Best evidence that some 4e afficionados ARE different.

[Piell]

3 CR 1/3 goblins is a 1st level encounter in 3E. A 3rd edition fighter can kill 3 and 1/4 encounters worth of goblins.

16 level 1 minions is a 1st level encounter in 4E. A 4th level fighter can kill about 1.5 encounters worth of goblins.

[Sashi]

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.

What I really don't understand is how the whole exercise is supposed to show about the relative worth of the different editions. The 4E fighter can kill 8 times as many goblins as the OD&D fighter, it's not like that number is infant mortality or rapes per-capita or something objectively bad. Even the blog post doesn't make an actual judgment, so no wonder all the objections are so incoherent.

4E has a litany of problems, but an actual stated goal of 4E was to make 1st level characters tougher than they were in prior games. In order to critique 4E you have to do something more than prove they succeeded at something.

[tzor]

When this first appeared I tried to post something but the system burped on me and I didn't have the time to rewrite it from scratch. Long story short, there is a key element in 4E that took place around the 3E time frame that makes this an apple orange comparison. There was the tendency to think that the first levels of D&D were somehow bad because it was too easy for characters to die. This started with the major bumps in Dark Sun back in the 2E era where characters started at a level above 1st. To make a long story short, you need to compare a first level fighter in 4E to a higher level character in previous editions (off the top of my head I'm thinking 1st level in 4E = 3rd level in previous editions). Once this is made (and once you take the account the nerfing of the goblin to the one hip point goblin minion) I have a feeling that the curve changes somewhat.

[Doom]

In order to critique 4E you have to do something more than prove they succeeded at something.

It's not showing relative worth of editions (note title, which doesn't even have the word 'edition' in it).

And herein lies the heart of the problem: it's not a critique, there's NO REASON to get so defensive about the experiment.

[Finkin]

In order to critique 4E you have to do something more than prove they succeeded at something.

And herein lies the heart of the problem: it's not a critique, there's NO REASON to get so defensive about the experiment.

But what do the 4rries do when they aren't being all defensive about something? Because from the looks of 4e sales from the last couple of quarters, they sure as fuck aren't busy playing their game.

[Data Vampire]

Below in my comment is the second sentence in replying to Psychic Robot is the argument that poster should have given and didn't. One poster came close and thinking on that led me the this conclusion. And before someone complains, I did change my stance sense my last post.

Why not just average standard goblins and minions?

I wouldn't agree with that either and your using the golden mean fallacy. As the goblin cutter is closest to the power level of the other goblins from other editions it should be fine to use it.

However this gives a false impression of the power level of monsters that you would normally face in 4E, so comparing the goblin blackblade as well and pointing out the difference between the two monsters would solve this. After all think of the padded sumo complaints and how that would change if the standard monsters all died with one hit.

The the conclusion from that should be that 4E fighters are more powerful, but the standard monsters have been pumped up as well.

[Data Vampire]

In order to critique 4E you have to do something more than prove they succeeded at something.

It's not showing relative worth of editions (note title, which doesn't even have the word 'edition' in it).

And herein lies the heart of the problem: it's not a critique, there's NO REASON to get so defensive about the experiment.

Well personally I try to twist my opinion to fit the facts and be in line with reason. However the lack of both made this go on longer than it could have. As far as I can tell only talozin did that and I overlooked it.

[Username17]

The the conclusion from that should be that 4E fighters are more powerful, but the standard monsters have been pumped up as well.

The original post really is just comparing the ability of fighters to kill mook goblins. The conclusion is that over the years and editions, the number of mook goblins that a 1st level fighter can kill has risen, and that the 4e fighters can kill the largest number yet. Period. Because that is the only fucking thing that was compared.

That's it. There are no conclusions to be had as to whether that is good or bad, or whether you had more or less choice in chargen, or how the fighter or any other character stacks up to any other monster or even any other goblin. I mean, for fuck's sakes there are 3e goblins who are 20th level Wizards right out of the box (the 4e goblins only go up to level 3, and even that is a "level 3 monster" which isn't the same as a level 3 PC).

The comparison is exclusively 1st level fighters grinding their way through a series of basic mook goblins out of the Monster Manual. The 4e Fighter can take out a lot more. That's the end of the analysis. Comparing absolutely anything else or contrasting any other thing would by definition be a different comparison and have different parameters.

If you compared actual encounters, you'd have to address the fact that in AD&D the encounter tables let you encounter Pit Fiends at level 1. It wasn't likely, but it could happen. The encounter chart for every level bracket had a "check from the next level bracket" result, and by the time you got to bracket 4 things were apeshit nuts. What the game tells you is an appropriate encounter has been scaled way the fuck back since the old school days as well. But that's a totally separate issue. And would require a totally separate comparison with totally separate parameters to address.

-Username17

[Psychic Robot]

your using the golden mean fallacy

I'm pretty sure that you don't know what this means.

[Data Vampire]

The original post really is just comparing the ability of fighters to kill mook goblins.

It also give a false impression of 4E game play, but my suggestion allows to show the power increase, which the the conclussion shown under "Summary" without that false impression. So why not show it both ways?

[Doom]

No, no false impression, since, after all the comparison says nothing about game play, nor does it make any assertions about game play.

