in at night, light the castle on fire, and kill the royal family and the generals. It's going to send the soldiers running in terror, then it's going to leave.
It's going to know that a few hundred, determined soldiers armed with ranged weapons pose a threat to it, so it's going to take steps to prevent that from happening. It's going to attack where the army isn't, or when the army is sleeping. It's going to use chaos and fear to stop the army from massing for the volleys that might threaten it. Soldiers will panic and run, generals who would keep them in line will die.

Saying that a monster can't singlehandedly threaten a kingdom because it can't beat the army in open combat is like saying a group of criminals can't rob a bank because they couldn't take on the SWAT team.

Sounds like a terrible design for castle.

[obryn]

BTW, outright immunity to non-magical weapons seems to be fairly common for very-high-CR monsters, allowing them to wade through armies and skeletal hordes with virtual impunity.

(This is why you hire 100 High Elves with Flame Bolt cantrips to kill the Tarrasque instead.)

(It is also why modern cities have ceased teaching their soldiers and militias how to fire bows, and have instead made them sit down and learn how to cast cantrips.)

[LordVonDerp]

I'm sorry, but why are we conceding that a level 20 party can't face an army and win? I can think of half a dozen spells that can rip an army to pieces. Let's say you have a Paladin, Barbarian, Wizard, Ranger, and Druid. Your first round would at the very least cut an army of 200 militiamen in half. Your second round would leave a few stragglers alive at the most. How long does a larger army's courage last with losses like that?

200 peasent militia is not an army. Even Sparta was regularly able to field an army of 2000 men and the average spartan soldier would have at least 10 levels of fighter and immunity to fear.

[JohnDaBarr]

Sounds like a terrible design for castle.

It's not that easy to make a dragonprof castle, primary because that is not their purpose.

But now to the point!!
WHY does everyone solve every possible engagement between random adversaries in a pitch battle every fuuken time!! First its unimaginative (and yes I am looking at you WH40k tabletop), and second no intelligent being does that.... Any being with a little survivor know-how (and I assume a epic lvl creature or 20 lvl somebody are experts at surviving because they stayed alive to reach that point) knows it's better to attack your enemy when he is weak and also knows how to make that happen sooner rather than later.

A dragon, by my reasoning, would take on a Roman legion first by destroying their supply's and logistics, poisoned their water and cutting of their retreat and then he would wait a week so when he comes 90% of them won't be able to stand from hunger and diarrhea. Also an army would face a dragon by attempting to stop him from doing that and also by trying to lure him in a disadvantage.

Same thing with 20 lvl characters, they are waay better than ordinary folks but still they also have a breaking point, they need to sleep, eat, drink and rest soo you simply push them and engage them when they are weak. But also that is the point of every great story, it's easy to be brave, strong and resourceful when you are rested and in top shape, but true heroes (and antiheroes) are brave, stubborn, resourceful and wiling to go on when they are well beyond their physical and mental strength.

[Bellberith]

BTW, outright immunity to non-magical weapons seems to be fairly common for very-high-CR monsters, allowing them to wade through armies and skeletal hordes with virtual impunity.

(This is why you hire 100 High Elves with Flame Bolt cantrips to kill the Tarrasque instead.)

(It is also why modern cities have ceased teaching their soldiers and militias how to fire bows, and have instead made them sit down and learn how to cast cantrips.)

Tarrasque is immune to fire and magic missile, line spell, or ranged attack roll spells. but i see what you mean lol.

[EvilAnagram]

200 peasent militia is not an army. Even Sparta was regularly able to field an army of 2000 men and the average spartan soldier would have at least 10 levels of fighter and immunity to fear.

Let's not let legends get in the way of history. Spartans were well-trained, yes, but I don't think that translates to 10 levels of fighter and an immunity to fear. Their superiority relied on their training, sticking to formation, and superior armor. I'd give them advantage on saving throws against fear, and their commanders would have some fighter levels, but they weren't an unstoppable army. Badass, yes, but not herculean monsters.

[micahwc]

Darth Vader doesn't care about fighting common soldiers because he has his own legions of common soldiers to throw at problems, not because he could single-handedly kill all things himself.

Though he could totally kill them all himself.

[Sartharina]

Let's not let legends get in the way of history. Spartans were well-trained, yes, but I don't think that translates to 10 levels of fighter and an immunity to fear. Their superiority relied on their training, sticking to formation, and superior armor. I'd give them advantage on saving throws against fear, and their commanders would have some fighter levels, but they weren't an unstoppable army. Badass, yes, but not herculean monsters.

I'd say the average Spartan Warrior was level 3(Out of all Greeks). The 300, though, were at least level 5+. And even then, they horribly sucked against archers.
Though he could totally kill them all himself.
My experience with Star Wars Battlefront says otherwise. Even the movies say powerful Jedi Knights like Mace Windu and Obi-Wan couldn't solo entire armies without a way to break it into smaller, more manageable chunks.

[micahwc]

Most people don't remember history well enough to know that the 300 spartans (level 5, level 10, whatever) also had more than 1000 allies with them during the fighting. I'm guessing they where level 1 militia members.

Breaking the opposing army into smaller pieces is standard tactics for any small elite group.

[Sartharina]

Most people don't remember history well enough to know that the 300 spartans (level 5, level 10, whatever) also had more than 1000 allies with them during the fighting. I'm guessing they where level 1 militia members.They also had more spartans. The 300 were merely the ones that stood behind after they were betrayed and surrounded.

[micahwc]

They also had more spartans. The 300 were merely the ones that stood behind after they were betrayed and surrounded.

Touche (filling space requirements here)

[EvilAnagram]

And they actually did really well against archers. Every volley used against them did minimal damage thanks to their excellent bronze armor.

[rlc]

i'm only going to respond to a couple things, even though i originally had a pretty lengthy post:
Considering that Atropus deleterious effects are resisted with saving throws, and the non will save proficient fighter 20 has the same will save bonus as a fighter 1, this is not actually the case. The fighter has a no better chance of not going insane than a horde of commoners with crossbows...so basically, you want to be really good at things you made a conscious decision to not bother using? that sounds like a terrible idea.

Perhaps they'll add epic levels?

Even though I agree that the scaling is worse in 5e than 3.5 or 4th, perhaps a bit too low ... there's still a huge difference between a level 20 and a level 1. Perhaps not in AC scores and to hit (although +2 compared to +11 is pretty significant), but also in terms of class abilities and feats.why wouldn't they add epic levels? i'm pretty sure it's a foregone conclusion that they'll do that.
but anyway, i disagree that the scaling is "worse" just because the numbers aren't needlessly inflated. i think it's much better this way.

[ambartanen]

A dragon, by my reasoning, would take on a Roman legion first by destroying their supply's and logistics, poisoned their water and cutting of their retreat and then he would wait a week so when he comes 90% of them won't be able to stand from hunger and diarrhea. Also an army would facing a dragon by attempting to stop him from doing that and also by trying to lure him in a disadvantage.

I was just thinking how being part of a Roman legion assigned the task of killing a powerful dragon can actually be a really fun campaign. You have a hierarchical power structure, all kinds of experts and artisans traveling with you, logistical aims and allies, interactions with local powers, hunting down myths and learning the terrain, figuring out if there even is a dragon, where it is, if it has allies, who they are, can you make them betray it or find allies of your own... so many really fun and interesting things to do and an epic final boss battle on the horizon all along but one you have a very specific vested interest in influencing ahead of time as much as possible.

[Sartharina]

And they actually did really well against archers. Every volley used against them did minimal damage thanks to their excellent bronze armor.

True, to an extent. "Our Trachinian friend brings us excellent tidings. If the Medes darken the sun, we shall have our fight in the shade.":smallbiggrin:

[Beleriphon]

I was just thinking how being part of a Roman legion assigned the task of killing a powerful dragon can actually be a really fun campaign. You have a hierarchical power structure, all kinds of experts and artisans traveling with you, logistical aims and allies, interactions with local powers, hunting down myths and learning the terrain, figuring out if there even is a dragon, where it is, if it has allies, who they are, can you make them betray it or find allies of your own... so many really fun and interesting things to do and an epic final boss battle on the horizon all along but one you have a very specific vested interest in influencing ahead of time as much as possible.

Plus around 4500+ NPCs to interact with on a regular basis. I can imagine most players having a heart attack when they being to realize how hard it is to actually get 4500 or more soldiers moving in the same direction at a decent pace.

[Mikeavelli]

It should be noted that Storm of Vengence (9th level, 360 ft radius) and Tsunami (8th level, 300 feet long, 300 feet tall, 50 feet thick, moves 50 feet per round, covering up to 300 feet total) are both capable of, if not single-handedly destroying an army, then certainly scattering the center of their camp into nothing.

A caster that teleported in, cast a few spells, and then teleported out once a day would be able to tear an arbitrarily large army apart within just a few days. There is literally nothing that could be done to stop them by low-level army personnel. Even higher level characters who aren't casters themselves would have a rough time of it.

[Tvtyrant]

It should be noted that Storm of Vengence (9th level, 360 ft radius) and Tsunami (8th level, 300 feet long, 300 feet tall, 50 feet thick, moves 50 feet per round, covering up to 300 feet total) are both capable of, if not single-handedly destroying an army, then certainly scattering the center of their camp into nothing.

A caster that teleported in, cast a few spells, and then teleported out once a day would be able to tear an arbitrarily large army apart within just a few days. There is literally nothing that could be done to stop them by low-level army personnel. Even higher level characters who aren't casters themselves would have a rough time of it.

The Wheel of Time, Sword of Truth and Prince of Nothing series' did a fine job of explaining why AoE attacks combined with flying/teleportation is a winning combo. Especially in the Prince of Nothing where casters are effectively capable of defeating unprepared armies single handedly.

[Millennium]

But 5e is even worse in this regard. You can't be a Hero of Legend if you are threatened by town millitia.
That's not a Hero of Legend; that's a Mary Sue. Even the heroes of real legend are still eventually defeated, and often by surprisingly mundane means. This is what makes their stories interesting.

Being threatened by town militia and being able to defeat (personally) kingdom threatening monsters at the same time does not make any sense.
It makes perfect sense.

Its like saying you can take both Klichko brothers in the ring, but can lose in a barfight with random drunks (assuming no surprise).
This sort of thing happens all the time.

[LordVonDerp]

Let's not let legends get in the way of history. Spartans were well-trained, yes, but I don't think that translates to 10 levels of fighter and an immunity to fear. Their superiority relied on their training, sticking to formation, and superior armor. I'd give them advantage on saving throws against fear, and their commanders would have some fighter levels, but they weren't an unstoppable army. Badass, yes, but not herculean monsters.

We're discussing a world based on legend, so one must keep that in mind when discussing the abilities of an army with the reputation of Sparta.

As for fear you have to look at how they viewed death, namely that they were more afraid of failing each other and Sparta then they were of dying. Now the worst thing a dragon can do is kill them, same as an army.

Of course they weren't an unstoppable army, . They did, however, have a LOT of training, more than enough to gain 10 levels of fighter.

[hawklost]

We're discussing a world based on legend, so one must keep that in mind when discussing the abilities of an army with the reputation of Sparta.

As for fear you have to look at how they viewed death, namely that they were more afraid of failing each other and Sparta then they were of dying. Now the worst thing a dragon can do is kill them, same as an army.

Of course they weren't an unstoppable army, . They did, however, have a LOT of training, more than enough to gain 10 levels of fighter.

Except in the references of DnD, lvl 10 characters are extremely rare. People who hit lvl 11 or above are pretty much legendary in their own right. Saying that every single on of the Spartan Warriors is close to Legendary in their right does not make sense. At best, I would estimate them at lvl 5-6 as Fighters (if that, they would probably be an NPC class that has some fighter abilities but not all of them, probably with more HP than a lvl 5 Fighter but less versatility otherwise)

Also, claiming that they are not afraid because they fear failing each other would at best give them Advantage on their save, not immunity. We are talking about a magical effect that induces fear, not some mundane fear of failing or dying. It reaches into the most primal parts of the brain/soul and brings out your true fears to make you flee.

[EvilAnagram]

Of course they weren't an unstoppable army, . They did, however, have a LOT of training, more than enough to gain 10 levels of fighter.

The chances of this argument bearing fruit are slim to none. In my opinion, a tenth level fighter should be exceedingly rare. An army of them is ludicrous. Your opinion is different, and I have no wish to continue this discussion.

[Sartharina]

The Spartans have trained that part away. Don't give me the 'It's Magic', bull**** - Courage should be just as effective against magic as mundane fears.


That said - not ALL Spartans would be immune to fear, as given by the historical records and quotes from Spartan Women killing/mocking their sons from running away from battle.

[EvilAnagram]

The Spartans have trained that part away. Don't give me the 'It's Magic', bull**** - Courage should be just as effective against magic as mundane fears.


That said - not ALL Spartans would be immune to fear, as given by the historical records and quotes from Spartan Women killing/mocking their sons from running away from battle.

That's why I suggested advantage against fear checks. A good Spartan has a very good chance of resisting the urge to flee. That said, I'm willing to bet that many Spartans would flee if they found themselves staring down an angry dragon.

If we were statting a Spartan army, I'd give the commanders ten levels of fighter, the NCOs five, and the mooks one or two. They'd have advantage on fear checks, and they would be well equipped. That's a pretty nasty army right there.

[micahwc]

I would make the advantage against fear an Army feature, not an individual feature. They get it while fighting together as a coherent army, in formation, while the leaders are alive. Once things start breaking down the advantage would go away. That's probably how I would stat most armies. A list of army features that are removed as key leaders are killed, formations break down, etc.

[Sartharina]

I would make the advantage against fear an Army feature, not an individual feature. They get it while fighting together as a coherent army, in formation, while the leaders are alive. Once things start breaking down the advantage would go away. That's probably how I would stat most armies. A list of army features that are removed as key leaders are killed, formations break down, etc.

Spartans would have Advantage against fear individually, and Immunity army-wide.

[hawklost]

I would make the advantage against fear an Army feature, not an individual feature. They get it while fighting together as a coherent army, in formation, while the leaders are alive. Once things start breaking down the advantage would go away. That's probably how I would stat most armies. A list of army features that are removed as key leaders are killed, formations break down, etc.

I like the idea of using Army Features if you are going to try to have an army out there. It would also promote PCs going and attacking certain people in the Army instead of trying to wipe it out directly. The More leadership they destroy, the better their own army (if they have one) can defeat the enemies, even if the enemies has more creatures.

Makes me feel like there are Morale bonuses based on how good your leadership is.

[Beige]

[quote]Of course they weren't an unstoppable army, . They did, however, have a LOT of training, more than enough to gain 10 levels of fighter.

hahahahah. no

level 10+ is described in the PhB as being powerful enough to change the fate of an entire nation. if every spartan (who as their height had a standing army of 7892 men - thank god for greek cencuses - and near twice as many squires/runners/supporters etc) was that strong, they would have conquered the world single handedly

they where at best level 4-5, if that.

