Broard level ranges playing together? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Broard level ranges playing together? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Puggle Halfwine
03-02-08, 04:14 AM Hey guys,

I was thinking. With 4th ed making low level characters more powerful, gaining less power per level, it seems that characters who are, say, five levels apart might still be able to reasonably play together without anyone taking any penalties (or being too strong/too weak). This, in my eyes, is a GOOD THING.

Thoughts?
Reneshat
03-04-08, 03:59 AM While that sounds good in theory, I'm waiting until we get a chance to play it and find out how different level balancing works in play.
MatteBlack
03-04-08, 03:26 PM Hey guys,

I was thinking. With 4th ed making low level characters more powerful, gaining less power per level, it seems that characters who are, say, five levels apart might still be able to reasonably play together without anyone taking any penalties (or being too strong/too weak). This, in my eyes, is a GOOD THING.

Thoughts?

This seems like a likely assessment. Everything I have seen so far seems to support it. I almost see it as starting at level 4 and increasing by 1/2 levels so. That should allow for wider ranges of levels working out at one table.
MwaO
03-05-08, 10:55 AM This seems like a likely assessment. Everything I have seen so far seems to support it. I almost see it as starting at level 4 and increasing by 1/2 levels so. That should allow for wider ranges of levels working out at one table.

That matches my thoughts - it seems similar in a way to most other game systems - you start off more powerful, but advancement is slower. They finally killed off the sacred cow of a 3rd level character being about twice as powerful as a 1st level character.
Puggle Halfwine
03-05-08, 08:52 PM It does seem likely. What do you think about "APL" in 4th ed? I think it might go away somewhat and be simplified a great deal. Say, only having three classes of module: Heroic, Paragon, Epic, with text in the module saying things like, "For every PC above 5th level, include another kobold skirmisher. For every PC above eighth level, include two kobold skirmishers."

But the point is, in 4th ed, I expect there to be significantly less difference between a first and a tenth level character (of the same class). Say, a first level rogue has 30 (with 16 con), while a tenth level rogue has 75. That's a smaller difference than in 3.5, where the first level rogue has 9 hit points and the tenth level one has 82.
chesspiece
03-06-08, 11:54 AM But HPs aren't the only measure. You must be able to avoid getting hit / debilitated while you dish out appropriate damage. With all classes scaling up AC with level (IIRC) in addition to attacks and Fort / Ref / Will - the first level PC is unlikely to contribute beyond sponging damage a for a round or two.

Some things I've read agree with your posts about the level curve being flatter. However, they eliminated XP losses & costs to ensure a group can stay at the same level. They also encourage allowing the party to level up together (regardless of attendance) to avoid level discrepancies. I wonder whether these changes are because Players have less fun if they're always less powerful than the rest of the party, or if the system isn't as balanced or robust when the PCs are spread out in levels.

Obviously, there are differences between Living Campaigns and Home Games - where being lower-level means you're probably lower-level forever. Wait and see I guess.
TWG_Prometheus
03-06-08, 04:39 PM The 4th edition mechanic of adding 1/2 of a character's level bonus to their attacks and defenses needs to be taken into account when considering this. Also, one should consider the fact that the game is assuming that a late-Heroic character is starting to pick up +2 items in their 'big three' gear slots.

If you have a 9th level character with a level bonus of +4 and a gear bonus of +2 to basically everything they do, we're looking at a +6 difference between the level 1 character and the level 9 character. That's before we calculate in the additional powers, feats and attribute bonuses that a character might pick up on the way to level 9. (And HP) I expect a difference between +6 and +9 between the 1st and 9th level character in the most common combat statistics.

I'd note for reference that this is better than 3rd edition. A 1st and 9th level Fighter are much further apart than +9. The 9th level fighter will have gained +8 BAB, +1 enhancement, +1 attribute bonuses, and +2-+3 to their attacks from feats, making a difference of probably at least +12, with a smaller expected gap in armor class. The difference between a 1st level caster and a 9th level caster is even more dramatic.

The math above does appear to make the curve seem flatter, but not by that much of a margin. I don't expect to see a satisfying play experience at a table that includes a level 1 character and a level 9 character, and it's fairly likely that we'll need some form of an APL system. Hopefully it can be relaxed somewhat from its current state.

