speculation - derived XP chart

[Cadfan]

Wulf Ratbane is correct. The chart in the initial post works if you decide that a 8000 exp encounter made up of level 1 creatures is NOT equal to an 8000 exp counter made up of one level 8 creature.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

From simplicity standpoint, they could remove two zeroes from each number as well.

That would be nice.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

That would be nice.

No way, man.

1000 xp to Level 2 is a sacred cow.

I'd assume the XP chart will look a lot like p.214 of Unearthed Arcana, personally.

Very astute observation.

 

[GlassJaw]

1000 xp to Level 2 is a sacred cow.

Sacred as in introduced in 3.0?

 

[The Souljourner]

If monsters have both a level and an XP value, you can assume that the level indicates the baseline "safe" level at which you should use it.

I'm kind of assuming that most monsters at the same level will be worth the same XP..... or at least within a range of XPs. I mean, what does level of a monster mean if it's not related to how hard it is to kill? And if it's harder to kill, it should be worth more XP, right?

It will probably also serve as in indicator of when the monster stops being worth any XP at all (i.e., 8 or more levels less than the average PC level).

I don't think they'll do that anymore. That was a remnant of the CR system, and didn't happen in earlier editions. In earlier editions (and probably 4e), at higher levels you need *so much* XP compared to low levels, the low level monsters are worth effectively zero. If you need 40,000xp to level, and 1st level guys are worth 50 xp each.... they might as well be worth zero.

I'm not sure where you're getting the 10 encounters to level up figure, though. In 3e, that number is 40/3 (or 13.33333333...). Certainly, they could change this.

The reason I think this number will go down, is because that was 13.333 *really easy* fights. Fights of your CR were a breeze, and boring to boot. So I expect them to gauge the average encounter as being more difficult in 4e, to better simulate what most people play anyway, and therefore the number of encounters per level will go down, they'll just each be harder. This goes with the whole encounter-based abilities as well. The only reason a CR of your level fight was so easy was because after three of them your wizard and cleric had expended most of their resources, so the last one would actually be hard. That will no longer be the case in 4e, so they can make all of the encounters harder.

Then again, maybe they'll make all the encounters harder and *not* lower the encounters per level. I don't remember where they came up with the 40/3 number, but it seemed like a progression they liked.... it just didn't work, because no one used easy fights, they used hard fights, which gave a lot more XP and were a lot more fun.

So, assuming they still want 13.33 fights per level, I'd say that we'll see levelling slow down some, since the average "hard and fun" fight will be worth relatively less XP. (before it would be a CR+2 fight, and now, that'll be an "average" fight)

They also said that a single 1st level monster is not going to be a suitable challenge for a party of 5 characters. They said it'll be more like 5 1st level monsters vs. 5 party members (one orc was never a challenge in the firstplace). So I think it'll be more like 13.33 encounters with 5 1st level orcs will be enough to get to 2nd level. So, in order to do it in one fight, that would be about 67 orcs. heh.

That's why 4e will have slower levelling... 1 orc isn't considered an average encounter anymore.... 5 are.

-Nate

 

[The Souljourner]

1000 xp to Level 2 is a sacred cow.

Sacred as in introduced in 3.0?

Exactly what I was going to say. In 2nd edition, everyone had their own XP chart, and only one or two (if I remember correctly) started at 1000.

There's no reason to believe that the XP chart in 4e will be at all similar to 3e.

The XP chart in 3e was very pretty and easy for PCs to understand. However, it caused no end of problems for DMs because the chart's measured progression didn't fit with D&D's power progression, so the whole CR/party level chart had to be created so that you got less XP for monsters lower than your level and more XP for monsters higher than your level.

They've mentioned that tthey're going to make it much easier for the DM to create encounters by making the XP values of monsters static (i.e. independant of the level of characters tackling them). If that's the case, then the power progression must be built into the XP chart, so that as you go up in level, the XP reward you get for lower level monsters becomes increasingly insignificant.

The interesting thing is, it doesn't really matter how much XP it takes to get to 1st level. In theory, it could be 14xp to 1st level, with each 1st level monster giving you 1 XP. What matter is how the progression plays out after that.

After all this analysis, I'll be very interested to see what they come up with, and what implications it has on 4e campaigns.

-Nate

 

[Umbran]

From simplicity standpoint, they could remove two zeroes from each number as well.

In theory, they could remove all three zeros. But somehow, I find myself thinking that 1000 points may be sufficiently granular, while 10 or 1 is not

 

[The Souljourner]

Yeah, keep in mind, you have to be able to have divisions among the levels... XP awards aren't handed out by the level-ful, otherwise we wouldn't need XP at all.

You could probably drop one zero off eveything and be fine, but D&D has a legacy of high XP totals than pretty much any other game, and I think that's fine. It's more "fun" to gain 100 xp from a 1st level encounter than it is to gain 10. And an extra zero doesn't really add any significant amount of math or difficulty processing.

-Nate

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Sacred as in introduced in 3.0?

No, as in, "A sense of humor is a sacred gift."

The reason I think this number will go down, is because that was 13.333 *really easy* fights. Fights of your CR were a breeze, and boring to boot.

They weren't "really easy," they were "average." They were designed to be winnable close to 90% of the time.

The only reason a CR of your level fight was so easy was because after three of them your wizard and cleric had expended most of their resources, so the last one would actually be hard.

CR never accounted for multiple fights without resting. It was a snapshot indicator of difficulty.

Then again, maybe they'll make all the encounters harder and *not* lower the encounters per level. I don't remember where they came up with the 40/3 number, but it seemed like a progression they liked.... it just didn't work, because no one used easy fights, they used hard fights, which gave a lot more XP and were a lot more fun.

You're over-thinking it. It wasn't 40/3 fights per level, it was 40/3 creatures of moderate difficulty. If you encountered more or fewer of them at one time, the EL would change. And the XP would go up or down accordingly.

If you were playing in a campaign where your DM was throwing "tough, fun fights" at you, but he was still making you plow through 13.33 encounters, you were getting short-changed. There was nothing inherent to the CR/EL system that prevented the DM from throwing bigger fights at you and awarding more XP accordingly.

So, assuming they still want 13.33 fights per level,

They don't, see above...

I'd say that we'll see levelling slow down some,

You definitely won't see levelling slow down. Levelling is fun. I believe they'll have a meta-game pace of advancement that they want to support, and work backwards from there.

If the average session is 4 hours and they want players to level up every once every 3 sessions or so (or, perhaps, once every 13 hours and 20 minutes of play) they'll then figure out how many "tough, fun" fights you can fit into a new 4e session of play and structure the XP around that number.

If by increasing character "power" and streamlining play, you can get more, bigger, tougher fights into an average game session, then they will have to reduce the amount of XP awarded or the pace of advancement will be too fast.

since the average "hard and fun" fight will be worth relatively less XP. (before it would be a CR+2 fight, and now, that'll be an "average" fight)

Exactly.

That's why 4e will have slower levelling... 1 orc isn't considered an average encounter anymore.... 5 are.

I would expect the real-time pace of levelling to be about what it was before, and for the XP system to be restructured around that.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'm glad they are going to static XP values for monsters. It means simple addition for DMs and varying that value is as they desire.

XP as CR has far greater granularity and can mean as greater accuracy like 3e's magic items.