[LordVonDerp]

Except in the references of DnD, lvl 10 characters are extremely rare. People who hit lvl 11 or above are pretty much legendary in their own right. Saying that every single on of the Spartan Warriors is close to Legendary in their right does not make sense. At best, I would estimate them at lvl 5-6 as Fighters (if that, they would probably be an NPC class that has some fighter abilities but not all of them, probably with more HP than a lvl 5 Fighter but less versatility otherwise)

Also, claiming that they are not afraid because they fear failing each other would at best give them Advantage on their save, not immunity. We are talking about a magical effect that induces fear, not some mundane fear of failing or dying. It reaches into the most primal parts of the brain/soul and brings out your true fears to make you flee.

If you want to run a world where no one bothers to train soldiers to higher than 5th level then go ahead. But the abilities of a level 10 fighter are not "legendary". There isn't even anything particularly legendary about a level 15 fighter.

Magic makes no difference, fear is fear. And I never claimed they wouldn't be afraid, but it is how a person deals with fear that matters.

[LordVonDerp]

[QUOTE=LordVonDerp;18061898]

hahahahah. no

level 10+ is described in the PhB as being powerful enough to change the fate of an entire nation. if every spartan (who as their height had a standing army of 7892 men - thank god for greek cencuses - and near twice as many squires/runners/supporters etc) was that strong, they would have conquered the world single handedly

they where at best level 4-5, if that.

What the phb claims about a character doesn't mean much. The character's actual abilities make all difference.

[EvilAnagram]

What the phb claims about a character doesn't mean much.

And that's why this argument is destined to be fruitless.

[MadBear]

[QUOTE=Beige;18062354]

What the phb claims about a character doesn't mean much. The character's actual abilities make all difference.

Yeah, abilities are important, but lets look at that lvl 15 guy you said wasn't particularly legendary.

Over the course of 6 seconds, he'll routinely kill 2-4 average people. He'll also be able to take the damage of roughly 15-20 average men before succumbing to his wounds. On top of that, he'll probably be at the peak of human potential in his most used abilities, and probably also have special additional training (feats).

... but you're right, that wouldn't make someone legendary at all. :smallwink:


Also, if we're going to just throw what the phb has to say about character levels out the window, I guess there's no point in further discussion. You're essentially saying, I'm right, because I'm right, even if the book says otherwise.

[Sartharina]

[QUOTE=Beige;18062354]

What the phb claims about a character doesn't mean much. The character's actual abilities make all difference.There is a lot legendary about a level 10 fighter - they fight stronger than three trained warriors alone (As in per-round DPS), can best multiple legendary monsters in single combat, shrug off devastating blows... the list goes on.

You're just undervaluing what the fighter's extra attacks and hitpoints actually translate to in the game.

[ambartanen]

Whether someone is legendary is a lot better defined by what they have done than how capable they are of doing things. You can have an army consisting entirely of 20th level fighters and not a single one of them will be legendary to the players if they are just nameless extras lined up in formation and hidden behind a shield wall. So if we drop the discussion about how legendary (or not) the spartans were, we can consider what fraction of people would normally be expected to reach a certain level. While the DMG will likely have some guidelines it is ultimately down to the preferences of the DM. Personally, I usually go for something along the lines of one in ten thousand people reach 10th level and, at most, one in a hundred thousand reach 20th level. So a large fantasy city (200-300 thousand denizens) would have a few hundred level 10+ NPCs running around and maybe an epic character or two if they have a reason to be there. Then again, epic characters in DnD hardly need society anymore so they are just as likely to be hanging out in their fortress of solitude or communing with a greater deity in the outer planes, as they are to be found ruling a city.

So by the logic I usually apply when DMing, Sparta wouldn't be capable of fielding an army of 10th level warriors but assuming they were the cream of the crop of spartan citizenry, the 300 might all be 10th level.

[Sartharina]

Your numbers are too large by half.

I really think D&D should saw off levels 10-20 to recalibrate expectations.

Levels 1-5 are "Normal." Levels 5-10 are "Heroic", Levels 10-15 are "Legendary", Levels 15-20 are "Epic".

The thing about Sparta, though, was that it was Legendary compared to the rest of Greece. Out of the top 100 Greeks at any given time, 99 of them are Spartans.

[hawklost]

Whether someone is legendary is a lot better defined by what they have done than how capable they are of doing things. You can have an army consisting entirely of 20th level fighters and not a single one of them will be legendary to the players if they are just nameless extras lined up in formation and hidden behind a shield wall. So if we drop the discussion about how legendary (or not) the spartans were, we can consider what fraction of people would normally be expected to reach a certain level. While the DMG will likely have some guidelines it is ultimately down to the preferences of the DM. Personally, I usually go for something along the lines of one in ten thousand people reach 10th level and, at most, one in a hundred thousand reach 20th level. So a large fantasy city (200-300 thousand denizens) would have a few hundred level 10+ NPCs running around and maybe an epic character or two if they have a reason to be there. Then again, epic characters in DnD hardly need society anymore so they are just as likely to be hanging out in their fortress of solitude or communing with a greater deity in the outer planes, as they are to be found ruling a city.

So by the logic I usually apply when DMing, Sparta wouldn't be capable of fielding an army of 10th level warriors but assuming they were the cream of the crop of spartan citizenry, the 300 might all be 10th level.

And that is the problem we have here. You define a 1 in 10,000 chance for a lvl 10 while someone else might define a 1 in 10,000 chance of even having someone reach level 5.

They might then say that it is a 1 in a 500,000 chance to reach lvl 10 and a 1 in 50 million or so lvl 20 (except PCs, who break all molds). In that case the city would be full of lvl 5s with very few lvl 10s ever seen throughout the world and only 2 or 3 lvl 20s. Not only that, but it could be even rarer for them to make it that way in PC classes (which could be considered harder to achieve then NPC style classes)

PCs of course ignore those normal rules because they were just born exceptional and they choose to do an exceptional vocation and they are exceptionally lucky.

EDIT:
I agree more with how Sartharina's idea above equates to a DnD world. I personally do not want to have every Tavern owner being a retired lvl 10/20 adventurer or every random person I see have even levels. I like to think that someone who makes it to 5 is doing exceptionally well in life and are considered close to being Elite in the eyes of commoners. Lvl 10+ should be for those who have made a name for themselves (either directly them or somehow just their deeds). They are the kind of people who when they walk into any town or City, people whisper about.

[hawklost]

snip

The thing about Sparta, though, was that it was Legendary compared to the rest of Greece. Out of the top 100 Greeks at any given time, 99 of them are Spartans.

I have to disagree with the statement there. I think that has more to do with the stories that were told than reality. Most of the Greek Armies were volunteers who did it more part time. The Spartan's were the only real force with a dedicated army. Therefore you are comparing a normal force of trained Militia to a standing army and saying the army is legendary, although technically true, it is no different than taking an amateur ball player and comparing him to the lowest of the Pros. The lowest Pro is Not legendary and noone will remember him later in life but he sure as heck is better than most amateurs.

[LordVonDerp]

The chances of this argument bearing fruit are slim to none. In my opinion, a tenth level fighter should be exceedingly rare. An army of them is ludicrous. Your opinion is different, and I have no wish to continue this discussion.

My opinion is that military commanders are neither idiots nor are they willing to accept 50% casualty rates. Consider the following:
Fireball does 8d6 damage for an average of 28
A level 3 fighter with 14 con would be expected to have 28 HP.

Fireball hits everything in a 20 ft radius which depending on how dense the formations are (I'm estimating 3-4 foot squares rather than the normal 5foot square, though it could go even higher), were looking at 80-150 deaths with one spell.
Now multiply that by 100, or 1000, or 10000. And with abilities like that what commander wouldn't want 1000 of them? And it's not like spellcasting isn't just another skill that can be trained, or like it would take much longer than longbow training.

So yeah.

[LaserFace]

Why would a Commander know what a hit point is, or the 'average' damage dealt by a fireball? How would the Commander know at which point his soldiers had sufficient hit points?

Are wizards mystical scholars who are few-and-far between, or are they all doing fire tests in the lab to help this Commander out? Did the Wizards eyeball some of the new recruits and say "Yeah, X many of these guys are likely to be blasted by our average fireball, but your sergeants should be fine."

I'm really confused.

[hawklost]

My opinion is that military commanders are neither idiots nor are they willing to accept 50% casualty rates. Consider the following:
Fireball does 8d6 damage for an average of 28
A level 3 fighter with 14 con would be expected to have 28 HP.

Fireball hits everything in a 20 ft radius which depending on how dense the formations are (I'm estimating 3-4 foot squares rather than the normal 5foot square, though it could go even higher), were looking at 80-150 deaths with one spell.
Now multiply that by 100, or 1000, or 10000. And with abilities like that what commander wouldn't want 1000 of them? And it's not like spellcasting isn't just another skill that can be trained, or like it would take much longer than longbow training.

So yeah.

Yes, but how many armies could have a Fireball being thrown around. If you consider a lvl 3 Warrior to be decently trained and not super common, how many armies have a Highly Trained Caster that is lvl 5+?

a 20 ft radius is spell in DnD can kill a max of 40 people (Even then, you could estimate that 33% would not be killed or out of action). Since we are in DnD time and No one can share a space, it stays the same and trying to change that just to get more bodies is breaking out of DnD calculations. Even if you increase that by 50% by saying squares are 3.5 ft, you still only kill a potential of 60 people, not your 80-150.

What a Commander would want and what he can get are also completely different. A Commander would always want the most powerful well trained force he can get, but he settles for what is out there.

If you could find an army of lvl 5+ Wizards that is 10,000 strong then yes, they are extremely powerful. of course, they are only powerful for a few times per day before being able to be destroyed at long range by an army of 10,000 Archers on an open field, but you are trying specifically for making them seem invincible.

If most armies consist of lvl 3 Warrior with a few lower and a few higher (go figure, not everyone is trained the exact same or have been in the army for the same length) then finding a large amount of lvl 5 anything would be kind of hard. Heck, you are thinking that all Casters are using PC classes, which in 5e is not the case, so they might never know Fireball or something like it.

EDIT:
finally, I have to agree with LaserFace. In most campaign settings, there are many fewer casters than there are of warriors. Where you might find a fighting force of 300+ Warriors, you might only see 1 or 2 casters (look at the Dragonlance books raistlin chronicles and you can see that even a 1st level caster is rare in the ranks)

[ambartanen]

Why would a Commander know what a hit point is, or the 'average' damage dealt by a fireball? How would the Commander know at which point his soldiers had sufficient hit points?

The commander doesn't know anything about hit points or average damage. The commander does know that a fireball will kill almost any soldier it hits unless the soldier gets extremely lucky or is one of the few extremely experienced veterans that has the reflexes to protect himself from it at least most of the time. The commander probably also knows that lobbing fireballs at the enemy grunts is a bad tactical use for the very few moderate level wizards he controls since the moment one reveals himself he'll get slammed with a volley of +4/1d8+2 longbow arrows and likely die immediately.

[rlc]

They will know that there are a lot of spells that can hurt them, a lot of spells that can kill them and a lot of spells that can do both. They will also know that there are some spells that don't hurt them, but that they won't be seeing those as much.

[1337 b4k4]

It's also worth noting that (especially in early D&D, but certainly carried through) wizards are artillery. Heck, you even had to call range and angles on the original fireball. Your average commander in D&D isn't going to be fielding his or her soldiers based on how many of them can survive a fireball any more than a modern commander is going to be fielding his or her soldiers based on how many of them can survive a howitzer.

[Broken Twin]

The fact that a massive army of low level people can work together to attempt to bring down a high level monster can only be seen as a plus in my book. The lack of that was one of the things I truly disliked about 3.5.

[LaserFace]

The commander doesn't know anything about hit points or average damage. The commander does know that a fireball will kill almost any soldier it hits unless the soldier gets extremely lucky or is one of the few extremely experienced veterans that has the reflexes to protect himself from it at least most of the time. The commander probably also knows that lobbing fireballs at the enemy grunts is a bad tactical use for the very few moderate level wizards he controls since the moment one reveals himself he'll get slammed with a volley of +4/1d8+2 longbow arrows and likely die immediately.

All of this sounds really reasonable to me.

It seemed like the person who I was addressing was suggesting that all their soldiers should be of sufficient level to survive a fireball, because the Commander was smart enough to train them to that degree. I was hoping there was an explanation for that, if I interpreted the argument correctly.

[TrexPushups]

We're discussing a world based on legend, so one must keep that in mind when discussing the abilities of an army with the reputation of Sparta.

As for fear you have to look at how they viewed death, namely that they were more afraid of failing each other and Sparta then they were of dying. Now the worst thing a dragon can do is kill them, same as an army.

Of course they weren't an unstoppable army, . They did, however, have a LOT of training, more than enough to gain 10 levels of fighter.

No way. Fighter is not every guy who trains real hard and learns dicipline. He is the 1 in a thousand warrior. Sparta would have some fighters but most of the soldiers would be mid level warriors. Leonidis is a fighter the almost all if the 300 are warriors.

[Sartharina]

No way. Fighter is not every guy who trains real hard and learns dicipline. He is the 1 in a thousand warrior. Sparta would have some fighters but most of the soldiers would be mid level warriors. Leonidis is a fighter the almost all if the 300 are warriors.You're underselling Sparta. Every Spartan's a Fighter. The other Greeks are Warriors, with a few Fighters. The 300 are the very best Fighters Sparta has.

[ambartanen]

All of this sounds really reasonable to me.

It seemed like the person who I was addressing was suggesting that all their soldiers should be of sufficient level to survive a fireball, because the Commander was smart enough to train them to that degree. I was hoping there was an explanation for that, if I interpreted the argument correctly.

A lot of the discussion centers around what level the soldiers would be but... I don't think they are supposed to be any level in 5e. They'd have a stat block and challenge rating like creatures do in 4e with two or three attacks and a special power or two.

[micahwc]

It's also worth noting that (especially in early D&D, but certainly carried through) wizards are artillery. Heck, you even had to call range and angles on the original fireball. Your average commander in D&D isn't going to be fielding his or her soldiers based on how many of them can survive a fireball any more than a modern commander is going to be fielding his or her soldiers based on how many of them can survive a howitzer.

Modern armies do train for this. Most soldiers in the US Army are very well versed on the average blast radius of most common explosive weapons. I know I want to be more that 10 meters from a grenade, more than 100 from a 155mm howitzer shell. Commanders know this as well, and formations (whether man, vehicle, or whatever) are adjusted for this. This is why convoys have a set distance between vehicles and why soldiers in line for food stand 5 paces apart from each other. So that minimal damage will be done when an AOE goes off unexpectedly. If fireballs are a common threat in your game world, than most average commanders are going to be aware of this and plan accordingly.

(And for what it's worth, I have personally survived a howitzer shell exploding close to me. If you know it's there it's not particularly hard to do. If you are surprised by it ((like I was)) then there isn't much you can do at all. )

[TrexPushups]

You're underselling Sparta. Every Spartan's a Fighter. The other Greeks are Warriors, with a few Fighters. The 300 are the very best Fighters Sparta has.

I would argue you are underselling fighters. The Greeks would not even be warriors. They would be militia.

My mental model here is the movie 300. Not because it is historically accurate but because it has a visual language and has been widely seen. Rule of thumb if the character does not have a name in the movie they don't have levels in fighter.

[Xetheral]

A lot of the discussion centers around what level the soldiers would be but... I don't think they are supposed to be any level in 5e. They'd have a stat block and challenge rating like creatures do in 4e with two or three attacks and a special power or two.