Heroic Low and Heroic High might be sufficient, but it's iffy.
Keith53
03-06-08, 05:12 PM These concerns are obviously of keen interest to the LFR Writing Directors. After all, we have to oversee the construction of challenging but not overwhelming adventures. I was not a 4E playtester and I don't know if or how much they tested PCs at vastly different levels (nor could I say, if I was one). We will follow the direction of Chris Tulach and the WotC R&D team. I would guess their direction will err on the conservative side to start with (personal opinion). After all they want to present a good play experience. I will not be surprised as we gain some experience, that ranges of levels playing together might be adjusted (also personal opinion). It is so hard to create the perfect system on day one. Better IMHO to start playing, make a few mistakes and learn from the mistakes. Player and DM feedback on how well level ranges are or are not working will be invaluable. Running 6 4E Previews (and one round of the delve) at DDXP gave me some feel for the way the system works, but not so much for the flexibility regarding the contribution of different PCs of different levels. YMMV.

Keith Hoffman
LFR USA-NC Co-Writing Director (Waterdeep)
bronzmonkee
03-07-08, 12:16 AM I would imagine that a modified APL system would work pretty well, depending on the range of levels supported by the campaign.

Something like:
- 1-4 - Heroic Tier 1
- 5-7 - Heroic Tier 2
- 8-10 - Heroic Tier 3

- 11-14 - Paragon Tier 1
- 15-17 - Paragon Tier 2
- 18-20 - Paragon Tier 3

- 21-24 - Epic Tier 1
- 25-27 - Epic Tier 2
- 28-30 - Epic Tier 3
The_Jester
03-07-08, 10:29 AM The modular-nature of monsters might work really well with broader APLs.
And parties are tougher. The six level 1 DDX characters seem to be able to challenge a lvl8 or 9 creature easily.

You could have the base module and an option for weaker or harder parties.
For example, take away one orc if the party is extra low, poorly balanced or small. But add an extra orc if the party is higher, well balanced or large.

Or it could be done straight with average level. There could be a different set of monsters and challenges for Level Average 1 than from Level Average 2, LA3, or LA4.

Personally, I like the APLs and bands of 2lvls, although I'd switch to odd numbers. APLs 1, 3, 5, 6, etc.
TWG_Prometheus
03-07-08, 04:08 PM The modular-nature of monsters might work really well with broader APLs.
And parties are tougher. The six level 1 DDX characters seem to be able to challenge a lvl8 or 9 creature easily.

You could have the base module and an option for weaker or harder parties.
For example, take away one orc if the party is extra low, poorly balanced or small. But add an extra orc if the party is higher, well balanced or large.

Or it could be done straight with average level. There could be a different set of monsters and challenges for Level Average 1 than from Level Average 2, LA3, or LA4.

Personally, I like the APLs and bands of 2lvls, although I'd switch to odd numbers. APLs 1, 3, 5, 6, etc.

The D&DXP characters were able to challenge higher level creatures, but I would advise heavily against pulling that kind of stunt on a regular basis. Those encounters were designed to be theoretically possible to win, but I can't imagine that most parties got through them without a number of deaths. The Living Campaign model doesn't work so well if you "only" kill 2-3 characters a module.

On the plus side though, the 'weaker' party aspect should be reduced somewhat. Nothing is going to stop the number of players from varying, but we shouldn't see as many characters that fail to deliver in their intended role anymore.
JohnduBois
03-07-08, 05:40 PM And parties are tougher. The six level 1 DDX characters seem to be able to challenge a lvl8 or 9 creature easily.

I'm not sure when those PCs took out a level 8 creature. I know that in the LFR adventure I ran, the party ran up against a level 4 creature, and zero tables of the six I DM'd were able to win. Only one even came close; the other five were routed.
The_Jester
03-08-08, 09:19 AM I'm not sure when those PCs took out a level 8 creature. I know that in the LFR adventure I ran, the party ran up against a level 4 creature, and zero tables of the six I DM'd were able to win. Only one even came close; the other five were routed.

Full tables of six? Balanced parties?

It might also depend on luck and strategy and knowing the character. When the DM knows the rules and the creature really well (as someone running a mod six times) while the PCs have only just gotten acquainted with themselves and are still learning what they can do, then it probably is a heck of alot harder.

