Encounters per Level

[Pssthpok]

...sorry if this has already been elaborated upon, but has there been any hint or idea of how many encounters per level will be the 'norm' in 4E?

Thanks,
Phssthpok.

 

[Knight Otu]

I do believe the number ten "standard" encounters has been named for that.

 

[Chibbot]

I believe they've said that getting from 1 to 30 in 4e should take about the same time as getting 1 to 20 in 3.x

I do believe the number ten "standard" encounters has been named for that.

Hadn't heard that, but glad to hear it.

And people say DnD isn't metric! "Hi, I'd like to join your game with my 6.4 deca-encounter paladin."

 

[HeinorNY]

I do believe the number ten "standard" encounters has been named for that.

This.

 

[kennew142]

I haven't been paying all that much attention. All I know is that it will be much slower IMC. My group is tired of the whiplash pace of advancement in 3e. I expect 4e RAW will be even worse. I'm one of those who liked the rate of advancement in 1-2e (once you got to level 3 that is).

It's my post; of course it's my opinion!

Ken

 

[JoelF]

Bear in mind thought that 1 encounter in 4E is often more like 3-4 in 3.X. This is because an encounter often includes monsters from other rooms joining the fight in later rounds, so it's the equivilent to multiple rooms in 3.x. This still happened in 3.x of course, but it's just a new way to count it as 1 encounter instead of one per room using the old way. Isn't New Math fun?!

 

[jodyjohnson]

I think the default will be slower than 3.x.

Or at the very least it'll feel slower as you fight more rounds and against more opponents.

 

[Cyronax]

I think the default will be slower than 3.x.

Or at the very least it'll feel slower as you fight more rounds and against more opponents.

I think the default speed of the encounters will increase because of the quicker resolution of kills in 4e. Not so much page flipping. That said, I bet the leveling rate will be overall faster than 3.X. Only old school DMs/players (like myself) enjoy wallowing at levels for months at a time.

On a hopeful note, I would like to see WotC/4e use an experience table similar to Paizo's (i.e. a table with XP progressions based on speed of leveling).

c.i.d.

 

[kennew142]

Only old school DMs/players (like myself) enjoy wallowing at levels for months at a time.

Ain't this the truth! This is why I've always argued that the default rate of advancement should be pretty fast. It's what the majority of players want. Furthermore advancement is probably the single easiest thing to house rule in D&D. ASAIK my entire group like the slower rate of advancement. We like to take 3-5 years (real time) to reach 10-12th level. Since we don't usually enjoy higher level play [probably the main reason I was so turned off on 3e by the time the 4e announcement came out is that all of our campaigns were too high level for our enjoyment], that's when we retire the characters and start anew to tell a different saga.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What I'd like to know is: Is the number of 10 encounters per day similar to the 13 CR = EL encounters of 3E, or did they also take into account a few more difficult encounters?

For the record: If we are supposed to send 4 PCs vs. 4 NPCs in an average ecnounter, this would boil down to 100 XP per person (by the published XP values for 1st level NPCs). So, to get to 2nd level with 10 encounters, you'd need 1.000 XP.
2nd level PCs would then require you to get 1.250 XP, 3rd level PCs 1.500, 4th level PCs 1.750, and 5th level PCs. 2.000 XP. Leaving us with an XP table that looked something like this
Level 2: 1000 XP
Level 3: 2.250 XP
Level 4: 3.750 XP
Level 5: 5.500 XP
(...)
Errors in this table:
(1) Actually, the standard assumption is 5 PCs vs 4 NPCs, at least according to the preview books, IIRC. This might indicate more then 10 encounters per level, or would allow us to stray in a few more difficult encounters.
(2) My XP estimation for NPCs might be slightly off. I think they match with what I have seen so far, but I am not 100% confident.