Do we know for sure yet if NPCs are all supposed to be built like monsters rather than PCs? Or do we need to wait for the MM/DMG before we find out?

[ambartanen]

Do we know for sure yet if NPCs are all supposed to be built like monsters rather than PCs? Or do we need to wait for the MM/DMG before we find out?

Well, nothing is stopping you from building a particular NPC the same way you would a PC character but would you really want to do that for every soldier in an army? And if you don't intend to give them any individuality then calling them second level warriors or whatever seems kind of pointless- just give them as much hp, to-hit and damage as you want them to have.

[Demonic Spoon]

Do we know for sure yet if NPCs are all supposed to be built like monsters rather than PCs? Or do we need to wait for the MM/DMG before we find out?

There are NPCs statted out in the DM section of the basic rules, and they do not have classes.

[Xetheral]

Well, nothing is stopping you from building a particular NPC the same way you would a PC character.

So long as that's true, I'm happy. If the assumptions behind PCs and NPCs are asymmetrical enough, however, then combat versus a given NPC concept becomes very different depending on which method it is built by.


There are NPCs statted out in the DM section of the basic rules, and they do not have classes.

Thanks! I've been diving into the PHB, but haven't yet checked out the basic DM rules--I'll do that.

[1337 b4k4]

Modern armies do train for this. Most soldiers in the US Army are very well versed on the average blast radius of most common explosive weapons. I know I want to be more that 10 meters from a grenade, more than 100 from a 155mm howitzer shell. Commanders know this as well, and formations (whether man, vehicle, or whatever) are adjusted for this. This is why convoys have a set distance between vehicles and why soldiers in line for food stand 5 paces apart from each other. So that minimal damage will be done when an AOE goes off unexpectedly. If fireballs are a common threat in your game world, than most average commanders are going to be aware of this and plan accordingly.

Sure, and it might be reasonable to D&D commanders to do this as well, but the discussion was with regards to whether armies would be made up of only mid-high level fighters only because commanders wouldn't accept 50% casualties from fireball attacks. That's what I was calling out as unreasonable.

[Tvtyrant]

You're underselling Sparta. Every Spartan's a Fighter. The other Greeks are Warriors, with a few Fighters. The 300 are the very best Fighters Sparta has.

The Spartans weren't that good. They had a formation that their opponent had never interacted with before, in the perfect terrain to deploy it, and they were specialized for that type of warfare. The Persians are famous for their cavalry, and successful invasions of Persia required incorporating Companion Cavalry who were influenced by Persian horsemen.

Having a massive field and type advantage against an enemy does not ipso facto make you better soldiers. Several armies rolled the Spartans when the field was not in their favor, and later even when it was. Their system was the best on earth, people are people.

[Doug Lampert]

They also had more spartans. The 300 were merely the ones that stood behind after they were betrayed and surrounded.

Nope, at least not more Spartiates which is what's normally meant. The pass garrison as a whole was roughly 10,000 Greeks from various cities but the Spartan contingent was 300 men, a grand total of 2 of them lived through the battle. One who'd been sent to the rear for a medical condition and one who'd been detached as a liaison officer to the Plateans (IIRC). The guy out on a medical hung himself for shame, the liaison officer lived and survived the war since he survived due to following orders (he was supposed to stay with the people he'd been detached to).

There were of course also Spartans with the fleet since it had a Spartan Admiral in command and a few Spartan ships. But only one Spartan who'd been in the pass was alive a short time after the battle.

The rear guard that was destroyed was the Spartans, Thebans, and Thessalonians and were covering the retreat of the contingents from other cities.

***

I would add, the Greek accounts indicate that the original Spartan survey of the pass said it would take several years of rebuilding the fortifications and then a minimum of 25,000 men to make a serious effort to hold the pass.

The Spartans were only there because the Athenians and other northern Greeks refused to agree to try to stop the Persians at Corinth till AFTER a real attempt had been made to hold the pass at Thermopylae, and the Spartans NEEDED the Athenian fleet to stay in action to have a chance of holding at Corinth.

Without the fleet intact and fighting, the Persians could have simply bypassed Corinth; and the fleet was about half Athenian and much of the rest was from other northern cities.

Holding at Corinth is the strategy the Spartans wanted, and the one that worked. But politically it wasn't possible to get the Athenians to agree to let their country be conquered and their homes be burned to benefit the Spartans without making it clear that Sparta was also "all-in" on the war and not simply trying to avoid a fight. They needed to KNOW that "hold at Corinth" was the Spartan strategy not because it was safer for Spartans, but because it was the only strategy that could work.

I seriously suspect that the 300 headed out with their senior officers all having been told. "This is probably impossible, but you absolutely need to either make it work anyway or all die trying. And if it comes down to dying trying, try to get as many of the non-spartans out as you can. We'll need them later, but we'll also really need 300 dead Spartiates. So don't retreat or surrender. No matter what."

[LordVonDerp]

[QUOTE=LordVonDerp;18062405]

Yeah, abilities are important, but lets look at that lvl 15 guy you said wasn't particularly legendary.

Over the course of 6 seconds, he'll routinely kill 2-4 average people. He'll also be able to take the damage of roughly 15-20 average men before succumbing to his wounds. On top of that, he'll probably be at the peak of human potential in his most used abilities, and probably also have special additional training (feats).

... but you're right, that wouldn't make someone legendary at all. :smallwink:


Also, if we're going to just throw what the phb has to say about character levels out the window, I guess there's no point in further discussion. You're essentially saying, I'm right, because I'm right, even if the book says otherwise.

Do I need to explain the age old wisdom "Show, Don't Tell"? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShowDonttell)
Basically it amounts to this: the book can claim anything, but that doesn't necessarily make it true,all that matters is how it works in play. For example, the 3.5 phb told us that "Of all classes, fighters have the best all-around fighting capabilities", yet we know this to be objectively false based on years of testing. The 5e Fighter certainly does a much better job of living up to that claim though.

A tenth level fighter MIGHT be able to kill 2-4 people in a round, but it's not very likely; assuming 20 strength the fighter has a +10 bonus to hit (magic items could boost it but then we aren't really talking about the capabilities of the person anymore) which might give a 80% chance to hit an untrained peasent militiaman (padded+shield) and will likely do enough damage to kill. But here's the thing, by the time Full Plate was in use, untrained peasent militias were falling out of use due to them being (appropriately enough) unskilled and undisciplined. Instead, either skilled free men or mercenaries were used (because they were more experienced). So maybe the target has two levels of fighter (admittedly still only an apprentice rather than a veteran but better than nothing), but then the target has 16+ hp and will most likely survive the first hit, so that's two hits to kill one guy.

[MadBear]

[QUOTE=MrPuppyTickler;18062432]

Do I need to explain the age old wisdom "Show, Don't Tell"? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShowDonttell)
Basically it amounts to this: the book can claim anything, but that doesn't necessarily make it true,all that matters is how it works in play. For example, the 3.5 phb told us that "Of all classes, fighters have the best all-around fighting capabilities", yet we know this to be objectively false based on years of testing. The 5e Fighter certainly does a much better job of living up to that claim though.

A tenth level fighter MIGHT be able to kill 2-4 people in a round, but it's not very likely; assuming 20 strength the fighter has a +10 bonus to hit (magic items could boost it but then we aren't really talking about the capabilities of the person anymore) which might give a 80% chance to hit an untrained peasent militiaman (padded+shield) and will likely do enough damage to kill. But here's the thing, by the time Full Plate was in use, untrained peasent militias were falling out of use due to them being (appropriately enough) unskilled and undisciplined. Instead, either skilled free men or mercenaries were used (because they were more experienced). So maybe the target has two levels of fighter (admittedly still only an apprentice rather than a veteran but better than nothing), but then the target has 16+ hp and will most likely survive the first hit, so that's two hits to kill one guy.

1st, I said level 15. Level 10 would kill fewer, but would still be significantly better.

From everything we've seen so far (which admittedly isn't everything) it's looking like NPC's won't get class levels.

If we take the commoner from the free basic DMG, they have

AC:10
to-hit: +2
Hp:4

So commoners will be hit 95% of the time. And the minimum damage dealt will kill them.

Now, for someone in the millitary, a guard fits more appropriately, and these would be your average troop.

AC: 16
To-Hit:+3
HP: 11

Now a dual wielding fighter (one of the weakest fighter builds) would probably have a 20 dex/str by this level and be dual wielding a d8 weapon. He'd have an AC of 18-19 depending of if he went full plate or leather. He'd swing for +10 so he'd hit 75% of the time, with 4 attacks. Each attack would do 9.5dmg per hit.

Looking at that, he'd likely kill 2, often kill 3, and once in awhile kill 4. This is without action surge, or any other daily ability he might have.

Also, by you giving an enemy 2 levels of fighter, you're already stating that their above the common soldier. That's a kick ass warrior right there. Maybe not legendary, but he'd be far and away better then the average soldier.

Edit: as to your show, don't tell statement: This addition is seeking to move away from invisible characters. And if you compare the average person in the world (commoner) to a 10 level of any character, that's pretty dang impressive, and I'd say looks pretty legendary.

[LordVonDerp]

Why would a Commander know what a hit point is, or the 'average' damage dealt by a fireball? How would the Commander know at which point his soldiers had sufficient hit points?

Are wizards mystical scholars who are few-and-far between, or are they all doing fire tests in the lab to help this Commander out? Did the Wizards eyeball some of the new recruits and say "Yeah, X many of these guys are likely to be blasted by our average fireball, but your sergeants should be fine."

I'm really confused.

who said the commander knew any of that? All he needs to know is that when his enemy's mages start casting volleys of fireballs, his untrained troops die in one hit while his elite troops take two or three. Of course not all commanders would care to learn the finer points of spellcraft, but every once in a while you would get some equivalent of Julius Caeser, Sun Tzu, or Napoleon who realizes that knowledge literally is power and redefines how wars will be fought for generations.

[LordVonDerp]

Yes, but how many armies could have a Fireball being thrown around. If you consider a lvl 3 Warrior to be decently trained and not super common, how many armies have a Highly Trained Caster that is lvl 5+?

One Army, at first anyway. That army will be made up of 5% people who can cast fireball, 5% people who can cast create food or water, and the other 90% can be whatever. Then, when that army manages to consistently rout a far larger force thanks to effective combined arms tactics and complete lack of any need for supply lines, everyone else will start copying them, and they'll be able to copy them because, and here is the important bit, magic is a skill like any other, one that can be trained

Also in 5e a 3rd level warrior is supposedly still just an apprentice, i say supposedly because such an assessment must be made based on their abilities, but then a wizard who can't cast fireball isn't likely to be hired to make huge holes in enemy armies.




a 20 ft radius is spell in DnD can kill a max of 40 people (Even then, you could estimate that 33% would not be killed or out of action). Since we are in DnD time and No one can share a space, it stays the same and trying to change that just to get more bodies is breaking out of DnD calculations. Even if you increase that by 50% by saying squares are 3.5 ft, you still only kill a potential of 60 people, not your 80-150.


(PI * 20 * 20) / (3*3) = 139.6
(PI * 20 * 20) / (4*4) = 78.5
so no, it would not max out at 40 people.

also, 5*5 = 25
4*4 = 16
3.5 * 3.5 = 12.25
3*3 = 9

so 3.5 foot squares would be more than twice the number of people in a given area.



What a Commander would want and what he can get are also completely different. A Commander would always want the most powerful well trained force he can get, but he settles for what is out there.

Unless a major leader like a king agrees with him, then efforts will be made to insure sufficiently trained troops are available.



If you could find an army of lvl 5+ Wizards that is 10,000 strong then yes, they are extremely powerful. of course, they are only powerful for a few times per day before being able to be destroyed at long range by an army of 10,000 Archers on an open field, but you are trying specifically for making them seem invincible.

If you can't find such an army, then build such an army. If you can't find that many lvl 5+ wizards, then build that many level 5+ wizards. It really is THAT simple.

Another note, do these archers happen to have Longbows? because thats 15 years of training from someone who has 15 years of training and so on. So not much easier than just training casters.




If most armies consist of lvl 3 Warrior with a few lower and a few higher (go figure, not everyone is trained the exact same or have been in the army for the same length) then finding a large amount of lvl 5 anything would be kind of hard. Heck, you are thinking that all Casters are using PC classes, which in 5e is not the case, so they might never know Fireball or something like it.

EDIT:
finally, I have to agree with LaserFace. In most campaign settings, there are many fewer casters than there are of warriors. Where you might find a fighting force of 300+ Warriors, you might only see 1 or 2 casters (look at the Dragonlance books raistlin chronicles and you can see that even a 1st level caster is rare in the ranks)
I can't say for certain why those settings have so few casters, maybe no one in the world has thought of it yet, maybe their afraid of it for whatever reason, or maybe the writers didn't know much about military history.
Go check out The Elder Scrolls, there are legions of armored mages, legions of other kinds of mages, and acadamies of magic, all because the people who live there realize that a good understanding of magic is essential to planning military strategy because of its massive impact on how battle are fought and wars are waged.
Which is probably why in Tamriel magic training is free to anyone who can show even a small amount of skill.

[LordVonDerp]

[QUOTE=LordVonDerp;18063854]

1st, I said level 15. Level 10 would kill fewer, but would still be significantly better.


right, 15th level, the math shows a 15th level fighter, i must've forgotten to go back and fix the word tenth



From everything we've seen so far (which admittedly isn't everything) it's looking like NPC's won't get class levels.

If we take the commoner from the free basic DMG, they have

AC:10
to-hit: +2
Hp:4

So commoners will be hit 95% of the time. And the minimum damage dealt will kill them.

Now, for someone in the millitary, a guard fits more appropriately, and these would be your average troop.

AC: 16
To-Hit:+3
HP: 11

Now a dual wielding fighter (one of the weakest fighter builds) would probably have a 20 dex/str by this level and be dual wielding a d8 weapon. He'd have an AC of 18-19 depending of if he went full plate or leather. He'd swing for +10 so he'd hit 75% of the time, with 4 attacks. Each attack would do 9.5dmg per hit.

Looking at that, he'd likely kill 2, often kill 3, and once in awhile kill 4. This is without action surge, or any other daily ability he might have.

If your fighting a group of commoners or town guards
as for npcs getting or not getting class levels that depends on them.



Also, by you giving an enemy 2 levels of fighter, you're already stating that their above the common soldier. That's a kick ass warrior right there. Maybe not legendary, but he'd be far and away better then the average soldier.

Depends on the average soldier. The second level fighter i mentioned represents the an adventurer at the start of his career, he has a little bit of experience fighting, but not a lot.
Which is to say he's the exact sort of person who started to form the bulk of European armies sometime between the 12th and 14th centuries. If, however, you want to have a world based on pre-crusades Europe then go right ahead.




Edit: as to your show, don't tell statement: This addition is seeking to move away from invisible characters. And if you compare the average person in the world (commoner) to a 10 level of any character, that's pretty dang impressive, and I'd say looks pretty legendary.
sure.

[MadBear]

Depends on the average soldier. The second level fighter i mentioned represents the an adventurer at the start of his career, he has a little bit of experience fighting, but not a lot.

