Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AllisterH" data-source="post: 4162429" data-attributes="member: 51325">That's not entirely true. Pre-3E, monsters only had a XP value and that was the only way to tell whether or not a monster was appropriate. You never went by HD as a judge. Not true again either. For the non-magical classes, levels were NEVER that big a jump. A level 10 fighter with non-magical gear is weaker than a level 20 fighter with non-magical gear. However, 5 level 10 fighters I'd give great odds against the level 20 fighter and this is true across ALL editions of D&D for the non-magic users. Furthermore, this still is true in 4E since unlike say GURPS where a 250 pt build can still lose half the time to a 150 pt build, a level 5 PC is going to wipe the floor with a level 1 PC.It was MAGIC and Spellcasting that didn't operate on a linear scale where a level 20 mage is pretty much immune to a HUNDRED level 10 mages.You might be slightly exaggerating here. The TIER system is what I think ensures that. On the 4E Monster boards at WOTC people have run mock battles between creatures of different levels (but equal xp value in total) and there IS a breaking point. Basically, if you're 10 levels above, no amount of luck will help as the inherent defenses are just too much. Even at 8 or 9 difference, the battles drag on too long given how often the PC hits etc.For example, people have done the pit fiend versus kobolds and there literally is nothing the kobolds can do to touch the pit fiend even though supposedly X amount of kobolds equal one pit fiend.So, as an aside, does this make 4E less of a superhero game that others were worried about if (and we still haven't seen what a 5th level PC can actually do) a 5th level party still has to run away from kobolds?</blockquote>

Verification