Treasure and leveling comparisons: AD&D1, B/ED&D, and D&D3 - updated 11-17-08 (Q1)

[Raven Crowking]

That actually biases things downward for the 3e party.

Not so.

If the 3e party in Q's example splits XP 6 ways, and the average 3e party splits the same XP 4 ways, the average 3e party gets half again the XP in Q's example.


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

Not so.

If the 3e party in Q's example splits XP 6 ways, and the average 3e party splits the same XP 4 ways, the average 3e party gets half again the XP in Q's example.

But the larger 3e party has to face tougher challenges for the opposition to be appropriate. Instead of an EL 1 encounter at 1st level, they should be facing EL 2 encounters.

Since we are comparing "relative encounters to level" for the 1e and 3e party, the fact that the Moathouse encounters may be a little tougher than one would expect for a 1st or 2nd level party is offset by the fact that the example 3e party would be expected to be fighting tougher than normal encounters due to its larger than expected size. So the objection that the gnolls (an EL 5 encounter by the way, not 6) would be tougher than the expected 3e encounter of an "average" party is offset by the fact that the sample 3e party would be expected to face tougher than normal ELs anyway.

 

[AllisterH]

Well, then again, there's the issue of how strong the opposition. See much earlier in this thread when people were talking about the Giants and the encounters with them.

For example, depending on gear and stats, for a 1e party, the encounter with the giants could be trivial whereas for the 3e party, the giants can still get lucky and outright kill a PC in one turn.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But the larger 3e party has to face tougher challenges for the opposition to be appropriate. Instead of an EL 1 encounter at 1st level, they should be facing EL 2 encounters.

But we are talking about modules, not hypothetical encounters. The minute we bring in hypothetical encounters, we can lower the 1e treasure level, and the entire analysis goes up in a poof of smoke.


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

But we are talking about modules, not hypothetical encounters. The minute we bring in hypothetical encounters, we can lower the 1e treasure level, and the entire analysis goes up in a poof of smoke.

Yes. We are talking about the Moathouse at present. You (IIRC) wondered how many encounters it took for a 1e party to advance in level compared to the 13.33 that a 3e party is assumed to need.

I pointed out the various encounters in the Moathouse, of which there are 15 (or 16 depending on how you split them up). Someone else objected saying that the encounters are not all the equivalent of EL 1 encounters, which they are not. But they would not have to be, since the sample 3e party (and the sample 1e party) are oversized by the 3e standard. The 3e party would therefore be expected to face higher EL encounters in their 13.33 encounters to advance in level. Which means that the "problem" that the Moathouse encounters would not translate to a series of EL 1 (and later EL 2) encounters is rendered moot.

 

[Storm Raven]

Well, then again, there's the issue of how strong the opposition. See much earlier in this thread when people were talking about the Giants and the encounters with them.

For example, depending on gear and stats, for a 1e party, the encounter with the giants could be trivial whereas for the 3e party, the giants can still get lucky and outright kill a PC in one turn.

This is also true: 1e monsters were often far less dangerous than their 3e counterparts. In other words, a collection of 11 3e gnolls is far more dangerous to a 3e party than a collection of 11 1e gnolls would be to a 1e party.

 

[Vegepygmy]

EL is not the same as CR.

Correct, but the distinction is irrelevant here. Nine CR 1 gnolls are worth 2700 XP to a 1st-3rd level party, the same as one CR 6 opponent.

 

[Vegepygmy]

So the objection that the gnolls (an EL 5 encounter by the way, not 6)...

You must have a different 3.5 DMG than me. Table 3-1 in mine says that 7-9 CR 1 creatures are an EL 6 or EL 7.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Which means that the "problem" that the Moathouse encounters would not translate to a series of EL 1 (and later EL 2) encounters is rendered moot.

Only if the 50% larger-than-expected party is facing encounters that are commensurately (i.e., 50%) more challenging...which is not at all the case. The gnolls, for example, are 500% more challenging.

"Moot," my butt!

 

[Storm Raven]

Only if the 50% larger-than-expected party is facing encounters that are commensurately (i.e., 50%) more challenging...which is not at all the case. The gnolls, for example, are 500% more challenging.

"Moot," my butt!

Moot.

By the time the PCs get to the gnolls, they will likely be 2nd level, and thus the oversized party will be expected to be facing EL 3 or 4 encounters on average. Hence the encounter is only 1.5-2x what one would expect them to face on average.

The Giant Crayfish isn't in the SRD. The closest monster in the SRD would be a Large monstrous scorpion without the stinger. With no poison and one fewer attack, the CR 3 monster becomes at most a CR 2 one, and possibly a CR 1 one. This is a lower encounter than a group of 6 2nd level characters should face on average, offsetting the gnoll encounter.

Plus, the 3e party would be expected to face 26.66 EL appropriate encoutners to reach 3rd level by the end of the Moathouse. The Moathouse has 15 encounters, so one would expect that a number of them would be more difficult than normal.

So, as I said, moot. Your objection has been noted, and found wanting.