This is where I believe me and you will part ways in disagreement.

Considering that one of the printed back-stories for your character is a soldier (with a possibly semi-high rank), I'd say a 2nd level character is already a better then the average soldier. Adventurers are supposed to be those extraordinary individuals who are a cut above the average person, and that includes the average soldier.

In 3.X I'd probably agree that a lvl 1-3 warrior was the average soldier, 4-6 a battlefield commander, and 7+ was your leaders. However, in 5th edition, they've pulled back on this scaling system. It's one reason that help avoid the numbers bloat.

Somewhere between a town guard and level 1 fighter, is going to be your average soldier, and that's pretty darn good for this world.

also when I said he'd kill 2-4 people every 6 seconds, I'm talking about an average person. Any non-adventuring person in town would fall to him, and the town guard would be at his mercy (barring a large number of them, which is good, and what I expect of a character of that level).

In a large battle a person of dropping people every couple of seconds is going to be terrifyingly effective, and legendary.

[Chambers]

OK, you got big red dragon terrorizing villages in the area. High-level heroes needed to stop it, right?

Nope! The couple hundred villagers all shoot their trusty hunter's bows at it for a couple of rounds and the dragon dies horribly due to ridiculously low AC and lack of DR in this edition. Then the villagers split the dragon's treasure among themselves.

I don't think that's plausible.

Each time the dragon hits with any of it's attacks (Bite, Claw, Tail, Wing Buffet, Breath Weapon), a villager (or multiple villagers) simply dies. The Commoner has a +2 attack bonus and thus needs a 17 or higher to hit the dragon. So each Commoner has a 20% chance to hit the dragon while the dragon only needs to not roll a 1 (95% chance to hit).

The Commoner has a +2 Proficiency bonus for Saves and needs a 17 to resist Frightful Presence, so only 20% of them will not be Frightened. Those other 80% will have Disadvantage on their attacks against the Dragon, so they need to have both 2d20's roll 17 or higher in order to hit. What's the probability on 2d20 above or equal to 17?

Do you really think that a fighting force of whom 80% have Disadvantage and need a 17 or higher to hit (on both d20's) and every one of them die in a single hit will really kill the Adult Red Dragon? I attempt to disbelieve. :smallsmile:

[Vowtz]

OK, you got big red dragon terrorizing villages in the area. High-level heroes needed to stop it, right?


Yes, the whole Smaug vs archer's Village thing is a lot harder to represent in 5e.


An adult Red Dragon will get his ass kicked and has no chance to do it. An older dragon, like Smaug, will succeed, but not unharmed, and maybe will need more than one day.

Numerical advantage is a great combat edge in this world of bounded accuracy, that's not necessarily a bad thing, it empowers some aspects of the game, like summons, and makes a big army menacing even for high level characters.

A CR 20 monster is not as impressive as it was in the past, if you want kingdom-level threats, you will probably need a CR 30 monster (not the poor Tarrasque, another one).


Bounded accuracy really sucks for skills, a trained level 20th fighter is far less intimidating than two commoners.

[Giant2005]

a trained level 20th fighter is far less intimidating than two commoners.
Is that sarcasm or hyperbole?

[Vowtz]

Is that sarcasm or hyperbole?

That's math.

[DDogwood]

Yes, the whole Smaug vs archer's Village thing is a lot harder to represent in 5e.


An adult Red Dragon will get his ass kicked and has no chance to do it. An older dragon, like Smaug, will succeed, but not unharmed, and maybe will need more than one day.

I don't think the Ancient Red Dragon stats represent Smaug very well in 5e. In The Hobbit, it's pretty clear that Smaug is immune to non-magical weapons.


Numerical advantage is a great combat edge in this world of bounded accuracy, that's not necessarily a bad thing, it empowers some aspects of the game, like summons, and makes a big army menancing even for high level characters.

A CR 20 monster is not as impressive as it was in the past, if you want kingdom-level threats, you will probably need a CR 30 monster (not the poor Tarrasque, another one).

I've seen a lot of people complaining about how bounded accuracy doesn't make big things threatening enough in 5e, but it seems that the examples always show a single monster mindlessly attacking a well-prepared opponent in an empty field. I can't think of an example of that happening in fantasy fiction. Even Smaug and Godzilla have the advantage of surprise in their attacks, and the terrain favors them.

No DM worth his salt would make a single monster a threat to a kingdom with such a pathetic plan. A good kingdom-level threat has to be an army of monsters (imagine armies of trolls backed by dragons!) or, at the very least, an intelligent monster who uses smart tactics.

An adult red dragon could EASILY destroy an army if he sneaks up at night, eats a few sentries, and sneaks off again, night after night, while making occasional hit-and-run raids on the baggage train. After a couple of days, he'll have a good idea of where the magic-users are, and he'll try to take them out if he gets a chance. He'll also likely drop rocks on the army from above ballista range several times a day, while they're marching or camping. After a week or two, the army will be running low on food and will be forced to forage. A dragon won't find it hard to hunt down and kill foraging parties. Soon, the army is starving, demoralized, and disorganized (even Spartans need to eat eventually), and soldiers will start deserting. The dragon doesn't even need to challenge the army in open battle, he just catches and eats it in bits and pieces.

Of course, at some point in there, the king/general/whatever hires our party of high-level adventurers to track down and kill the dragon, and we return to our regularly scheduled programming.

[Vowtz]

An adult red dragon could EASILY destroy an army if he sneaks up at night, eats a few sentries, and sneaks off again, night after night, while making occasional hit-and-run... raids on the baggage train. After a couple of days, he'll have a...

I don't think ninja dragons are standard enemies.

Maybe my vision is distorted but when I picture a dragon attack in my mind it's like a huge reptilian beast flying around and vomiting fire at people.


Yet I understand your point, tactics are important, but OP wants monsters that are so awesome that don't need tactics, they will just step into the field and kick ass. I think a CR 30 can do that in 5e.

[rlc]

whenever i see this:

Wing Buffethttp://a4.urbancdn.com/w/s/T0/oepJJYLS3NX0fi-640m.jpg

[Giant2005]

That's math.

That isn't math... It is the opposite of math - something I will henceforth dub "unmath".
A 20th level Fighter would be able to carve through 8 commoners before any of them had the time to beg for mercy. Reducing the number of commoners to 2 isn't exactly going to make them more threatening.

[ambartanen]

Bounded accuracy really sucks for skills, a trained level 20th fighter is far less intimidating than two commoners.

I don't understand what you mean. Intimidating as in bonus on the intimidate skill or what?

As for Smaug, it's not like it took out two hundred archers in under a minute while flying into arrow storms. Haven't read the Hobbit in ages but I thought it spent the whole afternoon attacking the town which was made entirely of wood. Most of the damage was just Smaugh setting a building on fire and flying away while ignoring the attacks of the 5-10 archers that were close enough to attack it. You can model that in 5e with short rests between each attack of the dragon which dramatically increases it's total available health.

[Vowtz]

Yes I was talking about the (intimidation) skill, and it seems I have to apologise, a level 20 fighter is not mathematically less intimidating than two commoners.


You need another one, three commoners are more intimidating than a 20th level fighter.

[MadBear]

Yes I was talking about the (intimidation) skill, and it seems I have to apologise, a level 20 fighter is not mathematically less intimidating than two commoners.


You need another one, three commoners are more intimidating than a 20th level fighter.

How? what am I missing?

[Vowtz]

A standard 5e 20th level fighter that is trained in intimidation has a +5 bonus at 20th level, to reach a total result of 15 he has a 55% chance.

A commoner has no bonus, just the dice, to reach 15 he's got 30% chance

Three commoners will have something like 66% chance, a lot more than fighter 20.


You can say that this fighter just sucks, but well, charisma is a dump sat for fighters, even if he has good cha it won't be greater than 14.

With 14'cha he's got +8 and will need 7 or more to reach a total result of 15, a chance of 70%.

Just add another commoner and you will have a better chance to succeed than the most intimidating fighter in all the world.

In term of skills, bounded accuracy makes impossible for a pure fighter to be good in anything aside from withstanding hits.

in 3e a 20th level fighter with cha 8 trained in intimidation would have +22, a commoner, or several, could not hope to compare.

You will say that it is too much, and I can almost agree, but it's obvious that +5 is too low.

[ambartanen]

I don't think that's how intimidation works. You don't give each person intimidating you a separate roll, you just give the commoners one roll between them with maybe an advantage if they are ganging up on you and you have a reason to fear them. Besides in your example the fighter isn't particularly good at intimidating people anyway. You could also give a 20th level fighter a much lower DC on intimidating someone than you would to a first level character if it seems appropriate. A newbie threatening to behead a dragon wouldn't be taken seriously but the legendary warrior of the kingdom is much more likely to be taken seriously.

[EvilAnagram]

A standard 5e 20th level fighter that is trained in intimidation has a +5 bonus at 20th level, to reach a total result of 15 he has a 55% chance.

A commoner has no bonus, just the dice, to reach 15 he's got 30% chance

Three commoners will have something like 66% chance, a lot more than fighter 20.


You can say that this fighter just sucks, but well, charisma is a dump sat for fighters, even if he has good cha it won't be greater than 14.

With 14'cha he's got +8 and will need 7 or more to reach a total result of 15, a chance of 70%.

Just add another commoner and you will have a better chance to succeed than the most intimidating fighter in all the world.

In term of skills, bounded accuracy makes impossible for a pure fighter to be good in anything aside from withstanding hits.

in 3e a 20th level fighter with cha 8 trained in intimidation would have +22, a commoner, or several, could not hope to compare.

You will say that it is too much, and I can almost agree, but it's obvious that +5 is too low.

Okay. You were talking about the intimidation skill, not combat.

Yes, throwing more dice is helpful, but a standard level 20 fighter has a +6 proficiency, and if they really wanted to they could have up to a +11 to Intimidation, needing a four or better to get a 15. However, most will have a +7 or +8.

Now, when making an intimidation skill, a group of commoners would make a single check, with advantage. As a DM, I would say that if they're all attempting it at the same time against the same target, they're making it together. With advantage, yes, but we're not dropping dice for every commoner. They need a 15 on the dice, like you said, and they're dropping two dice, so it's a probability of 51%.

To reach a 15 DC, a fighter at +7 needs an eight or higher, so that's 65% without advantage. With advantage, which shouldn't be too hard to get, it's about 88%.

[Demonic Spoon]

A standard 5e 20th level fighter that is trained in intimidation has a +5 bonus at 20th level, to reach a total result of 15 he has a 55% chance.

A commoner has no bonus, just the dice, to reach 15 he's got 30% chance

Three commoners will have something like 66% chance, a lot more than fighter 20.


You can say that this fighter just sucks, but well, charisma is a dump sat for fighters, even if he has good cha it won't be greater than 14.

With 14'cha he's got +8 and will need 7 or more to reach a total result of 15, a chance of 70%.

Just add another commoner and you will have a better chance to succeed than the most intimidating fighter in all the world.

In term of skills, bounded accuracy makes impossible for a pure fighter to be good in anything aside from withstanding hits.

in 3e a 20th level fighter with cha 8 trained in intimidation would have +22, a commoner, or several, could not hope to compare.

You will say that it is too much, and I can almost agree, but it's obvious that +5 is too low.

The Intimidate skill refers to how well you present yourself and use threats and body language to intimidate a person. Being a 20th level fighter does not intrinsically make you better at that.

Being a 20th level fighter does, however, add a lot of credibility to your threats, which a reasonable DM would represent in the form of a vastly lowered DC.

[Giant2005]

A standard 5e 20th level fighter that is trained in intimidation has a +5 bonus at 20th level, to reach a total result of 15 he has a 55% chance.

A commoner has no bonus, just the dice, to reach 15 he's got 30% chance

Three commoners will have something like 66% chance, a lot more than fighter 20.


You can say that this fighter just sucks, but well, charisma is a dump sat for fighters, even if he has good cha it won't be greater than 14.

With 14'cha he's got +8 and will need 7 or more to reach a total result of 15, a chance of 70%.

Just add another commoner and you will have a better chance to succeed than the most intimidating fighter in all the world.

In term of skills, bounded accuracy makes impossible for a pure fighter to be good in anything aside from withstanding hits.

in 3e a 20th level fighter with cha 8 trained in intimidation would have +22, a commoner, or several, could not hope to compare.

You will say that it is too much, and I can almost agree, but it's obvious that +5 is too low.

The level 20 Fighter is trying to intimidate a group of 8 commoners. He is a hero of legend and is easily able of cleaving them all in half in the blink of an eye and those Commoners know it. Even before he tries to intimidate them, they are already very cautious around him so the check is very easy. In order to Intimidate them, he has to beat a DC of 5 and is almost certain to do so.
The group of 3 commoners are trying to intimidate the same group of 8 commoners. They are outnumbered and have no reputation nor talent to close the gap - those 8 Commoners are very confident that the group of 3 couldn't back up any threats so the group of 3 have a hard time trying to Intimidate them. They have to beat a DC of 20 and are very unlikely to do so.

[Vowtz]

The Intimidate skill refers to how well you present yourself and use threats and body language to intimidate a person. Being a 20th level fighter does not intrinsically make you better at that.
Being trained at that should make you better.



Being a 20th level fighter does, however, add a lot of credibility to your threats, which a reasonable DM would represent in the form of a vastly lowered DC.

I understand you are agreeing with me on the inadequate skill system viewpoint, since your fix for this absurd is "DM fiat".

[Vowtz]

The level 20 Fighter is trying to intimidate a group of 8 commoners. He is a hero of legend and is easily able of cleaving them all in half in the blink of an eye and those Commoners know it. Even before he tries to intimidate them, they are already very cautious around him so the check is very easy. In order to Intimidate them, he has to beat a DC of 5 and is almost certain to do so.
The group of 3 commoners are trying to intimidate the same group of 8 commoners. They are outnumbered and have no reputation nor talent to close the gap - those 8 Commoners are very confident that the group of 3 couldn't back up any threats so the group of 3 have a hard time trying to Intimidate them. They have to beat a DC of 20 and are very unlikely to do so.
Yes, DMs have the power fix bad rules if they want.

[MadBear]

Let's not forget that the rules call out using other stats where appropriate. Strength is called out in particular.

[EvilAnagram]

Yes, DMs have the power fix bad rules if they want.

You're confusing DM fiat with a correct interpretation of the rules. DMs decide DCs based on context.

[Sartharina]

A standard 5e 20th level fighter that is trained in intimidation has a +5 bonus at 20th level, to reach a total result of 15 he has a 55% chance.

A commoner has no bonus, just the dice, to reach 15 he's got 30% chance

Three commoners will have something like 66% chance, a lot more than fighter 20.


You can say that this fighter just sucks, but well, charisma is a dump sat for fighters, even if he has good cha it won't be greater than 14.

With 14'cha he's got +8 and will need 7 or more to reach a total result of 15, a chance of 70%.

Just add another commoner and you will have a better chance to succeed than the most intimidating fighter in all the world.

In term of skills, bounded accuracy makes impossible for a pure fighter to be good in anything aside from withstanding hits.

in 3e a 20th level fighter with cha 8 trained in intimidation would have +22, a commoner, or several, could not hope to compare.

