Please someone tell me I missed something

[Spatula]

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

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

What he's getting at is encounter design, and the role of 4e monster XP therein; he's not complaining about flat XP rewards.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

somthing tells me you came into D&D in 3.x go back further, the math worked just fine then.

 

[Just Another User]

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.

Ah, I see. So the comparison is not directly between levels. I admit that this interest me,one of the thing I liked less in 3.x was that low level monsters were no challenge at all for higher level characters, no matter the number. Being able to challenge 20 level characters with a whole tribe of unclassed, untemplated kobolds would be intriguing.

 

[Spatula]

We won't really know how well encounters "scale" until we see the stats, especially defenses, of typical higher level PCs. If PCs get a level-based bonus to defenses in addition to better equipment, then using lower level monsters will probably not scale very well at all - they won't be able to hit the PCs often enough to matter, and certainly not before dying to area effects. If PCs don't, well we know that magic items have been toned down, so they might remain in the realm of the hittable.

I am guessing that we'll end up with something similar in effectiveness to the current CR/EL system (only simpler) - works fine as long as you don't deviate too far from the norm. Replacing a lvl 10 monster with two lvl 8 monsters (or whatever) = fine; replacing a pit fiend with one hundred goblins = system breaks down.

 

[Spatula]

Ah, I see. So the comparison is not directly between levels. I admit that this interest me,one of the thing I liked less in 3.x was that low level monsters were no challenge at all for higher level characters, no matter the number.

And this wasn't true in 1e/2e?

Ah, the days when a fighter could make 1 attack per round per fighter level against kobolds and goblins...

 

[Henry]

And this wasn't true in 1e/2e?

Ah, the days when a fighter could make 1 attack per round per fighter level against kobolds and goblins...

Still can -- Whirlwind Attack and/or Cleave in 3e.

And as for scaling encounters -- I don't care if it doesn't scale perfectly, just as long as it can at least scale over a 10 level difference or so. I'm not about to run 20 thousand Kobold Minions against a level 30 party and think it could be remotely balanced...

 

[malraux]

We won't really know how well encounters "scale" until we see the stats, especially defenses, of typical higher level PCs. If PCs get a level-based bonus to defenses in addition to better equipment, then using lower level monsters will probably not scale very well at all - they won't be able to hit the PCs often enough to matter, and certainly not before dying to area effects.

Best guess I have is that attacks and defense scale at 5/6 of level (1/2 level to attributes and 1/3 level incorporated into equipment).

 

[Just Another User]

And this wasn't true in 1e/2e?

Ah, the days when a fighter could make 1 attack per round per fighter level against kobolds and goblins...

It was different, PC had less hit point, AC and saving throws didn't grew almost limitlessly like in 3e, that kobold shaman Hold Person (or charm person) had still a chance, even if small, to put your fighter out of combat, a single hit point of damage was enough to stop your wizard to cast spell for that round, in cramped enviroments fireballs and similiar spells were more dangerous to you than to the enemies, etc, etc.

Or to sum it up in two words,

Tucker's kobolds.

(that BTW, I don't think works so well in 3.X)

 

[Spatula]

Still can -- Whirlwind Attack and/or Cleave in 3e.

Psh, Cleave only lets you kill 2 kobolds a round - Great Cleave is what you need!

And as for scaling encounters -- I don't care if it doesn't scale perfectly, just as long as it can at least scale over a 10 level difference or so. I'm not about to run 20 thousand Kobold Minions against a level 30 party and think it could be remotely balanced...

10 levels is a *lot* in any edition of D&D. We don't know the PC's power curve yet, but I find it hard to imagine lvl 1 foes being a threat to lvl 10 PCs, almost regardless of numbers (unless they're all archers or wizards).

It was different, PC had less hit point, AC and saving throws didn't grew almost limitlessly like in 3e, that kobold shaman Hold Person (or charm person) had still a chance, even if small, to put your fighter out of combat, a single hit point of damage was enough to stop your wizard to cast spell for that round, in cramped enviroments fireballs and similiar spells were more dangerous to you than to the enemies, etc, etc.

PCs have fewer hit points - as do monsters, which makes them even more susceptible to fireballs and the like. As for AC & saves, the effect is the same. Your basic 1e kobold needs a 20 to hit AC 0 (not hard to get). High-level characters still only fail saves on a roll of a 1. The difference in power between a 1e PC and a 3e one doesn't mean much when you're guaranteed a kill each time you hit and are nigh-invulnerable.

 

[Mirtek]

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.

Even then, I don't think 144 of them should be able to take down a pit fiend. Because going further that may mean that 1,000 of the being able to take down a godlike primeval and I don't think that sound right (makes one wonder why the deities and primevals bothered to create angels, giants and whatever else to use as soldiers, if 2,000 first level critters would have done the job just as well)