It probably also depends on *which* level 4 monster and if it's an elite or solo.
Nerax
03-08-08, 02:39 PM I'm not sure when those PCs took out a level 8 creature. I know that in the LFR adventure I ran, the party ran up against a level 4 creature, and zero tables of the six I DM'd were able to win. Only one even came close; the other five were routed.

Were you running LFR2? When we played it we were routed and the DM said there was only a 20% survivability of the final encounter.

Full tables of six? Balanced parties?

It might also depend on luck and strategy and knowing the character. When the DM knows the rules and the creature really well (as someone running a mod six times) while the PCs have only just gotten acquainted with themselves and are still learning what they can do, then it probably is a heck of alot harder.

It probably also depends on *which* level 4 monster and if it's an elite or solo.

LFR2 had a solo creature which was really nasty....my group which was slightly experienced (we had all atleast played LFR1 or the Delve prior)was able to "Bloody" it. Unfortunatly the monster had a special reaction once it reached that condition and 3 died of the remaining 5. The Wizard and Ranger were the only ones left and the Ranger was not able to run away. They made a valiant effort to complete the mission but alass died....
kenobi65
03-08-08, 03:49 PM Full tables of six? Balanced parties?

Given that the LFR previews were entirely sold out, and that the pregenerated PCs were an intentional mix of classes and races, I think it's pretty safe to assume that the answer to those two was "yes".
Keith53
03-08-08, 04:35 PM The supplied (pre-gen/fast play) characters for the Previews are a balanced team, and for almost all of the Preview tables at DDXP, 6 players were at a table. (The same characters were used for both previews and the delve.)

My wife and I (after running LFR 2 several times (and asked by players) came to the conclusion that to be successful (fully) the players had to really use great tactics of how to play to their strengths and the adversary's weaknesses (if any), AND to be lucky. I later saw the author, Mike Mearls said much the same thing. In a few cases, I suspect the DM may not ran the encounter as challenging as possible (not saying intentionally).

Remember the previews were designed to illustrate various rules (including the death and dying rules) and some monsters of 4E, and not meant to be a realistic sample of what a normal LFR adventure will be like.

Keith
Lightblade
03-08-08, 07:58 PM I'm not sure when those PCs took out a level 8 creature. I know that in the LFR adventure I ran, the party ran up against a level 4 creature, and zero tables of the six I DM'd were able to win. Only one even came close; the other five were routed.

But that was a level 4 solo. If it was just a regular level 8 monster, it maybe should have been about half as tough? Not sure that linearity still holds there, though.
tombollis
03-09-08, 08:02 AM But that was a level 4 solo. If it was just a regular level 8 monster, it maybe should have been about half as tough? Not sure that linearity still holds there, though.
Linearity seems to be based on xp value rather than directly on level - a 400 xp monster is supposed to be as chalenging as 2 200s, 4 100s, or a 200 and 2 100s, etc., while PC levels are supposed to be linear - 6 1sts = 4 1sts + 1 2nd = 3 1sts + 2 2nds = 3 1sts + 1 3rd, so that determining the strength of an encounter appropriate to a party should be easy, in theory,
when you know the monster xp values.

Tom Bollis
amysrevenge
03-09-08, 01:12 PM Well.

I know it is radical, but we could do away with the APL mechanic entirely, and use the straight-out-of-the-DMG method that I have seen some (but not all) details on.

From what I gather, a home-game DM can look at the number and levels of PCs in the party, and know right away exactly how many XP worth of monsters to use - why can't we do the same thing? Include in the mod what particular monsters to use, in what ratio (3:2:1 melee:ranged:caster for a group of orcs for instance), but determine the exact number based on the number and levels of the PCs - exactly like it says to in the DMG, and let each table face the same average challenge, based on their own strangth.

No more will there be strongly over- or uner-powered tables based on iron-clad, non-negotiable APL calculations.

Big Mike
The_Jester
03-09-08, 05:55 PM That loses some consistency. Maybe if the modules say "choose from these monsters" but then the authors have to narrow down a list of all possible tables sizes for all possible levels.