You will say that it is too much, and I can almost agree, but it's obvious that +5 is too low.Except that's not how Intimidate works. As soon as the first commoner bungles his Intimidate check, the others auto-fail - they're too busy looking like fools to be taken as a real threat. Social checks don't get do-overs, whether by you or someone else.

Being trained at that should make you better.It does - a +2 to +7 vs a +0.

[Malifice]

Being trained at that should make you better.




I understand you are agreeing with me on the inadequate skill system viewpoint, since your fix for this absurd is "DM fiat".

I thought the rules for DC's are 'The DM sets the DC based on circumstances'.

A bunch of commoners threatning a near epic fighter?

He lols.

[hawklost]

I thought the rules for DC's are 'The DM sets the DC based on circumstances'.

A bunch of commoners threatning a near epic fighter?

He lols.

That is how it is supposed to be, but a lot of people who argue it always want to ignore a DM being able to do things.

They think that a DC 15 to intimidate a Noble to give you something at lvl 1 would be the exact same DC for intimidating the same Noble to give you the exact same item at lvl 20. Ignore the fact that the difference between lots of things would make the DC different.

[Vowtz]

We are just talking about intimidation here, but bounded accuracy is a problem for all skills.

There are guidelines like:

Average: dc 15
Hard: dc 20
Very hard: dc 25

If a DM has to make a call and change DCs based on each specific character, what's the point of even having this rules? Just let him decide.

Variable DCs depending on DM disposition result in a highly unreliable skill system.

[hawklost]

We are just talking about intimidation here, but bounded accuracy is a problem for all skills.

There are guidelines like:

Average: dc 15
Hard: dc 20
Very hard: dc 25

If a DM has to make a call and change DCs based on each specific character, what's the point of even having this rules? Just let him decide.

Variable DCs depending on DM disposition result in a highly unreliable skill system.

Lets look at this

I am a lvl 1 fighter, no name, no record, nothing to me. I walk up to a powerful Orc chieftain demanding he leave. What is my DC? Probably something like very hard.

I am a lvl 20 Fighter known as Orc Slayer, I have killed hundred of orcs on the battlefield. I walk up to a powerful Orc Chieftain (same one from previous example, same time, he has not leveled or anything) and demand he leave. Do you honestly see the exact same DC for me in this case? Are you saying that a character lives in a vacuum and nothing changes the circumstances of a Social check?

[Malifice]

We are just talking about intimidation here, but bounded accuracy is a problem for all skills.

There are guidelines like:

Average: dc 15
Hard: dc 20
Very hard: dc 25

If a DM has to make a call and change DCs based on each specific character, what's the point of even having this rules? Just let him decide.

What DC (as a GM) would you apply to 3 commoners intimidating a 20th level Fighter (who is quite capable of cutting them down in about 2 seconds with no threat of defeat).

Thats pretty much the definition of 'Impossible'

Now whats the Fighters DC to intimidate them in return? Could he even fail?


Variable DCs depending on DM disposition result in a highly unreliable skill system.

Welcome to RPG's. Every game has GM's who set the DC's for PC's based on circumstance. Can you name me one that doesnt?

For social skills (like intimidate) this is mandatory to take into account roleplaying, reputation and a myriad of other factors.

Its why we have a GM.

[pwykersotz]

If a DM has to make a call and change DCs based on each specific character, what's the point of even having this rules? Just let him decide.

Variable DCs depending on DM disposition result in a highly unreliable skill system.

Maybe it's just me, but as both a DM and a player I'd rather have the skills be unreliable than have a detailed codified list of what they do and crack them open for RAW abuse and silliness.

Obviously the DM being consistent with the adjudication is important, so that the skills are reliable with respect to the person using them...but a hardline 'reliable' based on the number rolled is no fun for me.

[rlc]

We are just talking about intimidation here, but bounded accuracy is a problem for all skills.

There are guidelines like:

Average: dc 15
Hard: dc 20
Very hard: dc 25

If a DM has to make a call and change DCs based on each specific character, what's the point of even having this rules? Just let him decide.

Variable DCs depending on DM disposition result in a highly unreliable skill system.

"Why don't they just..." is exactly what they're doing, though. They're just setting guidelines for what numbers to use so that you don't have completely make it up as you go along, but other than that, the DM does get to decide what the difficulty of something is.

As for unreliability, though, I guess it's fair to have that opinion, but then I'm sure you'd pretty much have that same opinion for the entire campaign.

[ambartanen]

We are just talking about intimidation here, but bounded accuracy is a problem for all skills.

There are guidelines like:

Average: dc 15
Hard: dc 20
Very hard: dc 25

If a DM has to make a call and change DCs based on each specific character, what's the point of even having this rules? Just let him decide.

It's easy for a legendary hero to scare a tavern full of drunks (DC 10). It's hard for a kid who got recruited into the army a few weeks ago to do the same (DC 20). Yes, it is up to the DM because, in this case, the DM assigning an appropriate difficulty works a lot better than trying to make up rules for every single thing a character can ever imagine doing because the difficulty of a particular action is dictated by the world and narrative not the system. All the system does is tell you what number is appropriate for what difficulty. In this edition those suggested numbers actually work whereas in 3e DC 30 checks were easily beatable by specialized characters at middling levels.

Also you seem to imply that a 20th level fighter with practice but no natural talent for scaring people should be scarier than a 20th level wizard or druid with practice but no natural talent for scaring people. If you aren't implying this, then the character's class is irrelevant to the discussion.

Edit:
What DC (as a GM) would you apply to 3 commoners intimidating a 20th level Fighter (who is quite capable of cutting them down in about 2 seconds with no threat of defeat).
Well now. I can imagine ways in which those three commoners* might go about effectively intimidating a legendary fighter, it just wouldn't be with threats of physical violence. Maybe they have some way to ruin the hero's reputation or have captured someone he cares about. You know, things that go around the fact that it's a guy who's really good at killing people. Of course, they are playing a very dangerous game and even the slightest slip is likely to result in failure and death for the lot of them.

*I assume that's first level characers threatening an NPC since NPCs usually don't roll social checks against characters.

[Vowtz]

Lets look at this

I am a lvl 1 fighter, no name, no record, nothing to me. I walk up to a powerful Orc chieftain demanding he leave. What is my DC? Probably something like very hard.

I am a lvl 20 Fighter known as Orc Slayer, I have killed hundred of orcs on the battlefield. I walk up to a powerful Orc Chieftain (same one from previous example, same time, he has not leveled or anything) and demand he leave. Do you honestly see the exact same DC for me in this case? Are you saying that a character lives in a vacuum and nothing changes the circumstances of a Social check?

Are you saying that, if the level 20 trained fighter goes to a far away land where he is not known, it's ok for his intimidation to be inferior to that of 4 commoners?



Welcome to RPG's. Every game has GM's who set the DC's for PC's based on circumstance. Can you name me one that doesnt?

I'll have to dive into obscurity to answer that one...

D&D 5th edition

Player's handbook, page 182 "... You must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check..."

Took me ten seconds to find this example, I'm sure there's more.


I'm not saying that all DCs should be hard locked, I'm saying that if a DC to climb a stone wall is 15, then it's 15 for a commoner, 15 for a rogue and 15 for a level 20 mountain ranger.

The difference should be each character's skill check, not DM adjustments. And the difference in skill checks between trained characters and commoners is too slim.

If that Ranger is not str based, he is going to fall.

[Sartharina]

Are you saying that, if the level 20 trained fighter goes to a far away land where he is not known, it's ok for his intimidation to be inferior to that of 4 commoners?It's not. 4 commoners don't have any more luck than 2 commoners, because you only get one roll. If the first guy screws up, he screws it up for everyone who tries after him.

[Forum Explorer]

I'm not saying that all DCs should be hard locked, I'm saying that if a DC to climb a stone wall is 15, then it's 15 for a commoner, 15 for a rogue and 15 for a level 20 mountain ranger.

The difference should be each character's skill check, not DM adjustments. And the difference in skill checks between trained characters and commoners is too slim.

If that Ranger is not str based, he is going to fall.

The problem with it being based off the character's skill checks is that it leads to thinks like the Diplomancer. And then you get things like having +60 in diplomacy, and being able to turn any opponent from Hostile to Friendly 85% of the time, because the DM isn't adjusting things.

The current system isn't perfect, but it is better then 3.5 IMO.

[Sartharina]

... did they give a DC to climbing? Last I checked, almost all climb checks, sans "Sheer Surface", were "DC 0, Move at half speed unless you're a burglar". Also - D&D Next doesn't model incompetence.

DC 15 is "Keep climbing even if you're being attacked" - in which case it makes sense for a high-level ranger to still have a chance of failure.

[hawklost]

Are you saying that, if the level 20 trained fighter goes to a far away land where he is not known, it's ok for his intimidation to be inferior to that of 4 commoners?

Are you saying that someone who looks hardened and looks like he can handle himself should have the same dificulty intimidating people who look like they just got out of learning how to hold a sword/wand?

Even if the Fighter went to another land, he still would carry a presense with him. He would walk in a way to indicate he has seen battle, he would act in a way that he did. The look in his eyes would be of someone who has seen a hundred of those petty commoners wiped away in a blink while he stood forth against the forces of evil. So no, he would still be more intimidating than the 4 commoners in a foreign land.

Now, would I maybe say he is less intimidating than a Fighter who has his deeds known in that land and has everything else the same? Probably, because the one fighter could just say "remember when I slaughtered 50 enemies? Yea, I don't think you want to see a repeat of that right here" So he could get circumstance bonuses over a Foreign Fighter who couldn't say something like that exactly.



I'll have to dive into obscurity to answer that one...

D&D 5th edition

Player's handbook, page 182 "... You must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check..."

Took me ten seconds to find this example, I'm sure there's more.


I'm not saying that all DCs should be hard locked, I'm saying that if a DC to climb a stone wall is 15, then it's 15 for a commoner, 15 for a rogue and 15 for a level 20 mountain ranger.

The difference should be each character's skill check, not DM adjustments. And the difference in skill checks between trained characters and commoners is too slim.

If that Ranger is not str based, he is going to fall.

You are now trying to compare a check related to something that has non-static variables to a Social Check. One is purely a world object that doesn't care what you have done or didn't do. Another is a 'living' being who can have a different opinion one day to the next. You really can't say that just because you can point to a static DC check that a Social check is exactly the same thing.

[Vowtz]

The problem with it being based off the character's skill checks is that it leads to thinks like the Diplomancer. And then you get things like having +60 in diplomacy, and being able to turn any opponent from Hostile to Friendly 85% of the time, because the DM isn't adjusting things.

The current system isn't perfect, but it is better then 3.5 IMO.

I agree, but they are going too far, if skills are water we were on pacific ocean, now we're on sahara desert.

[Mr.Moron]

Are you saying that, if the level 20 trained fighter goes to a far away land where he is not known, it's ok for his intimidation to be inferior to that of 4 commoners?



I'll have to dive into obscurity to answer that one...

D&D 5th edition

Player's handbook, page 182 "... You must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check..."

Took me ten seconds to find this example, I'm sure there's more.


I'm not saying that all DCs should be hard locked, I'm saying that if a DC to climb a stone wall is 15, then it's 15 for a commoner, 15 for a rogue and 15 for a level 20 mountain ranger.

The difference should be each character's skill check, not DM adjustments. And the difference in skill checks between trained characters and commoners is too slim.

If that Ranger is not str based, he is going to fall.

This is hyperbolic hogwash. Many characters, especially humans with their +1 across the board are most likely going to have a +2 to drop even in a tertiary stat.

They succeed on a 11+, which is a straight 50/50 shot. Hardly "Going to fail territory". Even a +1 means 45% not great, but hardly a lost cause.

At any rate 15 seems pretty damn high for a stone wall, assuming someting fairly rough hewn. It's just not super-duper hard thing to do. I've seen kids climb up stone walls. I'd probably rate more along the lines of DC 10. Since they make that check on a 6+ it's probably not worth even asking for rolls to see every time they get stuck/pause on the way up (roll low and fail to make progress), unless something is chasing them up the walls.

A DC 15 is probably trying to climb a wet, rope on a rocking ship without dropping what's in your left hand.

[Envyus]

A CR 20 monster is not as impressive as it was in the past, if you want kingdom-level threats, you will probably need a CR 30 monster (not the poor Tarrasque, another one).

How is the Tarrasque not going to work. Nothing in the city can hurt it.

[Vowtz]

How is the Tarrasque not going to work. Nothing in the city can hurt it.

Some Tarrasque specialists convinced me that he's powerless against specific characters. Unfortunately I don't remember how it's done, maybe one of them will show up and enlighten us.

[DDogwood]

Some Tarrasque specialists convinced me that he's powerless against specific characters. Unfortunately I don't remember how it's done, maybe one of them will show up and enlighten us.

I'm no Tarrasque specialist, but I don't think it can do much against a flying character. A high-level Druid could probably drop rocks on it and maybe taunt it into falling down a chasm or something.

Alternately, you could base a fun adventure around trying to make an entire city float in the air before the Tarrasque arrives.

[Soular]

Heh, this reminds me of Witcher:

"Listen: two years ago peasants from some God-forsaken hole near Mahakam were plagued by a dragon devouring their sheep. They set out together, battered the dragon to death with stanchions, and did not even think it worth boasting about."

-The Last Wish, Andrzej Sapkowski

Perhaps this has always been a thing but those peasants just haven't bothered to boast about it or write songs about it.

A Komodo dragon?

:p

[Envyus]

I'm no Tarrasque specialist, but I don't think it can do much against a flying character. A high-level Druid could probably drop rocks on it and maybe taunt it into falling down a chasm or something.

Alternately, you could base a fun adventure around trying to make an entire city float in the air before the Tarrasque arrives.

It can just throw an object at them.

[Soular]

Are you saying that someone who looks hardened and looks like he can handle himself should have the same dificulty intimidating people who look like they just got out of learning how to hold a sword/wand?

Even if the Fighter went to another land, he still would carry a presense with him. He would walk in a way to indicate he has seen battle, he would act in a way that he did. The look in his eyes would be of someone who has seen a hundred of those petty commoners wiped away in a blink while he stood forth against the forces of evil. So no, he would still be more intimidating than the 4 commoners in a foreign land.

Now, would I maybe say he is less intimidating than a Fighter who has his deeds known in that land and has everything else the same? Probably, because the one fighter could just say "remember when I slaughtered 50 enemies? Yea, I don't think you want to see a repeat of that right here" So he could get circumstance bonuses over a Foreign Fighter who couldn't say something like that exactly.



You are now trying to compare a check related to something that has non-static variables to a Social Check. One is purely a world object that doesn't care what you have done or didn't do. Another is a 'living' being who can have a different opinion one day to the next. You really can't say that just because you can point to a static DC check that a Social check is exactly the same thing.

What does a hardened "fighter" look like? I come from a military family with a Marine uncle, a grandfather who was a Seabee during WWII, and my own father who underwent Navy SEAL training during the Vietnam War. None of them would strike you as particularly "hard" looking. My uncle was fat, my grandfather and father both short (5'8" -ish) and exceedingly thin. These were men that would smile cordially and be respectful to anyone they met. These were genuinely nice men. For purposes of Intimidate, their CHA would be deceptively low.

