Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Myrhdraak" data-source="post: 7023426" data-attributes="member: 6694190">I guess I will loose at least half ot the crowd starting to talk about standard deviation. Well the reason is that it really matter when I as a DM start to build encounters. If the XP numbers deviations too far from the actual “threat” or “danger” of the monster vs. the player level, we get a problem. We either build to hard or too easy encounters and loose the DM control. But if we can minimize the difference between the monster actual threat level and its capability to reduce player resources, we get a very balanced game. As you can see in the graph below, by doing 50 itteration I have managed to reduce the percentage standard deviation from 20% to less than 1%, with the worst correlation from 60% down to 1,5%, see below. [ATTACH]81101[/ATTACH]The result is which gives us another shape of the XP curves. We can now choose to use the 100 XP for a level 1 monster as basis for the new curve (green curve), or we can try to keep the 19,000 XP for a level 30 monster as the basis (red curve). The later is actually the one that gives the best result (red curve) as we get a deviation from the traditional 4th Edition XP curve that is smaller. On the secondary axis (purple line) in the graph below you can see the percentage deviation from the traditional 4th edition XP curve. Biggest deviation is in paragon levels, as well as low heroic levels, where we see a +- 60-70% deviation from the traditional 4th Edition XP curve vs. the new XP curve.[ATTACH]81102[/ATTACH]ConclusionWe now have something that looks really promising from an encounter design point of view. We just have to set the actual number for each monster level, and its implication on the character XP level progression table. We should also double check the Cleric healing capability as it could affect these numbers if we see a great increase in number of HS that can be used during an encounter.</blockquote>

Verification