Best evidence that some 4e afficionados ARE different.

[Username17]

The point was that the blogger obviously used a vastly different bar to measure the 4E fighter that biased the results. Even as buggy as CR was it should be clear.

What the fuck are you talking about? It was just a "take the mass-market generic goblin out of the monster manual and throw them at the fighter one at a time until the fighter gos down" challenge. The 4e fighter takes out a lot more goblins. The test is completely fair and unbiased.

If you want to bitch, you should bitch about the fact that the 1st level Fighter i the earlier editions can't actually afford top grade non-magic armor, while the 4e Fighter can. Every Fighter was given the best basic armor available, but only the 4e Fighter can actually start with that shit. The numbers should be even more ludicrously stacked in the favor of the 4e fighter, since actual PCs wouldn't last as long as the presented characters in previous editions.

-Username17

[hogarth]

The point was that the blogger obviously used a vastly different bar to measure the 4E fighter that biased the results. Even as buggy as CR was it should be clear.

If he had said "weakest possible Goblin" instead of just "Goblins", would that satisfy your desire for accuracy?

I don't see what the huge fuss is supposed to be about. Minions are supposed to be weak, so I don't see why it's shocking that a 4E character can kill a bunch of them.

EDIT: I guess it's slightly misleading to label it "the evolution of the fighter" when the last comparison (using 4E) is actually "the evolution of the fighter and the simultaneous devolution of cannon-fodder goblins".

[Lago PARANOIA]

Can you really blame Data Vampire for subconsciously refusing to validate the legitimacy of 4E Goblin Minions? They're just green balloons with angry faces on them.

Actually, that's not really fair. If Goblin minions and other such trash mobs were the only 1-hp monsters in the game it'd be internally consistent--if laughably pathetic on the Kobolds Ate My Baby! scale. Hiccups only start occurring when you realize that this same standard also applies to ogres and demons and such and you compare goblin minions against them.

When you do that it really makes those goblin minions seem like 'not an example', doesn't it?

[Doom]

"The devolution of cannon fodder goblins" isn't saying much, however.

A str 17, specialized fighter (and realistically, this is a minimum PC) will oneshot a random hp goblin what, 90% of the time? Heck, he'd probably do better if he used a morning star (97%, more careful calculation). Bumping 97% up to 100% isn't that much of a devolution, really.

When you factor in against fireball type spells, D&D goblins die 99% of the time vs the 60% or so for 4e goblins, we're really not talking all that big a deal overall.

On the other hand, Lago has a point, that maybe 'goblin' doesn't mean the same thing in 4e as in D&D. Heck, I'm sure there are some fantasy worlds where 'goblins' are inherently magical creatures, or gigantic, or something...and as long as you can accept that 4e is nothing like D&D, then you can say the comparison doesn't mean much.

But it's still a comparison.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Also, I think that a lot of the whining and persecution complex from Pathfinder and 4E at having their game analyzed comes precisely from the fact that these games advertise the fact that they're more balanced than their predecessors.

Like if you point out that 3E or 2E is a pile of unbalanced donkey dicks to its fans, you'll get some 'mehs' (though the 3.5E people are way more likely to whine than the 3.0E people), but point out that in 4E one optimized ranger is easily worth the damage of two unoptimized assassins? People get ready to cry in the middle of the street!

Or if that's too hard to understand, here's another analogy. Point out that Yahweh is an egotistical, scatological, sadistic dumbass to a follower of an Abrahamic religion. A Jew is much less likely to lose their shit over this observation than a Christian, because the latter group goes on and on much more about how moral and benevolent their religion is.

[Data Vampire]

The point was that the blogger obviously used a vastly different bar to measure the 4E fighter that biased the results. Even as buggy as CR was it should be clear.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Yes, just ignore the facts I gave and pretend they don't exist. Showing I wrong or stupid would be one thing. failing to use reason is something different.

It was just a "take the mass-market generic goblin out of the monster manual and throw them at the fighter one at a time until the fighter gos down" challenge.