On the other hand, my tattooed younger brother is taller than average and sports a biker beard or goatee at times. His Intimidate ability is quite a bit higher, and he can't fight his way out of a wet paper bag. I think I am the only one in my family whose level of Intimidation closely matches my fighting ability - that of a portly, middle-age, IT-guy.

Here is Audie Murphy, who at 19 years old was a complete and utter badass:

http://www.check-six.com/images/AudieMurphy-portait.jpg

If he bumped into you in the street, tell me you wouldn't push him back. Now contrast him with the scores of Hollywood actors that make a fortune playing scary bad guys, but lack any fighting ability. Guys that have spent their time statting up CHA and developing their Intimidate skill.

Intimidate is a skill. A fighter that has neglected this skill, and lacks CHA doesn't intimidate very well. Take him out of his gnarly plate armor made of dragon scales, remove his two-handed sword with flaming runes, strip him of the helm he made from the skull of a vanquished minotaur, and he becomes just as threatening as the next guy. In contrast, put all that gear on a 0-level NPC and all of a sudden the intimidation factor goes through the roof! That is why the DM is necessary for the game. There is no way the designers could have accounted for every possible event that can come about in an open-world roleplaying game.

[Soular]

200 peasent militia is not an army. Even Sparta was regularly able to field an army of 2000 men and the average spartan soldier would have at least 10 levels of fighter and immunity to fear.

Sh!tseriously?

I haven't read every last post in this thread, but I hope that you are being sarcastic.

I would put any member of the current world's special forces (Spetnaz, MARSOC, SEALs, SAS, Shayetet 13) up against the very best that Spartans had to offer. These are strong, exceedingly well-trained men that have been cherry-picked from a huge pool of candidates. Are any of them the equal to a 10th level fantasy warrior? Hell no! Would they **** themselves and run if surprised by a dragon? I bet most of them would.

Any one of those men could be laid low by one well-placed dagger thrust. That doesn't sound very "legendary" to me. 10th level Fighters have around 100 hit points. How many dagger stabs is that? Almost all of what we would call "elite" warriors currently, or historically, would still be 0-level in D&D terms. For sake of argument, I would let them reach first level, maybe second level tops.

To say that Spartan warriors were the equal to a rare champion in D&D terms is laughable; to say that they would be immune to dragon-induced fear is hilarious!

_________________EDIT___________________
Hell, let's assume Spartans are the equal of a third level Fighter. IIRC my third level fighter has 33 hit points. So he can eat three full damage strikes from a longsword wielded by a far above average strength man, and keep on trucking like nothing happened. No, normal humans will not even see third level in terms of D&D character classes.

[Sartharina]

I would put any member of the current world's special forces (Spetnaz, MARSOC, SEALs, SAS, Shayetet 13) up against the very best that Spartans had to offer. These are strong, exceedingly well-trained men that have been cherry-picked from a huge pool of candidates. Are any of them the equal to a 10th level fantasy warrior? Hell no! Would they **** themselves and run if surprised by a dragon? I bet most of them would.

Any one of those men could be laid low by one well-placed dagger thrust. That doesn't sound very "legendary" to me. 10th level Fighters have around 100 hit points. How many dagger stabs is that? Almost all of what we would call "elite" warriors currently, or historically, would still be 0-level in D&D terms. For sake of argument, I would let them reach first level, maybe second level tops.

To say that Spartan warriors were the equal to a rare champion in D&D terms is laughable; to say that they would be immune to dragon-induced fear is hilarious!

Nah - our elite warriors would be pretty high level/HD. Hit points are not meat, unless you're Yogendra Singh Yadav or Michael J. Fitzmaurice. But only the best of the best would be level 10 or so (And you're likely to have heard of them at the time). Most 'elite' soldiers would be level 5ish.

If you say our best are level 0/2, you have a case of PCs outleveling the world at a stupidly fast pace.

[Soular]

Nah - our elite warriors would be pretty high level/HD. Hit points are not meat, unless you're Yogendra Singh Yadav or Michael J. Fitzmaurice. But only the best of the best would be level 10 or so (And you're likely to have heard of them at the time). Most 'elite' soldiers would be level 5ish.

If you say our best are level 0/2, you have a case of PCs outleveling the world at a stupidly fast pace.

Sorry, I added this after making my post. I am pasting it here:

Hell, let's assume Spartans are the equal of a third level Fighter. IIRC my third level fighter has 33 hit points. So he can eat three full damage strikes from a longsword wielded by a far above average strength man, and keep on trucking like nothing happened. No, normal humans will not even see third level in terms of D&D character classes.

Let's assume that hit points are a total of skin and bone as well as "fatigue." My Fighter can stand there naked with his arms to his side and let an opponent beat on him with a longsword for three rounds (18 seconds?). Then he can beat the life out of the attacker within 6 seconds.

There. Is. No. Correlation. To. Reality.

Arguing that level 5 (let alone level 10!) is within the realm of human ability is ridiculous. It isn't. Nothing you can say will make it so no matter how much you worship historic Sparta, or anything else in the real world. Real humans can no more reach level three than they can shoot fireballs from their hands.

And yes, my PCs out-level the mundane world stupidly fast. That's why they are adventurers. They fight fantastic monsters and villains that the normal populace is ill equipped, or trained to. You may as well argue that the best human warrior ever (I dunno maybe Leonidas, Yue Fei, Yosh!tsune, Hannibal Barca, Attila the Hun et al.) could be a viable threat to a Minotaur.

Protip: He ain't.



Seriously? The swear filter censors Yoshi(t)sune?

Raciss...

[Sartharina]

The guy ISN'T standing there letting the person wail on them. All that means is the Spartan's training allows him to last 18 man-seconds against novice warriors with longswords, reducing blows coming at him to nicks, scratches, and rattles off his shield. You are completely misrepresenting what hit points mean.

If a guy just stands there without trying to defend himself, the first blow he takes is a Coup-De-Grace.
You may as well argue that the best human could be a viable threat to a Minotaur.

Protip: He ain't.Yes he is. Theseus killed the Minotaur by blinding it with sand anyone could pick up, and killing it with a mundane dagger. While effectively naked, and doing nothing that anybody else couldn't. Theseus was effectively a normal man in extraordinary circumstances at that time.

[hawklost]

What does a hardened "fighter" look like? I come from a military family with a Marine uncle, and grandfather who was a Seabee during WWII, and my own father who underwent Navy SEAL training during the Vietnam War. None of them would strike you as particularly "hard" looking. My uncle was fat, my grandfather and father both short (5'8" -ish) and exceedingly thin. These were men that would smile cordially and be respectful to anyone they met. These were genuinely nice men. For purposes of Intimidate, their CHA would be deceptively low.
....................


The Question isn't do they look intimidating at all times, its, can they just stare you down in a way that would make you fear.

There are many thugs and gang members out there who might point a knife or a gun at you and the reason you are afraid is because there is a gun or knife at you, not the person.

On the other hand, there are people who you see and you just naturally move away from them.

Others are even harder. I knew a master of martial arts who looked like a weak old man for the most part, but there was a time when a guy was bullying one of his students and the student wasn't standing up. The master just walked over and when the the guy turned to start verbally attack him, the guy stopped and looked white. The master did not have a reputation or anything, he just was supremely confident that he would be able to destroy the person if things got physical.

That is the look that I think most fighters have. Someone who knows he can take a challenge and not even fear. One who knows that if a Troll were to attack, he would walk out there and slaughter it and get back for a pint at the tavern.

[Soular]

The guy ISN'T standing there letting the person wail on them. All that means is the Spartan's training allows him to last 18 man-seconds against novice warriors with longswords, reducing blows coming at him to nicks, scratches, and rattles off his shield. You are completely misrepresenting what hit points mean.

If a guy just stands there without trying to defend himself, the first blow he takes is a Coup-De-Grace.

Not only did you miss the point, you purposely walked around it while studiously looking the other way.

My Fighter CAN do this. He can do this with impunity. He can do this every single time, over and over, with no repercussions. This alone is far outside the realm of anything human. Now give my third level Fighter some plate mail, a shield and a longsword and your argument is so blatantly ill-conceived and irrational that I feel like you only defend it for lack of ability to admit you are wrong.

.

.

.

Let me guess: You still think that there is some way you might still be at least partially correct.

Fair enough. Tell my one historic example of a man that could stand naked, with his back to another man of similar stature, and survive three solid blows with a sword. Oh yeah, then he has to turn around, kill his attacker, and do it all over the next day.

Unless you can, I will consider this discussion resolved. Your aversion to reality is beginning to test my patience, and I have no wish to talk to a wall.

[Soular]

Theseus was effectively a normal man in extraordinary circumstances at that time.

Holy f**kballs, Batman!

Did you just try to argue that a real life human could solo a minotaur because some imaginary dude did it in a story?

This convo is over.

[TrexPushups]

The Question isn't do they look intimidating at all times, its, can they just stare you down in a way that would make you fear.

There are many thugs and gang members out there who might point a knife or a gun at you and the reason you are afraid is because there is a gun or knife at you, not the person.

On the other hand, there are people who you see and you just naturally move away from them.

Others are even harder. I knew a master of martial arts who looked like a weak old man for the most part, but there was a time when a guy was bullying one of his students and the student wasn't standing up. The master just walked over and when the the guy turned to start verbally attack him, the guy stopped and looked white. The master did not have a reputation or anything, he just was supremely confident that he would be able to destroy the person if things got physical.

That is the look that I think most fighters have. Someone who knows he can take a challenge and not even fear. One who knows that if a Troll were to attack, he would walk out there and slaughter it and get back for a pint at the tavern.

Fighter Bob spills his beer as the troll bursts through the tavern door, angered he pull his sword from his scabbard and proceeds to cut the troll down and skewers it against the floor with his blade.

He then calmly walks up to the bar and orders a pitcher of the hard stuff, when his order arrives he takes a deep quaff and pours the rest on the troll retrieves his blade and sets the troll alight with a nearby torch from the wall. He turns back to bar and says my tab plus another round for me and my friends should just about cover my bill for the troll-slaying.

[Soular]

The Question isn't do they look intimidating at all times, its, can they just stare you down in a way that would make you fear.

There are many thugs and gang members out there who might point a knife or a gun at you and the reason you are afraid is because there is a gun or knife at you, not the person.

On the other hand, there are people who you see and you just naturally move away from them.

Others are even harder. I knew a master of martial arts who looked like a weak old man for the most part, but there was a time when a guy was bullying one of his students and the student wasn't standing up. The master just walked over and when the the guy turned to start verbally attack him, the guy stopped and looked white. The master did not have a reputation or anything, he just was supremely confident that he would be able to destroy the person if things got physical.

That is the look that I think most fighters have. Someone who knows he can take a challenge and not even fear. One who knows that if a Troll were to attack, he would walk out there and slaughter it and get back for a pint at the tavern.

I absolutely agree with you.

I only feel that the ability to Intimidate should not be freely given. Just because my Fighter is a badass (compared to 0-level humans) doesn't mean he carries himself with that kind of swagger. Hell, he might be a dork. Maybe he walks with a noticeable limp that someone could mistake for frailty. Maybe he speaks with a stutter. Who knows?

Obviously your MA instructor didn't use CHA as his dump stat, to put it into D&D terms. :tongue:

[Scirocco]

I'm no Tarrasque specialist, but I don't think it can do much against a flying character. A high-level Druid could probably drop rocks on it and maybe taunt it into falling down a chasm or something.

Alternately, you could base a fun adventure around trying to make an entire city float in the air before the Tarrasque arrives.

It actually astounds me that they didn't give it a giant breath weapon of some sort, which would shut down the flying advantage somewhat... It is supposed to be some sort of Godzilla expy, right?

[Sartharina]

Not only did you miss the point, you purposely walked around it while studiously looking the other way.

My Fighter CAN do this. He can do this with impunity. He can do this every single time, over and over, with no repercussions. This alone is far outside the realm of anything human. Now give my third level Fighter some plate mail, a shield and a longsword and your argument is so blatantly ill-conceived and irrational that I feel like you only defend it for lack of ability to admit you are wrong.He can only do this through gross misinterpretation of hit points.


Let me guess: You still think that there is some way you might still be at least partially correct.

Fair enough. Tell my one historic example of a man that could stand naked, with his back to another man of similar stature, and survive three solid blows with a sword. Oh yeah, then he has to turn around, kill his attacker, and do it all over the next day.

Unless you can, I will consider this discussion resolved. Your aversion to reality is beginning to test my patience, and I have no wish to talk to a wall.That example's a Coup-de-grace, not a combat blow. Meanwhile in Real Life, Yogendra Singh Yadav stormed two machine gun nests, taking a dozen bullets in the process and breaking an arm and a leg, and STILL killed everyone on those two nests - while a third ALSO shot at him with machine gun fire.

And aside from that - hit points are an abstraction, and represent martial defensive ability (Remember - no measure of character skill is accounted for by AC - Hit Points represent character defensive ability).


Holy f**kballs, Batman!

Did you just try to argue that a real life human could solo a minotaur because some imaginary dude did it in a story?

This convo is over.No, I guess a real-life human can't solo a minotaur because a minotaur doesn't exist. However, if a Minotaur did exist, he could solo it in the same way the imaginary guy in an imaginary story soloed an imaginary creature did.

[TrexPushups]

It actually astounds me that they didn't give it a giant breath weapon of some sort, which would shut down the flying advantage somewhat... It is supposed to be some sort of Godzilla expy, right?

Godzilla's lawyers are scarier than he is :smallbiggrin:

[LaserFace]

who said the commander knew any of that? All he needs to know is that when his enemy's mages start casting volleys of fireballs, his untrained troops die in one hit while his elite troops take two or three. Of course not all commanders would care to learn the finer points of spellcraft, but every once in a while you would get some equivalent of Julius Caeser, Sun Tzu, or Napoleon who realizes that knowledge literally is power and redefines how wars will be fought for generations.

I don't want to sound mean, but the assumptions you're making are just baffling me. You don't have to throwing out names of famous military leaders; it's pretty irrelevant to what we're talking about. This is where I'm primarily confused:


My opinion is that military commanders are neither idiots nor are they willing to accept 50% casualty rates. Consider the following:
Fireball does 8d6 damage for an average of 28
A level 3 fighter with 14 con would be expected to have 28 HP.


You're applying HP values for PCs - which is an amalgamation of skill, endurance, agility, divine favor and luck, all rolled into one - to rank-and-file soldiers to determine a methodical approach to the average survivability of a military force under fire from magical attack. HP is so vague a thing, made to model exceptional PCs in a dungeon-adventure fantasy and it honestly looks like you're giving it a spreadsheet treatment and applying that knowledge directly to NPCs.

I don't find it strange that people receive training to survive combat situations. That seems very reasonable. What seems unreasonable is that a commander would know from general training - even if their training has absolutely nothing to do with Fireball-Dodge-Drills (because XP can be earned in various ways) - who can typically survive a fireball attack. Maybe in a world with many mages, soldiers have to include this training into their regimen. But that doesn't have to include levels inherently, because levels can be gained from any experience, and you don't have to encounter a single fireball from levels 1 to 20.

