Not accurate at all. It took my players to a while  fight a allegedly balanced number of kobolds and they weren't making much headway in my game. Neither were the kobolds. Too many hit points, healing surges and the like. If their AOE's had been launched, and/or the PC's hit more often the Kobolds would at least whittled down some.

Of course the reasons: For a beginning monster Kobolds had too many HP (even when the bulk of those were minions a few weren't and that made a HUGE difference.) Add to that their AC's were too high (the Kobolds) and the best attacks of the players (dailies) missed a lot more than they should have in a balanced encounter due to the higher than reasonable AC of Kobolds. Add to that the players were new to the game, and didn't know optimal 4E tactics.


In Basic D&D a 1st level fighter, alone, might be challenged by the kobolds, but only a little. (Half hit die monsters) but in 4E it was simply too much, even with all the crazy powers PC could activate.

Quote from: Windjammer;334155http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=285873#post285873

Wonderful demonstration of AM's diplomatic skills at work there.

We need a Tucker's kobold curve.

Is there a reason to revive this discussion again?

I don't need a graph to tell me which games to like.

I approve of this thread.

Quote from: Aos;334160Take your hand off the Forum's cock, pundit.

This whole forum is the Pundit's cock. And anti 4E threads is the K-Y.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: GoOrange;334153The whole thing is a sham. The 4e goblin is a 1 HP minion. Just more of the senseless 4e bashing.

Exactly. And AM's answer was accurate, 4 minions = 1 monster, so the 4e fighter would take down 6 monsters before going down, which is not much difference from previous editions.

Mhensley's figures are interesting, but IMO they're quite biased due to this:

Quote from: Thanlis;334151The methodology is questionable -- it's one goblin at a time, in a never-ending stream. So 2e fighters don't get the full benefit of their specialization and 4e fighters don't get Cleave. Apparently the goblins appear next to the fighter, since there's no indication that ranged weapons were considered.

I was kind of wondering. I think 23 minions would be a bit much for a 4e fighter in a clump, although I haven't done any test fights. Nine attacks per round, all of them with combat advantage?

Exactly. There are many variables not taken into account. And I don't see a 1st level warrior surviving 23 minions attacking at once all on his own. Seriously, that's not going to happen.

Quote from: Imperator;334230And I don't see a 1st level warrior surviving 23 minions attacking at once all on his own. Seriously, that's not going to happen.

What? No doorway and flaming oil?


I'd have to agree though, even if only one out of every 4 attacks hit, I don't see the warrior staying up for that long.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;334207I don't need a graph to tell me which games to like.

Basically. This whole graph thing is pointless to me.

Quote from: Imperator;334230Exactly. And AM's answer was accurate, 4 minions = 1 monster, so the 4e fighter would take down 6 monsters before going down, which is not much difference from previous editions.

You also read this post, right, and the following part of the debate?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;334207I don't need a graph to tell me which games to like.

No, you do.  Or you wouldn't know what games you like.

It's a fairly good graph demonstrating the power creep of Dungeons and Dragons, up to DnD4.0.

The "but minions don't count" counter-argument is disingenuous, since a level 1 fighter could easily "1 hit kill" typical goblins in most earlier editions of D&D. If you re-did the the tests so that goblins in all editions of Dungeons and Dragons, and DnD4.0, had 1hp, the results would be very similar (except, possibly for the very first edition, which would go up around 50%, I imagine).

The "but the monsters attack one at a time" counter-argument is also irrelevant. The simulation is using the same rules for all the combats in all the editions of D&D, and in DnD4.0. You can certainly change the rules, but you'd be changing the rules for all combats, so you'd likely get similar results (but bringing in more complication for no advantage).

The "But DnD4.0 is a completely different game" argument has some merit, since goblins and fighters of Dungeons and Dragons need not have anything in common with so-called 'goblins' and 'fighters' of DnD4.0 (it'd be as rational as comparing the fireballs of WFRP to D&D, to pick a game that didn't choose a confusing name). However, the fact still remains that this still demonstrates that in DnD4.0, your character begins with fairly superheroic abilities (able to take on 20+ 'basic' creatures) as compared to Dungeons and Dragons, where such abilities are scaled back a bit.

Quote from: Doom;334256The "but minions don't count" counter-argument is disingenuous, since a level 1 fighter could easily "1 hit kill" typical goblins in most earlier editions of D&D. If you re-did the the tests so that goblins in all editions of Dungeons and Dragons, and DnD4.0, had 1hp, the results would be very similar (except, possibly for the very first edition, which would go up around 50%, I imagine).

The "but the monsters attack one at a time" counter-argument is also irrelevant. The simulation is using the same rules for all the combats in all the editions of D&D, and in DnD4.0. You can certainly change the rules, but you'd be changing the rules for all combats, so you'd likely get similar results (but bringing in more complication for no advantage).

That only holds true if the effects of being surrounded were roughly similar through all editions, and I don't think they were. E.g., in the 4e example, the goblins used get a 25% boost to their damage when they're flanking their opponent, which is not the case for previous editions.

The one-hit kill thing is also inaccurate. Our AD&D fighter was doing 1d8 damage vs. an opponent with 1d8-1 hit points; on average he'd kill a goblin with one blow, but that's way different than a guaranteed kill with each blow.

The effects of 1 on 1 combat ARE pretty much the same through all editions, so the model is consistent. You want to add the complication of 'possibly flanked', but then you have to deal with the complication of 'possibly the fighter just stands in a corner', which leads to the complication of 'possibly using Cleave/Reaping Strike'...no need to add complications that mean nothing. 1 on 1 is 1 on 1 is 1 on 1, honest.

You sure your AD&D fighters didn't get a bonus to damage due to strength? The test assumes some strength bonus involved (and note, this actually makes things less bad, since the extra damage is irrelevant in the 4e case, where everyone gets an 18 in any event).

A typical goblin of AD&D has 3.5 hit points. With a mere +1 bonus to damage, a fighter with a sword will kill a typical goblin nigh 75% of the time anyway. So, increase by roughly a quarter...and the results still hold.

Quote from: Doom;334281The effects of 1 on 1 combat ARE pretty much the same through all editions, so the model is consistent. You want to add the complication of 'possibly flanked', but then you have to deal with the complication of 'possibly the fighter just stands in a corner', which leads to the complication of 'possibly using Cleave/Reaping Strike'...no need to add complications that mean nothing. 1 on 1 is 1 on 1 is 1 on 1, honest.

OK, but that's not what you said. You said "You can certainly change the rules, but you'd be changing the rules for all combats, so you'd likely get similar results." Alas, when the results turned out to be different, you told me I couldn't change the rules any more.

You also don't understand the difference between 75% and 100%, so I think I'm gonna smile politely and let you keep believing whatever you'd like to believe.