It's just easier to have the modules assume a minimum number of people (4) and have options to increase difficulty for large groups or high level groups.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Puggle Halfwine 03-02-08, 04:14 AM	Hey guys, I was thinking. With 4th ed making low level characters more powerful, gaining less power per level, it seems that characters who are, say, five levels apart might still be able to reasonably play together without anyone taking any penalties (or being too strong/too weak). This, in my eyes, is a GOOD THING. Thoughts?
Reneshat 03-04-08, 03:59 AM	While that sounds good in theory, I'm waiting until we get a chance to play it and find out how different level balancing works in play.
MatteBlack 03-04-08, 03:26 PM	Hey guys, I was thinking. With 4th ed making low level characters more powerful, gaining less power per level, it seems that characters who are, say, five levels apart might still be able to reasonably play together without anyone taking any penalties (or being too strong/too weak). This, in my eyes, is a GOOD THING. Thoughts? This seems like a likely assessment. Everything I have seen so far seems to support it. I almost see it as starting at level 4 and increasing by 1/2 levels so. That should allow for wider ranges of levels working out at one table.
MwaO 03-05-08, 10:55 AM	This seems like a likely assessment. Everything I have seen so far seems to support it. I almost see it as starting at level 4 and increasing by 1/2 levels so. That should allow for wider ranges of levels working out at one table. That matches my thoughts - it seems similar in a way to most other game systems - you start off more powerful, but advancement is slower. They finally killed off the sacred cow of a 3rd level character being about twice as powerful as a 1st level character.
Puggle Halfwine 03-05-08, 08:52 PM	It does seem likely. What do you think about "APL" in 4th ed? I think it might go away somewhat and be simplified a great deal. Say, only having three classes of module: Heroic, Paragon, Epic, with text in the module saying things like, "For every PC above 5th level, include another kobold skirmisher. For every PC above eighth level, include two kobold skirmishers." But the point is, in 4th ed, I expect there to be significantly less difference between a first and a tenth level character (of the same class). Say, a first level rogue has 30 (with 16 con), while a tenth level rogue has 75. That's a smaller difference than in 3.5, where the first level rogue has 9 hit points and the tenth level one has 82.
chesspiece 03-06-08, 11:54 AM	But HPs aren't the only measure. You must be able to avoid getting hit / debilitated while you dish out appropriate damage. With all classes scaling up AC with level (IIRC) in addition to attacks and Fort / Ref / Will - the first level PC is unlikely to contribute beyond sponging damage a for a round or two. Some things I've read agree with your posts about the level curve being flatter. However, they eliminated XP losses & costs to ensure a group can stay at the same level. They also encourage allowing the party to level up together (regardless of attendance) to avoid level discrepancies. I wonder whether these changes are because Players have less fun if they're always less powerful than the rest of the party, or if the system isn't as balanced or robust when the PCs are spread out in levels. Obviously, there are differences between Living Campaigns and Home Games - where being lower-level means you're probably lower-level forever. Wait and see I guess.
TWG_Prometheus 03-06-08, 04:39 PM	The 4th edition mechanic of adding 1/2 of a character's level bonus to their attacks and defenses needs to be taken into account when considering this. Also, one should consider the fact that the game is assuming that a late-Heroic character is starting to pick up +2 items in their 'big three' gear slots. If you have a 9th level character with a level bonus of +4 and a gear bonus of +2 to basically everything they do, we're looking at a +6 difference between the level 1 character and the level 9 character. That's before we calculate in the additional powers, feats and attribute bonuses that a character might pick up on the way to level 9. (And HP) I expect a difference between +6 and +9 between the 1st and 9th level character in the most common combat statistics. I'd note for reference that this is better than 3rd edition. A 1st and 9th level Fighter are much further apart than +9. The 9th level fighter will have gained +8 BAB, +1 enhancement, +1 attribute bonuses, and +2-+3 to their attacks from feats, making a difference of probably at least +12, with a smaller expected gap in armor class. The difference between a 1st level caster and a 9th level caster is even more dramatic. The math above does appear to make the curve seem flatter, but not by that much of a margin. I don't expect to see a satisfying play experience at a table that includes a level 1 character and a level 9 character, and it's fairly likely that we'll need some form of an APL system. Hopefully it can be relaxed somewhat from its current state. Heroic Low and Heroic High might be sufficient, but it's iffy.