HP is something completely hidden from perspectives of characters inside a world, and if a fireball is normally lethal to a commoner, it should be considered lethal to just about any warrior as well (because sometimes you're just unlucky, even if you're trained). But there are some fireballs that can simply never kill sufficiently-leveled warriors. Right off the bat, the HP argument just stops making sense here, unless you say there are situations where HP doesn't matter, and characters can just automatically die. Humans (and hopefully by extension other mortal races in your games) can only actually take so much punishment before their body fails, regardless of any level of training. A Commander should never be able to equate soldier experience with auto-survive against 1 Fireball. It's just a completely nonsense assumption from the perspective of a character.

The assertion that warriors have to be Any level, merely for the sake of "Commanders Adapt to Warfare" is just really presumptuous. You might be able to make something work in your own games, but you shouldn't pretend like this is just an underlying truth of D&D, or that anyone should adopt your view on it.

[Soular]

He can only do this through gross misinterpretation of hit points.

That example's a Coup-de-grace, not a combat blow. Meanwhile in Real Life, Yogendra Singh Yadav stormed two machine gun nests, taking a dozen bullets in the process and breaking an arm and a leg, and STILL killed everyone on those two nests - while a third ALSO shot at him with machine gun fire.

And aside from that - hit points are an abstraction, and represent martial defensive ability (Remember - no measure of character skill is accounted for by AC - Hit Points represent character defensive ability).

Oh dear God, you keep drawing me in...

There is, to my best recollection, no coup de grace in 5E. Even a paralyzed opponent only grants advantage on attack rolls, IIRC. And my Fighter isn't even paralyzed.

Whether through gross misinterpretation or not. No human being (currently living or otherwise) is the equal of a 3rd level fighter. Let the truth set you free...



As an aside, Yogie Singh was shot three times. Twice in the shoulder and once in the nutsack. Other than possibly ruining his chances of siring any future progeny, these aren't exactly life-threatening wounds unless he is allowed to bleed out. He received his broken leg during his last fight, not before it. He was never targeted by machine gun fire. One of the nests he snuck up on and eliminated with a single grenade. And the final bunker was taken out by an assault team, which he had by this time joined. I am not trying to diminish the man's bravery/badassery, just injecting some facts into your wild and loose view of reality and history.

[hawklost]

I absolutely agree with you.

I only feel that the ability to Intimidate should not be freely given. Just because my Fighter is a badass (compared to 0-level humans) doesn't mean he carries himself with that kind of swagger. Hell, he might be a dork. Maybe he walks with a noticeable limp that someone could mistake for frailty. Maybe he speaks with a stutter. Who knows?

Obviously your MA instructor didn't use CHA as his dump stat, to put it into D&D terms. :tongue:

I don't say give it to him for free. I say that someone who is more baddass should not have the same challenge DC as someone who is weak. Now, if you are trying to intimidate Hexor the Destroyer, killer of 1000 adventurers, That is where your legendary status would be worthless. That would mean your DC is high and you having low Cha and no skill in int would make it impossible. Someone who had high Cha and Prof in intimidate would have a chance.

But agianst some commoner or very low level enemy? Definitely feel someone who is epic would have some major advantage vs someone who is low level. That is why I feel Social interaction DCs are more of a sliding scale but World DCs are static (Like Climbing a tree in the rain with arrows flying at you)

[ambartanen]

Oh dear God, you keep drawing me in...

There is, to my best recollection, no coup de grace in 5E. Even a paralyzed opponent only grants advantage on attack rolls, IIRC. And my Fighter isn't even paralyzed.

Whether through gross misinterpretation or not. No human being (currently living or otherwise) is the equal of a 3rd level fighter. Let the truth set you free....

Well, you are wrong. A 20th level fighter with nine hundred thousand hit points that lets a random commoner drive a dagger into his heart will die. Hit points don't represent the fact that your fighter is discovering his troll heritage and regrowing limbs or magically refilling pints of lost blood after a ten minute break.

[hawklost]

Well, you are wrong. A 20th level fighter with nine hundred thousand hit points that lets a random commoner drive a dagger into his heart will die. Hit points don't represent the fact that your fighter is discovering his troll heritage and regrowing limbs or magically refilling pints of lost blood after a ten minute break.

Show me in the rules where you claim is true. Even a person who is paralyzed, unconscious and somehow held down but you still won't be able to take all day to drive a single strike into a lvl 20 fighter and kill him with a single hit of the Dagger.

[LaserFace]

Well, you are wrong. A 20th level fighter with nine hundred thousand hit points that lets a random commoner drive a dagger into his heart will die. Hit points don't represent the fact that your fighter is discovering his troll heritage and regrowing limbs or magically refilling pints of lost blood after a ten minute break.

I think an important question needs to be asked here: does 5E in any form have a ruling on "If the character should reasonably be dead here, regardless of HP damage, they die"?

Because if it doesn't, you have to assume attacks that deal damage to a PC are mitigated by a combination of their general survivability, which factors in a lot of stuff, and deduct HP ... Or you're House Ruling. House Ruling is fine, but a argument of this nature IMO should probably be prefaced with "this is how we do it, because we don't like the base rules", and less "Well, you are wrong." I know for example GURPS gives the GM power to simply kill anyone at a point they'd be reasonably dead. But from my understanding of D&D, what actually happens isn't decided until you've checked what amount of HP is remaining; so in the case of a high HP character, that dagger is just being very clumsily applied, and doing mostly superficial damage.

[Soular]

Well, you are wrong. A 20th level fighter with nine hundred thousand hit points that lets a random commoner drive a dagger into his heart will die. Hit points don't represent the fact that your fighter is discovering his troll heritage and regrowing limbs or magically refilling pints of lost blood after a ten minute break.

Bizarrely enough, I don't see the rules for that anywhere in this book. Otherwise any attack of which you were unaware, whether made by an enemy you didn't see, or made while you were otherwise preoccupied would flat out kill you (like it does in, you know, real life). Are you sure we have the same Player's Handbook?

Or is this more "what I want the rules to be instead of what they really are" fantasy?

[ambartanen]

Find me a rule that says getting stabbed in the heart doesn't kill a character or even a rule that implies this somehow and you'll have a valid point. A paralyzed character in combat wouldn't get killed by this one hit because the commoner will try to stab them in the heart in one second in the mid of a hectic fight and almost certainly miss (only gets an automatic crit representing some depletion the character's reservoir of abstract survivability). Attack rolls and hit points are only used when there is actual conflict though. A character that willfully allows someone to stab them in the heart is just someone with a dagger in their heart and thus will very soon not be amongst the living. Of course, this being DnD, that might be just a temporary inconvenience.

[LaserFace]

Dude I don't think D&D is about wounds to specific parts of your body. Everything is summed by HP and damage, and we don't have to prove you incorrect to be playing by the rules of the game. If you're purely in story-mode and someone commits suicide, okay you can play it that way. But you never tell a PC "This commoner stabs you in the heart, you die", because that can't happen in the rules. That can only happen by a DM being completely arbitrary and ignoring how the game works, because they want to alienate someone at the table.

[Soular]

Find me a rule that says getting stabbed in the heart doesn't kill a character or even a rule that implies this somehow and you'll have a valid point. A paralyzed character in combat wouldn't get killed by this one hit because the commoner will try to stab them in the heart in one second in the mid of a hectic fight and almost certainly miss (only gets an automatic crit representing some depletion the character's reservoir of abstract survivability). Attack rolls and hit points are only used when there is actual conflict though. A character that willfully allows someone to stab them in the heart is just someone with a dagger in their heart and thus will very soon not be amongst the living. Of course, this being DnD, that might be just a temporary inconvenience.


I see. You make a bold, and incorrect, statement. Now it falls on me to find the actual rule that disproves the rule that you made up.

I've seen this kind of logic before...

You wouldn't happen to be one of my wife's friends, would you? :eek:

[ambartanen]

I see. You make a bold, and incorrect, statement. Now it falls on me to find the actual rule that disproves the rule that you made up.

I've seen this kind of logic before...

You wouldn't happen to be one of my wife's friends, would you? :eek:
Ok then, you play in your version of the rules where a first level barbarian can drive a piece of rebar all the way through their own brain and survive 100% of the time (1d6+3 damage for improvised weapon vs 15 starting hit points) and I'll play in my version of the rules where that is just the character committing suicide. One of us is not interpreting them correctly but it might remain a mystery for the ages. Although I keep hearing this stuff about rulings and not rules so maybe we can both be right in our own worlds.


Dude I don't think D&D is about wounds to specific parts of your body. Everything is summed by HP and damage, and we don't have to prove you incorrect to be playing by the rules of the game. If you're purely in story-mode and someone commits suicide, okay you can play it that way. But you never tell a PC "This commoner stabs you in the heart, you die", because that can't happen in the rules. That can only happen by a DM being completely arbitrary and ignoring how the game works, because they want to alienate someone at the table.
I completely agree with you there. Do you agree that if the character just stood there bearing their chest and letting the commoner walk up to them and stab them, that's not a situation that should be handled by attack rolls and hit points? Because I was responding to this:

My Fighter CAN do this. He can do this with impunity. He can do this every single time, over and over, with no repercussions. This alone is far outside the realm of anything human.
where "this" is "[my character] is just standing there letting the person wail on them [without defending himself in any way]." Look up the rest of the above to find out that the fighter is not only taking no action to protect himself but isn't wearing armor or using magic either. And the commoner has any weapon they like, they're not hitting them with fists or a bar stool or something.


P.S. This is the first time I've ever spoken to two beholders at the same time. This is weird.

[pwykersotz]

Bizarrely enough, I don't see the rules for that anywhere in this book. Otherwise any attack of which you were unaware, whether made by an enemy you didn't see, or made while you were otherwise preoccupied would flat out kill you (like it does in, you know, real life). Are you sure we have the same Player's Handbook?

Or is this more "what I want the rules to be instead of what they really are" fantasy?

In a bizarre twist, I also don't see the rules that indicate that creatures have hearts, removable limbs, or bleed when taking damage. In fact, humanoids have no vulnerable spots other than their HP pool. Groin shots don't work, and neither do throat jabs. This is the peril of treating the game by the rules entirely with no context to the real world. Is the game still fun this way? Sure. But don't be so quick to trash the simulationist side of things. There's room for both sides.

[Soular]

In a bizarre twist, I also don't see the rules that indicate that creatures have hearts, removable limbs, or bleed when taking damage. In fact, humanoids have no vulnerable spots other than their HP pool. Groin shots don't work, and neither do throat jabs. This is the peril of treating the game by the rules entirely with no context to the real world. Is the game still fun this way? Sure. But don't be so quick to trash the simulationist side of things. There's room for both sides.

Right. One is playing D&D, and the other is playing a homebrew.

Just kidding!

To be clear. I am firmly in the simulationist camp. Except when its used as an excuse to make wildly inaccurate, fantastic claims like: Spartans would be the equivalent of 10th level Fighters with immunity to fear. or an RL human could single-handedly defeat a D&D minotaur.

Next they'll be telling me humanity is only 6000 years old and dinosaurs never existed; that their bones were put there by God for... reasons!

[LaserFace]

I completely agree with you there. Do you agree that if the character just stood there bearing their chest and letting the commoner walk up to them and stab them, that's not a situation that should be handled by attack rolls and hit points? Because I was responding to this:

where "this" is "[my character] is just standing there letting the person wail on them [without defending himself in any way]." Look up the rest of the above to find out that the fighter is not only taking no action to protect himself but isn't wearing armor or using magic either. And the commoner has any weapon they like, they're not hitting them with fists or a bar stool or something.


P.S. This is the first time I've ever spoken to two beholders at the same time. This is weird.

I think 5E encounters give you bonus xp for this.

Like, it's hard for me to weigh this. If I think it's the player's intention to die, I let them die. If they're doing something else, I probably roll damage, and if it's not a significant value, the commoner basically trips on a rock and ends up scratching the fighter's arm or something, maybe not even drawing blood. It could be luck, favor of a godly being or just that the commoner is suffering anxiety because some Super Tough Looking Dude just said "Go ahead, stab me" and he's so unnerved he can't focus.

[ambartanen]

Well, this discussion had me hunt down this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0006.html) and now I am just rereading the early episodes. Curses! :smallsmile:

[Malifice]

Player's handbook, page 182 "... You must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check..."

Onr RPG that doest allow DM fiat when assigning DC's. Not one DC.

[GAA]

There's a lot of abstractions and assumptions in Dungeons and Dragons. While I cannot point to a specific edition or rule that says this(and part of this is due to lack of looking), I can tell you these a very much some assumptions of the dnd world.

HP is not flesh and bone.(that's been explained to death in this thread though).

AC assumes you are trying to dodge the blows.

Called shots and wounds and such mostly don't exist because the assumption is when you are attacking you are aiming for whatever is going to deal the most damage(and again, hp is not flesh and blood).

Facing doesn't exist because you are assumed to be paying attention to the person attacking you(that's specifically why flanking works the way it does.)

I was reading/hearing recently, to not think of some keywords in the literal sense. Blinded doesn't mean you literally have no ability to see forever in 4e, it just means your ability to see is limited for a time(for whatever reason). Prone doesn't necessarily mean off the ground, it could mean simply off balance.

Turns technically happen all at the same time and people don't literally move in that order.

And yes, if you let someone stab you in the heart, you are dead, no save, fox only, final destination.

[thereaper]

I like how people try to claim that hit points are an abstraction in a game where people can take a dip in acid or lava and be only mildly inconvenienced by it.

D&D characters are magic Extraordinary (Ex). Get over it.

[ambartanen]

I like how people try to claim that hit points are an abstraction in a game where people can take a dip in acid or lava and be only mildly inconvenienced by it.

D&D characters are magic Extraordinary (Ex). Get over it.

Uh, that is literally magic- you either gained the immunity to an element through a spell or a supernatural power.

[thereaper]

No. Being dipped in acid or lava and surviving through sheer hit points is not something that can be abstracted away. Therefore, the idea of hit points being an abstraction falls flat on its face. There are other examples, but this is a particularly egregious one.

[ambartanen]

No. Being dipped in acid or lava and surviving through sheer hit points is not something that can be abstracted away. Therefore, the idea of hit points being an abstraction falls flat on its face. There are other examples, but this is a particularly egregious one.

Of course it can be abstracted away if you put some effort into it. You didn't get dipped, you landed on a rock floating in the lava and jumped off just as it sunk.

[Malifice]

No. Being dipped in acid or lava and surviving through sheer hit points is not something that can be abstracted away.

Err, yes it can.

You dont actually fall in the lava. The damage you take is from you landing on a rock in the middle of the lava that is crubling away. Or some other excuse.

Think of it like a system with 'fate points'. You are saved by some kind of miracle. HP represents luck as much as anything.

Youre not actually diving in the lava and having a quick swim.

[Falka]

Until you are dropped to half HP, your character hasn't suffered any actual injury. Supposedly he has been dodging most of the blows and until he drops to 0 from half HP, he suffers only minor injuries. You only suffer a serious wound once you drop to 0 or less.

This is how wording is phrased in the PHB and how I always interpreted HP anyways. They don't make any sense otherwise.

[Falka]

No. Being dipped in acid or lava and surviving through sheer hit points is not something that can be abstracted away. Therefore, the idea of hit points being an abstraction falls flat on its face. There are other examples, but this is a particularly egregious one.