The title of the blog and the label of fighter power on the graphs shows that it is meant to show changes in the fighters power level over editions.

Also you haven't offered proof at all to show that the goblin cutter is the "mass-market generic goblin", again moving the goalpost from "obvious" base goblin" that was moved from "pretty explicit" "basic goblin". Instead you assumed what the basic goblin would be and charged strait ahead. You have also ignore evidence that minions like the goblin cutter are a substitution for normal encounter design standards.

The 4e fighter takes out a lot more goblins. The test is completely fair and unbiased.

Actually it takes out more goblins cutters. There is not monster called goblin in 4E.

If you want to bitch, you should bitch about the fact that the 1st level Fighter i the earlier editions can't actually afford top grade non-magic armor, while the 4e Fighter can.

1). The fighter in the example doesn't have high enough ability scores to be able to take the feat to be able to wear plate mail. 2). As the article is about the power of the fighter if they wear actually able to wear it it would have been fine by me.

[talozin]

Minor Tangent: I guess at first level it didn't matter, but didn't the OD&D Fighting Man get extra attacks equal to his level if all the enemies in melee with him were 1HD or below?

This was true at least in AD&D1. Unfortunately I don't have my copy of Men & Magic anywhere convenient to look at.

[Data Vampire]

Can you really blame Data Vampire for subconsciously refusing to validate the legitimacy of 4E Goblin Minions?

Well, minions are a mixed blessing at best. The only thing that I can find for how they are supposed to be used is "shock troops" and "cannon fodder" for other monsters in the glossary of the Monster Manual. Other than is the quote "Minions are designed to fill out an encounter, but they go down quickly." in the same entry.

[talozin]

The only way in which the 4E minion seems significantly weaker than the 3E goblin is in raw hit points. He actually has a better AC and marginally better damage. So it's worth asking the question: how much does it matter? If you gave the goblin the same 1d8+1 hit points as the 3E version, how much would the numbers really change?

And I suspect the answer is "not nearly enough". Our 4E fighter is doing 1d8+5 damage, which means that his worst possible roll is going to take down a goblin who rolled average on hit points.

[Data Vampire]

Our 4E fighter is doing 1d8+5 damage, which means that his worst possible roll is going to take down a goblin who rolled average on hit points.

No, he is using sure strike which gives him +1 to hit but deals only 1[W] or 1d8 damage. [edit]With the feat that would add another 1. Using a basic attack would be better.

[quanta]

I don't really get the point.

Fucking everyone has more HP (and probably better AC) at level 1 in 4e. That alone will significantly increase the number of goblins you can kill if you beat them up one at a time.

The post may as well be titled "1st level 4e characters generally more powerful than earlier editions 1st level counterparts". Seeing as this was a stated design goal, I don't really get the fuss.

EDIT: Also, sure strike is a fucking shitty at-will. No one in their right mind would start with that. A better comparison would be a fighter spamming cleave in 4e against waves of goblins (4 minions at a time since 4 minions = 1 monster) compared to a 3e fighter with power attack and cleave against waves of goblins (3 at a time since goblin is 1/3 CR). Things should largely look similar. But with smaller numbers for both. And 1st edition characters had hirelings with spears or javelins and shit. So that would change how things should actually work too.

And... toughness, dodge. What the hell?

[Data Vampire]

Also, sure strike is a fucking shitty at-will. No one in their right mind would start with that. A better comparison would be a fighter spamming cleave in 4e against waves of goblins

A essentials fighter with their own better version of sure strike and a ability equal to cleave would be better.

(4 minions at a time since 4 minions = 1 monster) compared to a 3e fighter with power attack and cleave against waves of goblins (3 at a time since goblin is 1/3 CR). Things should largely look similar. But with smaller numbers for both. And 1st edition characters had hirelings with spears or javelins and shit. So that would change how things should actually work too.

16 4E goblin cutters is supposed to be an encounter at level for a 1st level party, so you would have to change one of those numbers.

4, 4E goblins cutters and 1 3E goblin should be about the best you can do for that. Or you could use 1 goblin bladeblade as it cannot use any of its striker features one on one.

