Quote from: obryn;220563It's really not, though.

As I said on ENWorld, a 3e goblin is CR 1/3 - so an encounter for a party of 4 1st-level characters should have 3 of them.  1.33 characters per goblin.

A 4e goblin minion is worth 25 XP, and a standard encounter for a party of 4 1st-level characters is built off 400 XP.  Therefore, you need 16 goblin minions for an equivalent level of party challenge.  Or, 4 goblin minions per character.

This gives us a "goblin conversion ratio" of 5.33 4e goblin minions per 3e goblin.

-O

Perhaps the reason for the difference from this perspective is because of the over-match? It could very well be that the information you're providing is yet more evidence of the change - that because the fighter is so much more overpowering in 4e, the typical goblin he would face - in this case a "minion' - is worth less from an experience perspective. Does that make sense?

It seems to me the way to compare them is in the battle manner Monsieur Hensley provides, rather than the challenge system/experience built on top of/in reaction to that comparison.

Now if you're talking about how the level/experience system works in comparison - say, how many goblins must a 1st level fighter defeat before attaining second level - this approach would make more sense to me.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

Quote from: James J Skach;220578It seems to me the way to compare them is in the battle manner Monsieur Hensley provides, rather than the challenge system/experience built on top of/in reaction to that comparison.

Now if you're talking about how the level/experience system works in comparison - say, how many goblins must a 1st level fighter defeat before attaining second level - this approach would make more sense to me.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

Lots of things have been rebalanced between 3e and 4e, including both characters and monsters.  HPs in particular are higher at low levels, and lower at high levels.  This makes any kind of 1:1 comparison difficult.

About the only constant I can settle on is a common unit between the two games that means the same thing in each game - the encounter.

Therefore, I think the only fair way to measure the relative differences between fighters from each edition is by the foes each is expected to face in a "normal" encounter.

-O

Quote from: obryn;220635Lots of things have been rebalanced between 3e and 4e, including both characters and monsters.  HPs in particular are higher at low levels, and lower at high levels.  This makes any kind of 1:1 comparison difficult.

About the only constant I can settle on is a common unit between the two games that means the same thing in each game - the encounter.

Therefore, I think the only fair way to measure the relative differences between fighters from each edition is by the foes each is expected to face in a "normal" encounter.

-O

Thus rendering any discussion or statistical calculation of any edition prior to 3e completely subjective, as previous editions did not go to the extent that 4e or even 3e did towards providing hard mechanical guidelines on encounter construction.

What then is a "normal encounter" in 1e, beyond "what ever the DM felt was appropriate for that room"?

Quote from: J Arcane;220658Thus rendering any discussion or statistical calculation of any edition prior to 3e completely subjective, as previous editions did not go to the extent that 4e or even 3e did towards providing hard mechanical guidelines on encounter construction.

What then is a "normal encounter" in 1e, beyond "what ever the DM felt was appropriate for that room"?

Nope, earlier editions didn't give a gauge at all.  I'd say it's totally subjective, although 1e and 2e goblins are pretty much identical, IIRC.

-O

Quote from: obryn;220635About the only constant I can settle on is a common unit between the two games that means the same thing in each game - the encounter.

Interesting. What about the fundamental attack roll? Would you say that's changed so dramatically that it can't be seen as consistent? I mean, as has been discussed, earlier editions never really even saw things in terms of "encounter" the way 3e and 4e do. Are not the basic attack roll and HP as unit of measure of both ability to injure and survive (no matter how many have been assigned to an individual character, monster, weapon, etc.) the most consistent aspects running through all of the editions?

Quote from: James J Skach;220674Interesting. What about the fundamental attack roll? Would you say that's changed so dramatically that it can't be seen as consistent? I mean, as has been discussed, earlier editions never really even saw things in terms of "encounter" the way 3e and 4e do. Are not the basic attack roll and HP as unit of measure of both ability to injure and survive (no matter how many have been assigned to an individual character, monster, weapon, etc.) the most consistent aspects running through all of the editions?

That's a pretty difficult comparison, too.  Attack rolls are just dandy.  But when you're talking HPs and damage, you're again talking different scales.

For example, a 3e fighter will generally have 12-14 hp at 1st level, and a goblin will have about 5-6 hps.  A 1e/2e fighter will have probably an average of 7-8 hps, and a goblin somewhere around 3-4.  In both cases, a fighter should have around 2x the HPs of a goblin.

In 4e, a 1st-level fighter may have 29-31 hps.  A goblin minion will have 1, whereas a goblin warrior will have 29.  By this measure, neither is a very good comparison.

If you want to use a goblin warrior with 15 hps instead of 29, that may be a better comparison.  I still think, when looking from 3e-4e, that the encounter is the most reasonable measure of comparison.

-O

Quote from: obryn;220701That's a pretty difficult comparison, too.  Attack rolls are just dandy.  But when you're talking HPs and damage, you're again talking different scales.

I believe, and please don't take offense, that's the entire point. The way I read it is that while the scale change, it's not proportional.

So you end up with this weird situation (and I don't mean that in the bad way, it's very interesting to me actually) where the goblin is more dangerous wrt chances to hit or be hit, but does not scale wrt to...strength is the wrong word...ability to withstand the hits.

Now senior hensley's analysis is interesting is that it seems to show that overall, one of two things is true (IMHO), either the goblin minion is severely underpowered in 4e in comparison to earlier edition goblins, or the fighter is much more powerful.

I should be clear that I don't hold either approach as good or bad - that's a matter of personal taste.

I'm certainly open to other interpretations; like the idea that if you broaden the scope (as you point out, to encounter) and take things like experience into account, the scale might return to a more proportional scale.