You shouldn't be able to do that if it's how you narrate is, otherwise it's just poor narration from the DM's side. I certainly wouldn't say something like: "Your character falls into a lava pit. You take 2d6 points of fire damage". It would be something like... Dunno, 20d6 per turn spent in lava?

[pwykersotz]

I like how people try to claim that hit points are an abstraction in a game where people can take a dip in acid or lava and be only mildly inconvenienced by it.

D&D characters are magic Extraordinary (Ex). Get over it.

There was a lovely book published. It's available for free. Check it out.

Fire and Brimstone: A Comprehensive Guide to Lava, Magma, and Superheated Rock (http://www.scratchfactory.com/Resources/LavaBanners/LavaRules.pdf)

Technically third party, but Gygax and Ed Greenwood among many others have endorsed it and their quotes are on the last pages.

[Soular]

There was a lovely book published. It's available for free. Check it out.

Fire and Brimstone: A Comprehensive Guide to Lava, Magma, and Superheated Rock (http://www.scratchfactory.com/Resources/LavaBanners/LavaRules.pdf)

Technically third party, but Gygax and Ed Greenwood among many others have endorsed it and their quotes are on the last pages.

Wow!

That's a lot of effort to put into a joke. Brilliant!

[thereaper]

Of course it can be abstracted away if you put some effort into it. You didn't get dipped, you landed on a rock floating in the lava and jumped off just as it sunk.

And if the DM described there being no rocks, you don't take extra damage from it. Therefore, that particular abstraction doesn't work.

And the acid?

How about having a boulder dropped on you?

Heck, how about disintegrate? You take a beam that can disintegrate stone. You survive because of a fortitude save, which means that yes, you were hit, because fortitiude doesn't represent dodging or luck. If D&D characters were in any way human, being struck by a beam capable of disintegrating stone wouldn't be survivable, and yet, through sheer force of physical might they can shrug it off.

How about being stabbed while asleep or immobilized and surviving? There is explicitly nothing you can do about that one. If you're hit, it's an automatic critical hit, which represents being struck in a vital area. If you can get stabbed in the heart and keep going, you are superhuman.

[Sartharina]

Where are the rules for falling in lava/acid in D&D 5e?

That said - Hit points are also luck, and there have been real people who've survived absolutely ludicrous things.

[ambartanen]

And if the DM described there being no rocks, you don't take extra damage from it. Therefore, that particular abstraction doesn't work.

And the acid?

How about having a boulder dropped on you?

How about being stabbed while asleep or immobilized and surviving? There is explicitly nothing you can do about that one. If you're hit, it's an automatic critical hit, which represents being struck in a vital area. If you can get stabbed in the heart and keep going, you are superhuman.

I think you are having trouble with the concept of abstraction. I can come up with examples all day but I am not sure that will teach you the concept. Still, imagine the following situation-
the assassin sneaks up on you while you are asleep, pulls out her sharp dagger and tries to stab you in the heart *DM rolls dice*
DM: You lose 17 hit points, that brings you down to 12. The knife slams into your chest with a dull *thwap*- it got stuck in the book of holy scripture you always keep near your heart and now your faith has literally saved your life.

Now saying "what if my character always puts his holy book on the bed stand when he sleeps" is not a valid reply. The idea is to come up with something cool or, if it doesn't seem important enough and/or no one has any cool ideas, it is just assumed the assassin failed to stab you in the heart. It definitely isn't assumed that your character now has a foot long dagger rammed to the hilt straight into their heart but will get better after an hour of relaxation (or immediately for a fighter). Any attack that doesn't bring a character to 0 hit points is assumed to leave minor enough damage to not significantly influence their ability to act.

Also, critical hits do not represent having a knife stuck in a vital organ, they represent a particularly effective attack. Most critical hits will likely leave little more lasting effect than a scratch on their target. They are cool and should be described in such a way but they aren't supposed to leave any lasting damage on a PC unless they also happen to drop that PC to 0 or kill them.

If the DM says your characters got submerged in lava and inhaled thousand degree molten rock that filled his lungs, they are telling you your character died. They aren't telling you to roll 20d6 and see if you are mildly inconvenienced or if it doesn't even bother you at all.

[LaserFace]

I think you are having trouble with the concept of abstraction. I can come up with examples all day but I am not sure that will teach you the concept. Still, imagine the following situation-
the assassin sneaks up on you while you are asleep, pulls out her sharp dagger and tries to stab you in the heart *DM rolls dice*
DM: You lose 17 hit points, that brings you down to 12. The knife slams into your chest with a dull *thwap*- it got stuck in the book of holy scripture you always keep near your heart and now your faith has literally saved your life.

Now saying "what if my character always puts his holy book on the bed stand when he sleeps" is not a valid reply. The idea is to come up with something cool or, if it doesn't seem important enough and/or no one has any cool ideas, it is just assumed the assassin failed to stab you in the heart. It definitely isn't assumed that your character now has a foot long dagger rammed to the hilt straight into their heart but will get better after an hour of relaxation (or immediately for a fighter). Any attack that doesn't bring a character to 0 hit points is assumed to leave minor enough damage to not significantly influence their ability to act.

Also, critical hits do not represent having a knife stuck in a vital organ, they represent a particularly effective attack. Most critical hits will likely leave little more lasting effect than a scratch on their target. They are cool and should be described in such a way but they aren't supposed to leave any lasting damage on a PC unless they also happen to drop that PC to 0 or kill them.

If the DM says your characters got submerged in lava and inhaled thousand degree molten rock that filled his lungs, they are telling you your character died. They aren't telling you to roll 20d6 and see if you are mildly inconvenienced or if it doesn't even bother you at all.

This articulates my own approach perfectly.

[JohnDaBarr]

What is HP? What does it represent, and how it works?

Since I keep company with a quite large number of geeks, nerds and other basement dwellers, of almost any rank and type, I did attend to a good number of discussions regarding this and similar subjects. And these are some conclusions we made.

First HP is, as LaserFace explained
amalgamation of skill, endurance, agility, divine favor and luck, all rolled into oneHP should be used exclusively in combat and its usage should be avoided outside of it. So HP should be used from the moment the initiative roles are made (since that role represents the moment the characters become aware of the situation and the danger it represents) until the end of combat.

To describe how not to use HP outside of combat we discussed the infamous story/joke
No-name guard aims a heavy crossbow in the chest of a glorious master PC (distance 2 feet) and says: Don't move or I shot!! The PC reply: Ok, I have 100 HP! So when the guard fires he makes an attack role and if he beats the AC of the character then that character does not receives 1d10 + something dmg, he receives a steel tipped bolt in his chest and makes a Save-or-Die Fort/Con save. I know it is not fun and epic to get killed by a noname npc but also a game is not fun and epic without a chance to fail.

Still HP has its usage outside of combat, the most prominent is how it represents the strain it puts on the PC from various traps and dangerous encounters they get into during their trip. It was a dangerous to get to the final boss and along the way they cleared some life-or-death situations (in various degrees of success) which means they didn't get there in top shape.

At the end it all comes to finding the line where you stop receiving damage and start making save-or-something bad rolls.

[Soular]

I think you are having trouble with the concept of abstraction. I can come up with examples all day but I am not sure that will teach you the concept. Still, imagine the following situation-
the assassin sneaks up on you while you are asleep, pulls out her sharp dagger and tries to stab you in the heart *DM rolls dice*
DM: You lose 17 hit points, that brings you down to 12. The knife slams into your chest with a dull *thwap*- it got stuck in the book of holy scripture you always keep near your heart and now your faith has literally saved your life.

Now saying "what if my character always puts his holy book on the bed stand when he sleeps" is not a valid reply. The idea is to come up with something cool or, if it doesn't seem important enough and/or no one has any cool ideas, it is just assumed the assassin failed to stab you in the heart. It definitely isn't assumed that your character now has a foot long dagger rammed to the hilt straight into their heart but will get better after an hour of relaxation (or immediately for a fighter). Any attack that doesn't bring a character to 0 hit points is assumed to leave minor enough damage to not significantly influence their ability to act.

Also, critical hits do not represent having a knife stuck in a vital organ, they represent a particularly effective attack. Most critical hits will likely leave little more lasting effect than a scratch on their target. They are cool and should be described in such a way but they aren't supposed to leave any lasting damage on a PC unless they also happen to drop that PC to 0 or kill them.

If the DM says your characters got submerged in lava and inhaled thousand degree molten rock that filled his lungs, they are telling you your character died. They aren't telling you to roll 20d6 and see if you are mildly inconvenienced or if it doesn't even bother you at all.

I think you are having trouble with the concept of RAW.

Look, you can imagine up all sorts of abstract/mystical crap happening to explain hit points, but at the end of the day, they are an indication of how much abuse your body can take. I use abstraction in my own games, but the reality of it is abstraction is about 75% homebrew and maybe about 25% RAI.

Let's take getting set on fire, for example. A normal human dies within seconds of getting doused in gas and lit up. A D&D fighter can continue to fight ad infinitum even while ablaze. What's the abstract way to explain away that damage? Maybe my Fighter pissed himself so forcefully that he managed to douse the flames around his face?

D&D isn't the real world. Its characters, from about 3rd level on, are superhuman. They have abilities far beyond the scope of normal, mortal men. I stand by my claim that there is no real world equivalent to a 10th level fighter... or even a 3rd level one. Ferchissakes, that's why they have 0-level NPCs, to describe normal people.

[Sartharina]

Let's take getting set on fire, for example. A normal human dies within seconds of getting doused in gas and lit up.

So... My brother's apparently not a normal human. Nice to know!

[JohnDaBarr]

Humans set on fire first lose consciousness do to oxygen deprivation if the sheer amount of immense pain does not make you do that. They the die from oxygen deprivation if the fire does not stop, and if it does and the human is left untreated it dies slowly.

But generally normal live is full of weird stuff. On one hand you have a 7 years old girl survive 17 bullets to the chest on the other a full grown adult in combat gear and training dies from one. A drunk Russian jumps from the 10th floor and lives, yet a sober guy slips in his bathtub and dies. One guy survives a plane crash yet a different guy dies in a bicycle accident.

You can never know how things can or will resolve and that is way we roll the dice in this game.

[rlc]

No. Being dipped in acid or lava and surviving through sheer hit points is not something that can be abstracted away. Therefore, the idea of hit points being an abstraction falls flat on its face. There are other examples, but this is a particularly egregious one.
>not something that can be abstracted away
you can abstract anything away if you try hard enough.

[LaserFace]

D&D isn't the real world. Its characters, from about 3rd level on, are superhuman. They have abilities far beyond the scope of normal, mortal men. I stand by my claim that there is no real world equivalent to a 10th level fighter... or even a 3rd level one. Ferchissakes, that's why they have 0-level NPCs, to describe normal people.

This is a good point. For purposes of my own settings, though, I tend to be subtle about making the PCs harder to kill. They are exceptional, but we don't play like daggers are regularly carving out their innards and they just don't care. There are cases where it's hard to abstract-ify the situation (like you pointed out), but where possible I think it's just less silly and more tasteful to say they mitigated a real injury rather than just delve completely into an absurdity. D&D may depict very powerful PCs but I don't think there's anything saying we need to make them obviously superheroes at every turn.

At any rate I do agree it's nonsense to ever think that people in the real world can be equated to PCs with class levels. D&D just doesn't emulate reality. I do try to make a game believable, though.

[1337 b4k4]

I think you are having trouble with the concept of RAW.

Look, you can imagine up all sorts of abstract/mystical crap happening to explain hit points, but at the end of the day, they are an indication of how much abuse your body can take. I use abstraction in my own games, but the reality of it is abstraction is about 75% homebrew and maybe about 25% RAI.


Given your particular stance on this, I don't think you should be using RAW to defend your position. To whit:


Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live and luck.


Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation.


For some characters, hit points may represent divine favor or inner power. When a paladin survives a fireball, you will be hard pressed to convince bystanders that she doesn’t have the favor of some higher power.

Note that 3e is about the closest you get to HP = Meat only by RAW


Each character has a varying number of hit points,' just as monsters do. These hit points represent how much damage (actual 01: potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being Killed. Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution,for a total of 85 hit points. This is the equivalent of about 18hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic flghter can take that much punishment.The some holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit paints aresymbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.

Earlier books don't even describe hit points or simply describe them as "toughness". So there you have it, since 1977, HP in D&D has been by RAW a combination of physical damage and luck.

[rlc]

what level was bruce lee? what about rasputin?

[Malifice]

And if the DM described there being no rocks, you don't take extra damage from it. Therefore, that particular abstraction doesn't work.

Then the DM says there is a rock you didnt see. Or you were caught on a sharp rocky outcropping dangling precariously close to the lava. Or any one of a million other things.

Hit points (which you are losing) abstract (amongst other things) an adventurers luck and fate. His ability to survive in situations that would kill a normal man. A killing blow bounces flukily off his holy symbol, or he instinctively ducks the blast at the last moment.


And the acid?

Works just the same as the lava.


How about having a boulder dropped on you?

Absolutely no different to the other examples. The Boulder doesnt actually hit you square on. You manage to leap out of the way (using xd6 hit points worth of 'luck' in the process).

Im stuggling to see how having a 'boulder land on you' is any different to 'getting hit with an axe'

You seem to be able to abstract getting stabbed with a sword as 'not getting stabbed with a sword by leaping out of the way or a fluke thing happeneing to save your life' (due to HP representing luck, dodging ability, fate and skill to avoid the attack) yet struggle making the same abstractions with other forms of damaging attacks.


How about being stabbed while asleep or immobilized and surviving? There is explicitly nothing you can do about that one. If you're hit, it's an automatic critical hit, which represents being struck in a vital area. If you can get stabbed in the heart and keep going, you are superhuman.

Again, abstract it. Roll the attack and the damage and then if the attack does not kill them (as DM) say:

'You wake up at the last second as if from a bad dream, seeing an assasin perched above you. He's about to attempt a deadly strike'

or:

'The assasins blade deflects off the holy symbol that was over your heart. Your fathers relic has saved your life'

etc

Your 'loss of HP' in the above example represents the fluky luck and battle forged intuition you demonstrated by waking up at preciesely the right time. The kind of luck and intuition that true heroic characters possess. Your loss of HP does not represent you getting 'stabbed in the heart'

Remember HP is largely luck, fate and chance. A 'critical hit' does not mean 'you got stabbed in a vital organ', it means that you 'narrowly avoided getting stabbed in a vital organ due to the Gods/ Luck/ Fate/ Skill/ and more of your luck was required to do so. Now you are running short.'

HP are the mechanical representation of this luck or fate. Its up to you as the DM to provide the explanation of how exactly that luck and fate came into play and saved the character.

[Forum Explorer]

No. Being dipped in acid or lava and surviving through sheer hit points is not something that can be abstracted away. Therefore, the idea of hit points being an abstraction falls flat on its face. There are other examples, but this is a particularly egregious one.

Didn't 4th edition just have you instantly die?


Where are the rules for falling in lava/acid in D&D 5e?

That said - Hit points are also luck, and there have been real people who've survived absolutely ludicrous things.

I don't believe they are out yet, and I suspect they'll be in the DMG when it's released.