Keith53 03-06-08, 05:12 PM	These concerns are obviously of keen interest to the LFR Writing Directors. After all, we have to oversee the construction of challenging but not overwhelming adventures. I was not a 4E playtester and I don't know if or how much they tested PCs at vastly different levels (nor could I say, if I was one). We will follow the direction of Chris Tulach and the WotC R&D team. I would guess their direction will err on the conservative side to start with (personal opinion). After all they want to present a good play experience. I will not be surprised as we gain some experience, that ranges of levels playing together might be adjusted (also personal opinion). It is so hard to create the perfect system on day one. Better IMHO to start playing, make a few mistakes and learn from the mistakes. Player and DM feedback on how well level ranges are or are not working will be invaluable. Running 6 4E Previews (and one round of the delve) at DDXP gave me some feel for the way the system works, but not so much for the flexibility regarding the contribution of different PCs of different levels. YMMV. Keith Hoffman LFR USA-NC Co-Writing Director (Waterdeep)
bronzmonkee 03-07-08, 12:16 AM	I would imagine that a modified APL system would work pretty well, depending on the range of levels supported by the campaign. Something like: - 1-4 - Heroic Tier 1 - 5-7 - Heroic Tier 2 - 8-10 - Heroic Tier 3 - 11-14 - Paragon Tier 1 - 15-17 - Paragon Tier 2 - 18-20 - Paragon Tier 3 - 21-24 - Epic Tier 1 - 25-27 - Epic Tier 2 - 28-30 - Epic Tier 3
The_Jester 03-07-08, 10:29 AM	The modular-nature of monsters might work really well with broader APLs. And parties are tougher. The six level 1 DDX characters seem to be able to challenge a lvl8 or 9 creature easily. You could have the base module and an option for weaker or harder parties. For example, take away one orc if the party is extra low, poorly balanced or small. But add an extra orc if the party is higher, well balanced or large. Or it could be done straight with average level. There could be a different set of monsters and challenges for Level Average 1 than from Level Average 2, LA3, or LA4. Personally, I like the APLs and bands of 2lvls, although I'd switch to odd numbers. APLs 1, 3, 5, 6, etc.
TWG_Prometheus 03-07-08, 04:08 PM	The modular-nature of monsters might work really well with broader APLs. And parties are tougher. The six level 1 DDX characters seem to be able to challenge a lvl8 or 9 creature easily. You could have the base module and an option for weaker or harder parties. For example, take away one orc if the party is extra low, poorly balanced or small. But add an extra orc if the party is higher, well balanced or large. Or it could be done straight with average level. There could be a different set of monsters and challenges for Level Average 1 than from Level Average 2, LA3, or LA4. Personally, I like the APLs and bands of 2lvls, although I'd switch to odd numbers. APLs 1, 3, 5, 6, etc. The D&DXP characters were able to challenge higher level creatures, but I would advise heavily against pulling that kind of stunt on a regular basis. Those encounters were designed to be theoretically possible to win, but I can't imagine that most parties got through them without a number of deaths. The Living Campaign model doesn't work so well if you "only" kill 2-3 characters a module. On the plus side though, the 'weaker' party aspect should be reduced somewhat. Nothing is going to stop the number of players from varying, but we shouldn't see as many characters that fail to deliver in their intended role anymore.
JohnduBois 03-07-08, 05:40 PM	And parties are tougher. The six level 1 DDX characters seem to be able to challenge a lvl8 or 9 creature easily. I'm not sure when those PCs took out a level 8 creature. I know that in the LFR adventure I ran, the party ran up against a level 4 creature, and zero tables of the six I DM'd were able to win. Only one even came close; the other five were routed.
The_Jester 03-08-08, 09:19 AM	I'm not sure when those PCs took out a level 8 creature. I know that in the LFR adventure I ran, the party ran up against a level 4 creature, and zero tables of the six I DM'd were able to win. Only one even came close; the other five were routed. Full tables of six? Balanced parties? It might also depend on luck and strategy and knowing the character. When the DM knows the rules and the creature really well (as someone running a mod six times) while the PCs have only just gotten acquainted with themselves and are still learning what they can do, then it probably is a heck of alot harder. It probably also depends on which level 4 monster and if it's an elite or solo.