And... toughness, dodge. What the hell?

He speced the 3E fighter to the best possible in this one scenario. Though generally extremely poor that should be better than normal in this situation.

[talozin]

No, he is using sure strike which gives him +1 to hit but deals only 1[W] or 1d8 damage. [edit]With the feat that would add another 1. Using a basic attack would be better.

So at-wills do fixed damage, not taking into account ability bonuses? Serious question, I don't know 4E, and I assumed, I guess wrongly, that when the blog guy wrote "1d8+5" damage he meant that was the effective damage that the guy was doing in combat.

I think quanta is right that something other than Sure Strike would be a better strategy if it's just 1d8+1 vs. 1d8+1, but I'm too lazy to do up math.

[Data Vampire]

No, he is using sure strike which gives him +1 to hit but deals only 1[W] or 1d8 damage. [edit]With the feat that would add another 1. Using a basic attack would be better.

So at-wills do fixed damage, not taking into account ability bonuses?

Most do, some don't. Sure strike is one of those that doesn't.

[Doom]

A essentials fighter with their own better version of sure strike and a ability equal to cleave would be better.

It's trying to compare to how a fighter does against goblins one at a time in editions of D&D...Essentials is supposedly the 'same game', so that doesn't make sense, twice over.

(4 minions at a time since 4 minions = 1 monster) compared to a 3e fighter with power attack and cleave against waves of goblins (3 at a time since goblin is 1/3 CR).

For a guy that acknowledges CR doesn't make sense, you sure do seem to want to use it. You do realize BD&D doesn't have CR, right? So, again, using CR doesn't make sense twice over, again.

Things should largely look similar. But with smaller numbers for both. And 1st edition characters had hirelings with spears or javelins and shit. So that would change how things should actually work too.

Again, we're comparing a rolled up fighter against goblins one at a time, this simply makes no sense.

(further non-sequitors removed)

He speced the 3E fighter to the best possible in this one scenario. Though generally extremely poor that should be better than normal in this situation.

Actually, like I said earlier, if he was optimally speccing he would use a different weapon. But, since he's going middle of the road (and trying to keep things the same as much as possible, using the same weapon, even), that's what makes it a fairly good comparison.

[Data Vampire]

Dang, sure strike give +2 to hit not 1.

It's trying to compare to how a fighter does against goblins one at a time in editions of D&D...Essentials is supposedly the 'same game', so that doesn't make sense, twice over.

If you ignore that a goblin cutter is supposed to be equivalent to 1/4th of a regular 1st level monster then no.

For a guy that acknowledges CR doesn't make sense, you sure do seem to want to use it. You do realize BD&D doesn't have CR, right? So, again, using CR doesn't make sense twice over, again.

Ever heard of the perfect solution fallacy? CR is far from a perfect measure and not used in other editions, but the difference is so vast that it is enough to show a problem. So you're nit picking instead of addressing it.

[edit]Also that quote is from another poster.

Again, we're comparing a rolled up fighter against goblins one at a time, this simply makes no sense.

Again 4 minions = 1 regular monster of the same level.

(further non-sequitors removed)

Ignoring evidence and a shift in topic then claiming a non-sequitor is more accurate.

Actually, like I said earlier, if he was optimally speccing he would use a different weapon. But, since he's going middle of the road (and trying to keep things the same as much as possible, using the same weapon, even), that's what makes it a fairly good comparison.

My statement was a bit off. Other than the fixed parts he changed used what would make sense for a series of one on one fights for the 3E fighter. That is also way sure strike was used against minions. Normally it isn't worth the loss of damage, but that isn't a problem against minions.

[quanta]

For a guy that acknowledges CR doesn't make sense, you sure do seem to want to use it. You do realize BD&D doesn't have CR, right? So, again, using CR doesn't make sense twice over, again.

I'm not that guy. And it's better to use the approximate guidelines for 3rd and 4th than to just... pick some random ass scenario that won't happen in any version of D&D fucking ever.

