More from Mike Mearls

[Spatula]

Not 100% edition-independent, because in 4e, it seems you can use XP values as a kind of point system to build encounters and gauge their relative difficulty through that.

Eh, what? XP values and CR/EL are basically interchangeable in 3e (given a party of level X), and in 1e and 2e, XP values are wholly derived from the perceived power-level of a monster. So how is what you just said not edition-independant?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Eh, what? XP values and CR/EL are basically interchangeable in 3e (given a party of level X), and in 1e and 2e, XP values are wholly derived from the perceived power-level of a monster. So how is what you just said not edition-independant?

These are the things:
"Given a party of level X". If only one character has a different level, the XP is different for him.
Furthermore, you need to consult a chart before determining the XP, which makes it a slower tool then consulting a fixed XP value for a monster.

In addition, 3rd edition did not give you "expected XP value per encounter" but only "appropriate encounter levels". Combining creatures with different CRs and then determining the correct EL was very imprecise. This combination of CR, EL and XP relative to a party level made it difficult to predict both the balance of encounters and the progression rate. It was certainly not impossible (otherwise, the adventure modules from WotC or Paizos adventure path wouldn't have been possible), but it wasn't a "quick & dirty" tool.

I don't know that from experience, but I assume that previous editions had more trouble describing the appropriate encounter, while it was easier to predict the advancement of the PCs (except naturally for the different XP advancement rates by class). (But it wasn't impossible either...)

 

[Mistwell]

I had Mearls confused with Noonan. Comes from listening to too many of the D&D podcasts.

Knowing you, Brewhammer, listen to Podcasts regularly (as evidenced by the posts you made in this thread about podcasts) I find your talk unsettling.

Especially when coupled with this new post where you continually bring up that you listen to "too many" podcasts.

It concerns me that you listen to so many podcasts at the expense of reading this board and posting to it, which is the one true way to explore the depths of this hobby. Will you now look at our words from a "what if that were spoken out loud" perspective, thus discounting anything not written as dialog?

 

[Spatula]

These are the things:
"Given a party of level X". If only one character has a different level, the XP is different for him.

Beside the point. The different xp values for players who have different levels is just a means to catch them up / slow them down with respect to the overall party level.

Furthermore, you need to consult a chart before determining the XP, which makes it a slower tool then consulting a fixed XP value for a monster.

Very true. Also beside the point.

In addition, 3rd edition did not give you "expected XP value per encounter" but only "appropriate encounter levels".

The two are the same in 3e, because you know how many "appropriate" encounters it takes to level the party, and the xp values follow the general rules for adding up CRs into an EL (e.g. CR n = XP x; CR (n + 2) = XP (x * 2)).

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Given the emphasis on mobility and maneuverability on the battlefield, I suspect that parties will be able to run easier.

However, the decision to run still lies with the players. Do you know how hard it is to get PCs to back away from a fight? I'll be curious if 4E does that somehow mechanically, since even enemies dishing out significant amounts of damage per round often seem to encourage the "take them down before us" thinking instead of retreating.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

However, the decision to run still lies with the players. Do you know how hard it is to get PCs to back away from a fight?

Or get them captured? It's hard. Be prepared for the worse and don't count on either of it.