Please someone tell me I missed something

[jshelky]

Ok, so far almost everything I've read about 4.0 sounds awesome, right up to the point that I read Aint it cool news 4E part 2.

In it Massawyrm explains that monsters scale perfectly and you can work out an encounter just by selecting the right amount of xp. However everything I've read so far including this review implies that monsters have a flat xp value. If the xp value of the monster is just based off its level with no comparison to the party then there's no way this model can work. The math just doesn't work.

Yes, maybe as mentioned in his review 3 1rst level monsters will do the same damage as 1 7th level, but that would have to mean that a 7th level monster does basically the same damage as a 1st level because the desperity in attack bonus should mean that at most 1 of the 1st level monsters hits as often as the 7th. Not to mention how much easier it should be to vaporize 3 first level guys with area of effect spells compared to a 7th level guy.

So I'm just hoping that someone can't point me to information that disputes this, otherwise it sounds like they actually came up with a system that's even more worthless than CR and I didn't think that was actually possible.

Please Help
Jon

 

[Rechan]

Could you perhaps try to rephrase the question, or the complaint? I don't... understand what you're trying to say.

 

[Kordeth]

There have been a lot of monster stat blocks leaked over the course of the last few days. Why not compare for yourself? Here are quite a bunch.

Compare, for instance, the level 2 Goblin Picador and the level 6 Chillborn. The goblin has an attack bonus of +9, AC 16, and 26 hp. He inflicts 1d4+3 points of damage with his base attack. The Chillborn has a +14 attack bonus, AC 22, and 48 hp, and inflicts 1d6+6 damage with a chance to immobilize the target for one round.

Sure looks like one level 6 guy is about as challenging as three level 2 guys to me.

 

[withak]

Monsters had a flat XP value before 3e, and it worked just fine then.

I don't understand how the math "doesn't work".

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Reading between the lines of multipe posts, here's what I understand of how the system works:

The system is intended to balanced for a number of characters of level X to face an equal number of creatures of level X (not counting "Solo" monsters, which are special).

So four PCs versus four Level 1 monters is balanced. Level 1 monsters are 100 XP, so that's a 400 Xp encounter. So any combination of monsters adding to 400XP is theoretically also a balanced encounter -- could be 16 minions at 25 XP each, 2 level 4s at 200 XP each, etc. If you have six level 4 PCs, that's 2400 XP for a balanced encounter, with any appropriate combinations of monsters.

That's what I think I understand, anyway. It eliminates CR to EL math, and makes adding different monster capabilities easier to calculate, but right now I still don't quite have a handle on it, so I don't know if it is really easier, or just different.

The real question is how do you make sure one Level 4 monster is the same as another ... and I don't know how they do that.

 

[jshelky]

There have been a lot of monster stat blocks leaked over the course of the last few days. Why not compare for yourself? Here are quite a bunch.

Compare, for instance, the level 2 Goblin Picador and the level 6 Chillborn. The goblin has an attack bonus of +9, AC 16, and 26 hp. He inflicts 1d4+3 points of damage with his base attack. The Chillborn has a +14 attack bonus, AC 22, and 48 hp, and inflicts 1d6+6 damage with a chance to immobilize the target for one round.

Sure looks like one level 6 guy is about as challenging as three level 2 guys to me.

Thank you Kordeth, this is exactly the kind of information I was looking for, I'll have to actually crunch the numbers but things are close enough that this could actually work. I've read a number of posts but nothing inlcuding the monster stats for reference. This make things look much more doable. And vastly more under control than days of old.

 

[Just Another User]

Sure looks like one level 6 guy is about as challenging as three level 2 guys to me.

but are 13 goblins picador as challenging as a lv 26 pit fiend? (or is that 26 goblins because he is an Elite?)

 

[Celebrim]

Ok, so far almost everything I've read about 4.0 sounds awesome, right up to the point that I read Aint it cool news 4E part 2.

In it Massawyrm explains that monsters scale perfectly and you can work out an encounter just by selecting the right amount of xp. However everything I've read so far including this review implies that monsters have a flat xp value. If the xp value of the monster is just based off its level with no comparison to the party then there's no way this model can work. The math just doesn't work.

Well, to a certain extent you are right. The math doesn't work.

Earlier editions got away with it because a monsters XP was actually only a small portion of the total XP needed to gain a level. The bigger portion came from treasure, which at least in 1st edition you where encouraged to scale with the risk. That is, for example, if the 1st level characters got 20 gp, after beating 10 kobolds, and recieved 20xp for bringing the treasure out, the same treasure for the same encounters was only worth 2xp for 10th level characters. The kobolds were worth the same, but being only worth 6-9 XP each and higher level characters needing 10's or 100's of thousands of XP, the problem mostly was ignorable. To the extent that it wasn't, 1st edition DM's generally would have put a kibosh on any XP farming by fiat ruling. (The 'No, you don't get XP for killing a duck' rule.)

I think 4E edition will mostly get away with it because 4E doesn't encourage sandbox style play, and hense if the players probably never (or at least not regularly) encounter foes wildly beneath thier ability who present little reasonable challenge.

To be fair, I think your complaint against 4E is minor. Any area of the 4E rules that I could easily deal with by making a house rule counts as a minor flaw as far as I'm concerned. Non-scaling XP can be easily dealt with by a minor change in the rules if you think its impacting your campaign. For most DM's I doubt it will.

 

[Kordeth]

but are 13 goblins picador as challenging as a lv 26 pit fiend? (or is that 26 goblins because he is an Elite?)

It would be 26, yeah. Actually, it might be more, because I gather you're supposed to compare the XP value, and we don't have that for the Picador--there might be a range of XP values for a level 2 monster. But yeah, without knowing exactly what per-encounter and per-day abilities 26th-level PCs have, at a guess I could see 26 of these guys being at least a moderate challenge for 2 26th-level PCs. There are enough of them that statistically they have a good chance of at least one crit per round, and provided they don't do stupid things like bunch up into fireball bait they'd probably take a while to bring down. Also depends a lot on how AC scales at high levels--that +9 to hit could hose them. I expect, though, that a mix of 26 2nd-level controllers, artillery, soldiers and brutes could certainly be a good challenge for half a party--although at that point the number of beasts on the field is going to get really cumbersome.

 

[Khaim]

but are 13 goblins picador as challenging as a lv 26 pit fiend? (or is that 26 goblins because he is an Elite?)

A level 2 is worth 125 XP. The Pit Fiend is worth 18,000 XP. So no, 13 Goblins are not worth a bit fiend.

A gross of Goblins Picador would be. It would be difficult to run, however.