1 PC = 1 elite monster?

[Greenfaun]

Um, okay, check me on this, but it seems like you're saying that the two of you are discussing whether

"1 elite monster = 1 PC"

but one of you is thinking "=" means "is the same as" while the other thinks "=" means "is a good match in a winnable combat for" which are two very different things.

So, uh, there's your problem.

As for the other question, according to 3.5 rules one NPC with equivalent levels in a PC class is considered a standard challenge for a party of 4, because CR=ECL for class levels. (barring the "associated class" weirdness of powerful monsters that also have class levels) So that would mean that under 3.5 balance, a PC would equal a Solo monster. It does look like, with the new focus on group combat in 4e, maybe Elites would be a better match, but it's hard to say for sure.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Um, okay, check me on this, but it seems like you're saying that the two of you are discussing whether

"1 elite monster = 1 PC"

but one of you is thinking "=" means "is the same as" while the other thinks "=" means "is a good match in a winnable combat for" which are two very different things.

So, uh, there's your problem.

The question is - what do the designers intent exactly? What did they implement?

As for the other question, according to 3.5 rules one NPC with equivalent levels in a PC class is considered a standard challenge for a party of 4, because CR=ECL for class levels. (barring the "associated class" weirdness of powerful monsters that also have class levels) So that would mean that under 3.5 balance, a PC would equal a Solo monster. It does look like, with the new focus on group combat in 4e, maybe Elites would be a better match, but it's hard to say for sure.

A standard challenge in 3rd edition only requires approximately 25 % of the party resources (though I'd argue it does require even less, at least for classed NPCs). A comparable encounter to a solo monster is an encounter against a EL = PL +4 (which should cost most of the party resources and has a ~50% chance of crushing the party).

 

[A'koss]

Yeah, at this point it's hard to guage when making direct comparisons to an individual PC. In 4e PCs have more renewable resources, all have some access to self-healing, I get the impression there is greater combat synergy in a standard party makup (very effective "teamwork"), 5 PCs being the standard now vs. 4... all these things are going to contribute.

Do they feel that PCs should be using more than 25% of their resources in a standard fight because they will renew the majority of them when the encounter is over? Is something like 30% more realistic now? We can't really say. Taking that into account my guess is that a solo monster will likely be a fair bit more powerful than any one PC.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Yeah, at this point it's hard to guage when making direct comparisons to an individual PC. In 4e PCs have more renewable resources, all have some access to self-healing, I get the impression there is greater combat synergy in a standard party makup (very effective "teamwork"), 5 PCs being the standard now vs. 4... all these things are going to contribute.

Do they feel that PCs should be using more than 25% of their resources in a standard fight because they will renew the majority of them when the encounter is over? Is something like 30% more realistic now? We can't really say. Taking that into account my guess is that a solo monster will likely be a fair bit more powerful than any one PC.

3e) I don't think I've ever seen a good "metric" for resource costs. Trying to add up the costs of expendable items (eg potions), spells, hit points, etc ends up rather jumbled, in part due to different class needs, "builds" and items acquired.

3e) I think the typical encounter should have taken more than 25% of resources in 3e!

 

[A'koss]

3e) I don't think I've ever seen a good "metric" for resource costs. Trying to add up the costs of expendable items (eg potions), spells, hit points, etc ends up rather jumbled, in part due to different class needs, "builds" and items acquired.

Oh, I agree completely. It's more a "feel" which which incorporates party damage, decent spells used and healing remaining. My point was that PCs in 4e might be expected to absorb more "pain" per standard encounter than their 3e counterparts, due to the renewability factor, thus more relatively powerful monsters.

3e) I think the typical encounter should have taken more than 25% of resources in 3e!

*shrug* I'm not sure I'd want "standard" encounters to eat up more than that myself (in 3e), making the day even shorter. But on the other hand I've generally favored big, grand encounters over a bunch of smaller ones which usually did just that anyway.

 

[bonethug0108]

This is how it is broken down.

4 minions of equal level of the player are a good challenge for 1 player
1 standard monster of equal level of the player is a good challenge for 1 player
1 elite monster of equal level of the players is a good challenge for 2 players
1 solo monster of equal level of the players is a good challenge for 4 or 5 players

Now this is different from saying 1 elite monster of equal level of the players = 2 players. It is a good challenge for two players, but would be slightly weaker because it is expected to lose most of the time.

Perhaps 1 standard monster of one or two levels higher than the player = 1 player, but we don't know the power curve yet. It could be 1 standard monster of 4 levels higher than the player = 1 player. From what they've said, the second is likely the case. They would both have an equal chance of killing the other.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

The 1 Standard Monster per PC (as you attest) is just to determine an appropriate challenge. Not to determine if its as powerful as a PC of the same level, which would be stupid because then your PCs would all be dead within a few encounters.

It's been stated that per-day abilities are only about 20% of any class's total potential. Specifically, even if you go "all out" on your first encounter, you'll still have 80% of your resources left for the next.

So whereas in 3e a "level-appropriate challenge" took up 25% of a party's resources, I'm guessing a 4e encounter is aimed at taking at least 80-85% (all the party's encounter abilities that'll refresh anyway, along with some of the daily abilities).

So if 4 same-level monsters is an "appropriate encounter" for 4 PCs, each monster is 80-85% as "powerful" as a PC.

But of course none of these measurements really make sense in 4e, since they're making monster stats different from PC stats again. A level 10 monster might be significantly weaker than a level 10 human fighter if played as a PC, or it might be ridiculously overpowered, because they're not even going to try to balance things that way anymore.

 

[Kerrick]

This is how it is broken down.

4 minions of equal level of the player are a good challenge for 1 player
1 standard monster of equal level of the player is a good challenge for 1 player
1 elite monster of equal level of the players is a good challenge for 2 players
1 solo monster of equal level of the players is a good challenge for 4 or 5 players

See, that's what I was saying - 1 standard monster = 1 PC. I just didn't state it very clearly.

Oh, I agree completely. It's more a "feel" which which incorporates party damage, decent spells used and healing remaining. My point was that PCs in 4e might be expected to absorb more "pain" per standard encounter than their 3e counterparts, due to the renewability factor, thus more relatively powerful monsters.

Yeah, that's pretty much what they've said - the PCs will have more staying power, so they can have those big, grand encounters.

 

[bonethug0108]

See, that's what I was saying. I just didn't state it very clearly.

That is how most arguments in the world start off, and just about every argument online. Well that and opinion.

It happens to me all the time. I make long winded points and people seem to miss one of them and take the whole thing out of context.

Then someone comes along and makes my point in a sentence or two, or sometimes even in a word or two.