Again, there's no reason for the shutdown in thinking due to defensiveness, as there's nothing to be defensive about.

Any luck on that book citation? Or the construction of your own statistical model? You might want to consider a 15 dimensional hyperprism or something for the display of results...and I'm still waiting to hear why that's going to be easier to follow than the simple bar chart presented.

[TheFlatline]

The original post really is just comparing the ability of fighters to kill mook goblins.

It also give a false impression of 4E game play, but my suggestion allows to show the power increase, which the the conclussion shown under "Summary" without that false impression. So why not show it both ways?

Only if you assume that encountering a single goblin one after another until a lone level 1 fighter drops is an accurate impression of 4th edition gameplay. Or any edition of gameplay for that matter.

In other words, you're full of shit on this point because you're assuming that the stats imply anything other than what they're stating. Which is that the lowest power mook goblin is less of a threat to a level 1 fighter in 4th ed than in any previous edition.

The only conjecture that you might be able to make is that WOTC decided in 4th edition that people like cutting down swaths of mooks.

[Swordslinger]

The number of goblins you can kill is mostly irrelevant. I care more about the fact that 1st level wizards aren't knocked by the slightest hit anymore.

As far as minions go, the important thing is the ability to include minions in a battle. In 1E/2E, you can do that, as you can in 4E. 3E is very minion unfriendly.

This is because 1E/2E ACs and HPs don't rise fast enough to render basic orcs still threatening. Whether it's a bunch of ghouls and a vampire or a bunch of 3rd level clerics with a 14th level cleric, those mooks are something you still care about. The level gap where monsters can be competitive is actually very wide in 1E/2E.

In 4E, there's a special minion mechanic which makes mooks playable and able to do something. They get around the bonus scaling issues by typing monsters as solos, elites or minions, thus weakening them or strengthening them but bringing their attack and defense numbers into a desired fun range.

In 3E, minions are worthless. Because of how fast saves, AC and attack bonuses rise, minions are basically just firing a bunch of shots that will never hit. Once you're fighting the elder brain, you have outgrown the basic mind flayer. He's not even a minor opponent, his turn is just a waste of everyone's time.

[Draco_Argentum]

Its pretty funny that people are getting defensive about maths that proves 4e succeeded at the design goal of making first level characters tougher.

[Bobikus]

Its pretty funny that people are getting defensive about maths that proves 4e succeeded at the design goal of making first level characters tougher.

This comparison doesn't really prove anything.

[talozin]

This comparison doesn't really prove anything.

At this point, I'm thinking I'm going to dust off my l33t programming skills and re-do the experiment using the same goblin stat block for all editions. I'm thinking one pass with the 1E goblin, one pass with the 3E goblin, and one pass with the (as posted) 4E goblin. It may take me some time to figure out 4E, though.

[Doom]

Well, the comparison does show "level 1 fighter" in D&D kills more "goblins" the later you go in the editions, and in 4e.

Certainly, by making "1st level" 4e characters about as strong as "4th level" D&D characters, they made them tougher than 1st level D&D characters.

But, yeah, duh. You could just always start play at level 4, and just call that level 1, modify all charts accordingly, and succeed at that.

[Roy]

Well, the comparison does show "level 1 fighter" in D&D kills more "goblins" the later you go in the editions, and in 4e.

Certainly, by making "1st level" 4e characters about as strong as "4th level" D&D characters, they made them tougher than 1st level D&D characters.

But, yeah, duh. You could just always start play at level 4, and just call that level 1, modify all charts accordingly, and succeed at that.

Doing it that way would also allow you to kill things sometime today.

[mhensley]

Hi guys, I just found this board due to this thread and I'm pretty amazed that this old post of mine is still generating debate. Your discussion here inspired me to go back and take a second look at this subject and run a new experiment on the fighters involved. This time I ran combats to see how dangerous it would be for each edition's fighter to fight one goblin. And this time, yes - I did the 4e tests both with and without minions. The full report is here-

http://1d8.blogspot.com/2011/03/evoluti ... ake-2.html

but here are the important bits learned-





I was surprised that the 3e fighter was in the least danger as I thought that crits would make it a bit more swingy but the goblins had a real hard time getting one due to the problem with having to confirm them. This probably shows why EL=level encounters in 3e were kind of a waste of time - no real danger involved. This also shows a couple of problems I have with 4e- simple combats take too long to resolve and minions are damn near worthless.

[Doom]

It's odd that's there's so much difference between "4 minions" and "warrior"...guess they aren't equal, after all. Well, obviously not to anyone who's played the game.

I think MM2 said that it was 6 minions is a standard monster, no? I don't reckon it'd be all that hard to slam a few more minions in.

Did you back the fighter into a corner? That's not exactly a tough strategy, and might change things a bit, too.

[mhensley]

It's odd that's there's so much difference between "4 minions" and "warrior"...guess they aren't equal, after all. Well, obviously not to anyone who's played the game.

Well, with cleave the fighter only has to hit twice and all four minions are dead.

[Doom]

Yep.

[Draco_Argentum]

Hi guys, I just found this board due to this thread and I'm pretty amazed that this old post of mine is still generating debate.

We like maths and we like arguing.