My issue is the whole comparison isn't very useful. I certainly don't think it means anything negative for any of the editions. It's already really obvious 1st level 4e characters are stronger than 1st level characters compared to goblin chaff (and in some sense, are stronger than most monsters in general at level 1) in every other edition just by their HP, AC, and damage differences. THAT WAS THE DESIGN CHOICE.

Again, we're comparing a rolled up fighter against goblins one at a time, this simply makes no sense.

Answering "well, that's not how it was done" is.... retarded. I think it's more useful to compare per-player strength than per-character strength. Or talk about why these changes happen or what they reflect about how people played the game. 3e and 4e fighters have to be stronger if the goblins relative strength stays similar because you no longer lug around a bunch of hired help.

Actually, like I said earlier, if he was optimally speccing he would use a different weapon. But, since he's going middle of the road (and trying to keep things the same as much as possible, using the same weapon, even), that's what makes it a fairly good comparison.

No, he's picking weird and random shit that happens to drop horribly quickly in value after just a level or two for the 3e and 4e characters. Dodge sucks. Toughness sucks. Sure strike sucks. However, they are all unusually useful at level 1 against a neverending line of mooks compared to how much they suck in almost every other situation.

[Doom]

If you ignore that a goblin cutter is supposed to be equivalent to 1/4th of a regular 1st level monster then no.

But you're ignoring that a goblin was ALWAYS some fraction of a 1st level monster. In the older editions, goblins had special rules against them because they were weaker than standard.

Are you aware of this, or not? Because you're acting like goblins being weaker than a normal is something that was introduced in 3e, and it's been a part of D&D for quite a while.

Ever heard of the perfect solution fallacy? CR is far from a perfect measure and not used in other editions, but the difference is so vast that it is enough to show a problem. So you're nit picking instead of addressing it.

Look, CR is a bad measure, and even the experience points of 4e do a bad job, many times. Even if they were good measures, the units are glocknorks and burgwats depending on the game, it makes no sense to try to compare them that way, when the blog already compares what's going on in an easier way to comprehend.

I don't think it's nitpicking to question your assertion that "1/3 glocknorks is less than 1/4 burgwats" is meaningful in some way.

Seriously, can you PROVE that 1/3 glocknorks is less than 1/4 burgwats? If not, why do you insist on making it an issue? If so, why is it an issue?

This goes above and beyond the fact that a glocknork is almost certainly not the same thing as a burgwat.

I think it makes more sense to just look at it for what it is, a fighter versus a stream of goblins, from one game to the next.

Again 4 minions = 1 regular monster of the same level.

And, in 3e, 3 burgwats= regular monster. In AD&D, it was more like 2.5 snirlits = 1 regular monster.

But, "regular monster" changes definition every edition too, so, seriously, this is gibberish.

At least the blog goes some way to establish some sort of baseline by which we can make some comparison.

I mean, seriously, if I go up to a guy not familiar with the game, and start spouting about burgwats and snirlits, he has NO idea what I'm talking about.

If instead, I talk about "basic warrior versus basic goblin"...I'm betting there's at least a chance he'll have heard of those terms, and be able to interpet things from there.

Ignoring evidence and a shift in topic then claiming a non-sequitor is more accurate.

There was no evidence to ignore, and a non sequitor is a non sequitor, no claim necessary.

Pay attention: the blog is running an experiment. In an experiment, you want controlled conditions. So asking "what if the goblins had a tyrannosaur?" is a non sequitor, and pretty much all "what ifs" do not apply. That's just how an experiment is.

The only 'evidence' you can provide is evidence that the experiment was a fraud. For example, if you can provide evidence that his random number generator was invalid, then that's something worth considering. If you can provide evidence that the 'fighter' he's using is not possible to be built, that's evidence worth considering.

What evidence of fraud or gross ignorance of the rules have you provided? The only thing I've seen is an assertion that 'goblins don't exist in 4e'...and while that IS something, for purposes of the experiment, he decided to use the most reasonable choice for what a 'goblin' would be, basing it on what goblins were in previous editions: nameless monsters that generally appear in swarms.

