"4th Edition will assume roughly 10 encounters per level"

[MoogleEmpMog]

Depending on the definition of an 'encounter' and the degree to which the power curve really has smoothed out, it's either about right or about 1/10 the advancement rate I'm looking for.

However, with the removal of XP-spending, I can level the PCs once per session without any trouble at all.

 

[KarinsDad]

I disagree. In 3.x, you had to hand out magic items at a certain rate. If you handed out XP at a greater or lesser rate, you had to alter the rate of magic item handouts as well. However, if you slowed down advancement, you weren't just giving out less treasure, you were giving out lamer treasure. Slowing down advancement screwed PCs in the magic items department; at best, they had to sell all the magic items they got for better ones (as they never got the right ones for their level).

This is not precisely true.

Our current group of 5 PCs is 4th level and they have only a few magic items: +1 Longsword, +1 Glamered Breastplate, two +1 Amulets of Natural Armor (which the Artificer created), a first level Pearl of Power and a handful of potions and scrolls.

According to the DMG, they should have a combined wealth of 27,000 GP. They have <12,000 GP in items and another ~4000 GP in coin and even though they are only slightly above half of their "wealth by level", they are not hurting in encounters at all.

One does not "have to" hand out wealth at a certain rate, it is merely a suggestion, and one that can be ignored. Especially if the DM wants to avoid the Christmas tree effect.

The game can still be fun and enjoyable without following the DMG power curve.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Encounters drop for 13 per level to 10 per level in 4e.
Combat will move faster in 4e.
Things other than combat count as encounters in 4e.

Levelling per the RAW may get a heck of a lot faster once you combine all these things.

 

[Darrell]

"Ten encounters per level." Heh.

Not in my games.

Ten gaming sessions per level maybe.

I ran a game for two years during college, playing pretty much every other night, and when we finally wrapped it up, the PCs were somewhere around levels 10-12.

 

[Reynard]

The total XP after 10 should level you. Think about the other major thing that they've said, though. XP is not a resource. Nothing will ever drop it. That means that you don't even need to keep track of XP. You can just periodically level your players if you decide that it's time.

I think counting XP is important because levelling is important in D&D. Therefore, the things for which you are rewarded --in XP -- are things that are important. Take it one step further and the things for which you get XP are things that the DM wants you to do. XP is a carrot to get a certain playstyl;e response.

Let's look at the various editions as baselines:

1E is largely about combat and exploration and the search for loot. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that you get XP for both overcoming creatures and for the treasure you find, and that rarer, more powerful creatures tended to have more treasure. You also had the interesting effect of getting XP for the items to found, but you could get more XP -- via gold -- by selling it off.

2E started the trend toward railroading storytelling adventure paths, and took itself much more seriously as a Role-Playing game than 1E did. Not surprisingly, 2E focused extra XP awards on correct, narrow behaviors that made sure the players stayed within their stereotypes and niches. In addition, 2E made the "story award" more explicit, made monsters worth more and (IIRC) took out the gold=XP element.

3E awards XP for one thing and one things only: winning. As long as the PCs win, it doesn't matter whethger they kill their enemies, trick them or even sidestep them. This makes sense given the tendency of the system to reward optimal builds -- the XP reward system promotes optimal play.

Taking out the XP system entirely means that there is no built in method of promoting a playstyle. The players know you will just be levelling them when you get bored every other session or so. I am currently running a game that way -- the MWP DragonLance modules do this -- and I hate it. The only way for the PCs not to gain a level is for the game to end, because they only gain a level upon successful completion of each chapter. It has the benefit of not requiring the players to hunt down every last draconian or goblin as they flee a battle, but it also doesn't push them to do anything outside the linear adventure path.

Gaining XP in small doses, working toward the next level, is, IME and IMO, one of the great selling points of D&D. Arbitreary advancement and rapid advancement undermine that part of the game and make the whole thing, and play in general, weaker.

 

[frankthedm]

Given how one designer said you could be fighting 20 goblins in one fight at 1st level, I don't see four kobolds being presented as a single encounter.

20 on 4 or 5 is quite possible provided the right enviroment. Was not the playtest situation in a place where the gobbos were coming from multiple directions in a dungeon complex?

Something more like

rather than

Also, Kobolds were only chosen for my previous example since thier 1/4 cr synchs up with the 4E one foe per PC paradigm.

 

[Fifth Element]

Yuck. 10 is the wrong number. Don't they realize that I would prefer 11 encounters per level? The designers obviously have no idea what they're doing.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

20 on 4 or 5 is quite possible provided the right enviroment. Was not the playtest situation in a place where the gobbos were coming from multiple directions in a dungeon complex?

Something more like

rather than

Also, Kobolds were only chosen for my previous example since thier 1/4 cr synchs up with the 4E one foe per PC paradigm.

Dude, very cool visuals. What kind of program is that?

 

[frankthedm]

Dude, very cool visuals. What kind of program is that?

Sprites were from...

Goblins; D&D: Shadow over mystara
Barbarian; Golden Axe
King of Dragons; Old wizard, cleric
Final Fantasy 4; red fighter

Dungeon was a wotc website map from a recent greyhawk book.

All copypasta'd into MS paint.

 

[Just Another User]

It might also imply (although not guarantee) that the game is still balanced correctly if you change the amount of XP you give out.

In 3.x, you would quickly have a great disparity between "expected wealth" and actual wealth by level, and this would eventually mean the encounter and CR rules broke down, since the characters more powerful then expected - at least in some cases (which is the hardest part - it doesn't affect every encounter equally)

If magic items are not so tied to power than wealth is not a problem anymore, in 3rd edition the problem with wealth was only that PCs could use it to buy powerful weapons and armour i.e. large bonus to AC, BAB and stats, but apparently in 4D! power don't come from magic items anymore, (not in such large quantity, at least) and I can't think to nothing else that PCs could buy to break the game balance (I mean what could they do? Buy lands? I wish. Hire an NPC army? Big deal, after a little every single PC allone would be much more powerful than that army).

this if they do it right, of course.