Quote from: James J Skach;220727Now senior hensley's analysis is interesting is that it seems to show that overall, one of two things is true (IMHO), either the goblin minion is severely underpowered in 4e in comparison to earlier edition goblins, or the fighter is much more powerful.

I should be clear that I don't hold either approach as good or bad - that's a matter of personal taste.

Well, I think the former is quite true.  Goblin minions are very definitely low-powered in comparison to characters of any sort.  Minions are "meant" to be used in mobs - they're not really equivalent to anything in any previous edition.  Their HPs (which are always 1) are completely divorced from their attack power and damage.  You can have, for instance, a 22nd-level minion who has attacks & defenses around where they "should" be, but who - again - has only 1 hp.

I think a clearer comparison - fighter vs. goblin warrior - shows that, if anything, goblins are more dangerous to an average 1st-level fighter in 4e.

-O

Quote from: obryn;220749I think a clearer comparison - fighter vs. goblin warrior - shows that, if anything, goblins are more dangerous to an average 1st-level fighter in 4e.

I'm with you right up until the bold word. All it shows is that goblin warriors are more dangerous (if true, I haven't seen that comparison - is that over on the link?).

It's why I keep asking - how many goblin warriors are you likely to meet, as opposed to minions? Oh yeah, it's part of the CR stuff - at which point it becomes a sort of tautology.

I don't have the 4e MM, is there a random encounter for goblins showing how many minions versus warriors? Is there anything like in AD&D showing that for every X goblins (in 4e, minions) there would be a sub-chief (warrior)?

That, to me, could shed some light on it.

Quote from: James J Skach;220772I'm with you right up until the bold word. All it shows is that goblin warriors are more dangerous (if true, I haven't seen that comparison - is that over on the link?).

It's why I keep asking - how many goblin warriors are you likely to meet, as opposed to minions? Oh yeah, it's part of the CR stuff - at which point it becomes a sort of tautology.

I don't have the 4e MM, is there a random encounter for goblins showing how many minions versus warriors? Is there anything like in AD&D showing that for every X goblins (in 4e, minions) there would be a sub-chief (warrior)?

That, to me, could shed some light on it.

The goblin warriors and blackblades are your basic scrubs. They're your 1st-level Warriors or Rogues under 3e.  (And, in 3e, a typical Goblin was a 1st-level warrior.)  Goblin Underbosses - sub-chiefs - are Level 4 Elites.  Minions are minions - they're not analogous to anything at all in 3e.

There's no random encounter tables with "X Goblins, X Warriors, etc."  There are suggested encounter groups which go as follows:

Level 1 Encounter (XP 500)
* 2 goblin warriors (level 1 skirmisher)
* 2 fire beetles (level 1 brute)
* 1 goblin blackblade (level 1 lurker)

Level 3 Encounter (XP 750)
* 2 goblin sharpshooters (level 2 artillery)
* 4 goblin warriors (level 1 skirmisher)
* 4 goblin cutters (level 1 minion)

Level 5 Encounter (XP 1,150)
* 1 goblin underboss (level 4 elite controller)
* 2 goblin skullcleavers (level 3 brute)
* 5 goblin warriors (level 1 skirmisher)

There's other encounters from there, involving hexers, skullcleavers, and so on.

I fail to see how CR is a tautology, however.   3e says "X goblins is a fitting encounter for a group of Y characters."  4e says "X xp value of goblins is a fitting encounter for a group of Y characters."  We're not defining the terms as themselves; we're looking at each individual edition of the game, and recognizing how deadly they consider goblins to be, and how many should be an "encounter" for a group of PCs.

-O

I honestly fail to see why there's even an argument here.  Hasn't everyone (including the designers) said that 1st level in 4e more like 4th level in earlier editions?  So why is it controversial that a 1st level 4e fighter is twice as powerful as one in 3e?  The data just confirms that 4e is working as intended.

Quote from: mhensley;220848I honestly fail to see why there's even an argument here.  Hasn't everyone (including the designers) said that 1st level in 4e more like 4th level in earlier editions?  So why is it controversial that a 1st level 4e fighter is twice as powerful as one in 3e?  The data just confirms that 4e is working as intended.

Because for some blasted reason it has become the core argument of many 4e fans that it's not actually changed.

I keep pointing out that claiming such means accusing Wizards of failure, but they don't seem to think that far ahead.

Quote from: J Arcane;220884Because for some blasted reason it has become the core argument of many 4e fans that it's not actually changed.

I keep pointing out that claiming such means accusing Wizards of failure, but they don't seem to think that far ahead.

Erm, no... but thanks for the assumption!

I'm disagreeing because it runs counter to every actual play experience I've had in 4e.  If anything - apart from the corner-case of minions - combat in 4e seems to be deadlier than 3e.  Throwing up a chart to try and show "Fighters in 4e are uber!" really misses the point, particularly since the analysis is flawed.

-O

Quote from: mhensley;220848I honestly fail to see why there's even an argument here.  Hasn't everyone (including the designers) said that 1st level in 4e more like 4th level in earlier editions?  So why is it controversial that a 1st level 4e fighter is twice as powerful as one in 3e?  The data just confirms that 4e is working as intended.

I'm not really concerned with what the data proves, or whose agenda it serves, or the results you end up with, I just like accurate things. I think you've done something pretty accurate and very interesting, so I'd like to make it as accurate as possible. That's why.

Quote from: obryn;220886combat in 4e seems to be deadlier than 3e

Can you die in round 1 from the first hit?  No.  It's not going to happen in 4e- ever.  So how on earth can you make such a statement?   There's just no way that combat is deadlier in 4e.