My statement was a bit off. Other than the fixed parts he changed used what would make sense for a series of one on one fights for the 3E fighter.

Well, mostly make sense, since, as shown, there's an even better optimization. By going down the middle and not opimizing all the way (while still acknowledging 3e fighters had feats), it makes it a more reasonable comparison.

I bet someone here could trivially optimize the fighter versus a string of goblins, using a much better selection of feats...but that really would defeat the purpose of what's being demonstrated.

That is also way sure strike was used against minions. Normally it isn't worth the loss of damage, but that isn't a problem against minions.

And against multiple minions he would use cleave...I guess you know the perfect solution fallacy, after all.

[Korwin]

If you don't want to use minions (ie. not basic goblin) for the 4e Version, then the 3e version should use goblins with Class Levels.

[Data Vampire]

As certain posters cannot get it, my argument is that using the goblin blackblade provides a better compression for power level changes. When the weakest of the three options, the goblin cutter that a four person party should be facing 16 of in an at level encounter as opposed to four goblin bladeblades or goblin warriors. Then the results end up heavy biased.

If you ignore that a goblin cutter is supposed to be equivalent to 1/4th of a regular 1st level monster then no.

But you're ignoring that a goblin was ALWAYS some fraction of a 1st level monster. In the older editions, goblins had special rules against them because they were weaker than standard.

I addressed the power difference in relation to what the PCs are expected to face. 4E has you go against one standard monster per party member or the equivalent. That mean 16 goblin cutters for a four person party is an at level encounter.

Look, CR is a bad measure, and even the experience points of 4e do a bad job, many times. Even if they were good measures, the units are glocknorks and burgwats depending on the game, it makes no sense to try to compare them that way, when the blog already compares what's going on in an easier way to comprehend.

I don't think it's nitpicking to question your assertion that "1/3 glocknorks is less than 1/4 burgwats" is meaningful in some way.

Actually is is 1/3 glocknorks and 1/16 burgwats. It the comparison used one of the other two then that would have been right and I wouldn't complain about the power difference as that is as close as you could get.

Seriously, can you PROVE that 1/3 glocknorks is less than 1/4 burgwats? If not, why do you insist on making it an issue? If so, why is it an issue?

You're not actually addressing what I am actually saying and saying. The actual ratio for is 4E 1/16th. Though the standard I used is not perfect that difference is huge. A simple use of one of the other goblins would have it as you say, but that isn't what was done.

This goes above and beyond the fact that a glocknork is almost certainly not the same thing as a burgwat. I think it makes more sense to just look at it for what it is, a fighter versus a stream of goblins, from one game to the next.

That's not what it actually is. It is supposed to show a change in the power level of the fighter over editions. For that reason it should have used a stream of one of the other goblins 1st level goblins.

Again 4 minions = 1 regular monster of the same level.

And, in 3e, 3 burgwats= regular monster. In AD&D, it was more like 2.5 snirlits = 1 regular monster.

False. Those equal an encounter at level. Using a 1/16th encounter at level for one data point and no equivalent for any other (I doubt they exist) biases the result. As it is there is an simple alternative. Use goblin blackblade which is far close to a standard measure than anything else.

At least the blog goes some way to establish some sort of baseline by which we can make some comparison.

I mean, seriously, if I go up to a guy not familiar with the game, and start spouting about burgwats and snirlits, he has NO idea what I'm talking about.

Oh please. What if used the random encounter tables and got the troll for 3E. You could make the exact same argument for that and it would be wrong to say that you could draw any conclusion about power level changes as the baseline is would be seriously flawed.

If instead, I talk about "basic warrior versus basic goblin"...I'm betting there's at least a chance he'll have heard of those terms, and be able to interpet things from there.

Here is the assumption that the goblin cutter four are supposed to be equal to one goblin blackblade or goblin warrior is the "basic" goblin. There are three choices and the out linger was used.

Ignoring evidence and a shift in topic then claiming a non-sequitor is more accurate.

There was no evidence to ignore, and a non sequitor is a non sequitor, no claim necessary.