Nerax 03-08-08, 02:39 PM	I'm not sure when those PCs took out a level 8 creature. I know that in the LFR adventure I ran, the party ran up against a level 4 creature, and zero tables of the six I DM'd were able to win. Only one even came close; the other five were routed. Were you running LFR2? When we played it we were routed and the DM said there was only a 20% survivability of the final encounter. Full tables of six? Balanced parties? It might also depend on luck and strategy and knowing the character. When the DM knows the rules and the creature really well (as someone running a mod six times) while the PCs have only just gotten acquainted with themselves and are still learning what they can do, then it probably is a heck of alot harder. It probably also depends on which level 4 monster and if it's an elite or solo. LFR2 had a solo creature which was really nasty....my group which was slightly experienced (we had all atleast played LFR1 or the Delve prior)was able to "Bloody" it. Unfortunatly the monster had a special reaction once it reached that condition and 3 died of the remaining 5. The Wizard and Ranger were the only ones left and the Ranger was not able to run away. They made a valiant effort to complete the mission but alass died....
kenobi65 03-08-08, 03:49 PM	Full tables of six? Balanced parties? Given that the LFR previews were entirely sold out, and that the pregenerated PCs were an intentional mix of classes and races, I think it's pretty safe to assume that the answer to those two was "yes".
Keith53 03-08-08, 04:35 PM	The supplied (pre-gen/fast play) characters for the Previews are a balanced team, and for almost all of the Preview tables at DDXP, 6 players were at a table. (The same characters were used for both previews and the delve.) My wife and I (after running LFR 2 several times (and asked by players) came to the conclusion that to be successful (fully) the players had to really use great tactics of how to play to their strengths and the adversary's weaknesses (if any), AND to be lucky. I later saw the author, Mike Mearls said much the same thing. In a few cases, I suspect the DM may not ran the encounter as challenging as possible (not saying intentionally). Remember the previews were designed to illustrate various rules (including the death and dying rules) and some monsters of 4E, and not meant to be a realistic sample of what a normal LFR adventure will be like. Keith
Lightblade 03-08-08, 07:58 PM	I'm not sure when those PCs took out a level 8 creature. I know that in the LFR adventure I ran, the party ran up against a level 4 creature, and zero tables of the six I DM'd were able to win. Only one even came close; the other five were routed. But that was a level 4 solo. If it was just a regular level 8 monster, it maybe should have been about half as tough? Not sure that linearity still holds there, though.
tombollis 03-09-08, 08:02 AM	But that was a level 4 solo. If it was just a regular level 8 monster, it maybe should have been about half as tough? Not sure that linearity still holds there, though. Linearity seems to be based on xp value rather than directly on level - a 400 xp monster is supposed to be as chalenging as 2 200s, 4 100s, or a 200 and 2 100s, etc., while PC levels are supposed to be linear - 6 1sts = 4 1sts + 1 2nd = 3 1sts + 2 2nds = 3 1sts + 1 3rd, so that determining the strength of an encounter appropriate to a party should be easy, in theory, when you know the monster xp values. Tom Bollis
amysrevenge 03-09-08, 01:12 PM	Well. I know it is radical, but we could do away with the APL mechanic entirely, and use the straight-out-of-the-DMG method that I have seen some (but not all) details on. From what I gather, a home-game DM can look at the number and levels of PCs in the party, and know right away exactly how many XP worth of monsters to use - why can't we do the same thing? Include in the mod what particular monsters to use, in what ratio (3:2:1 melee:ranged:caster for a group of orcs for instance), but determine the exact number based on the number and levels of the PCs - exactly like it says to in the DMG, and let each table face the same average challenge, based on their own strangth. No more will there be strongly over- or uner-powered tables based on iron-clad, non-negotiable APL calculations. Big Mike
The_Jester 03-09-08, 05:55 PM	That loses some consistency. Maybe if the modules say "choose from these monsters" but then the authors have to narrow down a list of all possible tables sizes for all possible levels. It's just easier to have the modules assume a minimum number of people (4) and have options to increase difficulty for large groups or high level groups.