Circular logic is circular. I was unclear last time. Two quotes that you attributed to me where for another poster. I was addressing a side issue.

Pay attention: the blog is running an experiment. In an experiment, you want controlled conditions. So asking "what if the goblins had a tyrannosaur?" is a non sequitor, and pretty much all "what ifs" do not apply. That's just how an experiment is.

Pay attention, Your appeal to ridicule is being used to ignore the problem. The experiment is flawed and there is a way to to it better.

The only 'evidence' you can provide is evidence that the experiment was a fraud. For example, if you can provide evidence that his random number generator was invalid, then that's something worth considering. If you can provide evidence that the 'fighter' he's using is not possible to be built, that's evidence worth considering.

It is a fraud. They used the out linger as a baseline and that biased the results.

What evidence of fraud or gross ignorance of the rules have you provided? The only thing I've seen is an assertion that 'goblins don't exist in 4e'...and while that IS something, for purposes of the experiment, he decided to use the most reasonable choice for what a 'goblin' would be, basing it on what goblins were in previous editions: nameless monsters that generally appear in swarms.

Quit beating that strawman. They used the out linger and took it as a standard monster. I pointed out that no monster with the name goblin existed because that would raise the question which of the goblins should be used. I say that it should not be the goblin cutter and pointed out that four are supposed to equal one of the other two first level goblins.

That is also way sure strike was used against minions. Normally it isn't worth the loss of damage, but that isn't a problem against minions.

And against multiple minions he would use cleave...I guess you know the perfect solution fallacy, after all.

??? The perfect solution fallacy say because something is flawed it should be used or implemented over what is already being used. Like CR is flawed so don't use it help form a base line and just use the goblin cutter. It doesn't actually address whether CR is less flawed that using the goblin cutter as the base line.

[Data Vampire]

If you don't want to use minions (ie. not basic goblin) for the 4e Version, then the 3e version should use goblins with Class Levels.

And by what evidence do you claim the goblin cutter is the basic goblin?

[Doom]

argument is that using the goblin blackblade provides a better compression for power level changes.

Ok, let's see THIS argument.

When the weakest of the three options,

Now, in all the other versions, the weakest goblin is picked. The weakest goblin is picked in all the other versions.

So, you're argument is to NOT use the weakest goblin for 4e, because using something stronger would make it more of a fair comparison against all the other versions, where the weakest goblin is picked.

This is starting to turn into a 'hundreds of thousands' argument, here.

the goblin cutter that a four person party should be facing 16 of in an at level encounter as opposed to four goblin bladeblades or goblin warriors. Then the results end up heavy biased.

OH! Um, there's no such thing as CR in some editions before 3e. Also, the test is just 'basic fighter versus a string of goblins', doesn't involve a 4 person party.

You never did answer:

Are you aware that goblins were 'weaker' monsters in earlier versions of D&D, with their own charts and special penalties?

I addressed the power difference in relation to what the PCs are expected to face. 4E has you go against one standard monster per party member or the equivalent. That mean 16 goblin cutters for a four person party is an at level encounter.

OH. Um, the test is one standard fighter versus a string of goblns, one at a time.

Actually is is 1/3 glocknorks and 1/16 burgwats.

Fair enough. Still gibberish, however.

Though the standard I used is not perfect that difference is huge. A simple use of one of the other goblins would have it as you say, but that isn't what was done.

And, again, we could use "goblin queen" for BD&D, "bugbear" for AD&D, and "goblin captain" for 3e. But that would be retarded.

Probably best to just stick with the goblins one finds a horde, eh? That way it's the same type of goblin across all editions.

False. Those equal an encounter at level.

False back at you. "Encounter" has no definition before 3e. "Level" means something completely different across editions (a level 11 wizard in AD&D is nothing like a level 11 wizard in 4e, for example). That's going to be alot of work establishing and justifying your new definitions and equivalencies across the six categories of the blog.

Tell you what, let's just eliminate 0e, and deal with the 5 more recent categories. So you want to try to cross-correlate 15 uncompatible and neglibly defined, if not completely undefined, terms (5 categories, each with different units for strength, level, and encounter), and supposedly your experiment will be easier to understand and believe than

"A basic fighter battling a stream of goblins."

Can you explain that carefully? Because usually quattuordecimvariate statistics is kind of hard to interpret even when the categories are clearly defined.

Use goblin blackblade which is far close to a standard measure than anything else.

And when will you be getting to that explanation as to why we shouldn't use the same measure as for the others?

Here is the assumption that the goblin cutter four are supposed to be equal to one goblin blackblade or goblin warrior is the "basic" goblin. There are three choices and the out linger was used.

No, the one that would be the most commonly found goblin was used. Yes, it was the weakest, but in every version of D&D the most commonly found goblin is the weakest type.

Pay attention, Your appeal to ridicule is being used to ignore the problem. The experiment is flawed and there is a way to to it better.

Well, you seem to be unable to explain what would be better. Tell you what, go run the experiment across the four more recent editions and 4e, and then we'll be able to see what you're trying to do.

Can you post a link to the software that can graphically represent the 15 dimensional graph you'll be providing as the result of your superior experiment?

It is a fraud. They used the out linger as a baseline and that biased the results.

Can you please quote a statistics book that has a technique where your alleged outlier in this 3 point data set is an outlier?

Please, back this up. Now that you're claiming fraud you need to back it up. Book, please, preferably with page number.

Quit beating that strawman. They used the out linger

Back up this claim. Which statistics book are you using, and what technique?

[Korwin]

If you don't want to use minions (ie. not basic goblin) for the 4e Version, then the 3e version should use goblins with Class Levels.

And by what evidence do you claim the goblin cutter is the basic goblin?

Its the weakest, if you use an stronger version in 4e you should use stronger versions in the earlier editions.

[Psychic Robot]

Why not just average standard goblins and minions? Because, to be fair, the 4e goblin is a lot different from the 4e goblin minion. And unlike in previous editions, you're not supposed to fight one or the other--you're supposed to fight both. Minions and normal monsters are designed completely differently in 4e, so saying "hey look the fighter can kill a million minions" really isn't fair. Throw the fighter against both and you'll have an intellectually honest comparison.

[Username17]

Why not just average standard goblins and minions? Because, to be fair, the 4e goblin is a lot different from the 4e goblin minion. And unlike in previous editions, you're not supposed to fight one or the other--you're supposed to fight both. Minions and normal monsters are designed completely differently in 4e, so saying "hey look the fighter can kill a million minions" really isn't fair. Throw the fighter against both and you'll have an intellectually honest comparison.

That's bullshit. Tougher goblins have always been part of the basic goblin encounter.

For every 40 goblins encountered there will be a leader ad 4 assistants who are equal to orcs, each having 7 hit points and attacking as monsters with a full hit die. If 200 or more goblins are encountered there will be the following additional figures: a sub chief and 2-8 guards, each fighting as hobgoblins and having 8 hit points, armor class 5, and doing 1-8 hit points of damage. There is a 25% chance that any force of goblins will have 10% of its strength mounted on huge wolves (qv) and if this is the case there will also be from 10-40 of these creatures without riders. In their lair there will be the following additional figures: a goblin chief and 2-8 bodyguards (9-14 hit points, armor class 4, fight as golls doing 2-8 hit points of damage)...

The basic goblin is the weakest goblin. The comparison isn't about figuring out what percentage of the goblins are supposed to be tougher versions. For fuck's sake, 3e doesn't even tell you what percentage of the goblins are supposed to be the tougher versions. AD&D has a different percentage of tougher versions depending on how many total goblins there are (more goblins leads to a higher percentage of higher grade goblins) and whether they are at home or not (chiefs don't seem to leave the village).

The comparison is about taking a fighter with a longsword and throwing weak ass basic goblins at them one at a time until the fighter goes down and then comparing the numbers of goblin corpses. I genuinely don't understand why people think this is unfair or that the results are anything other than exactly what is to be expected. Neither the 3e Fighter nor the 4e fighter are perfectly suited to this challenge.

-Username17