(http://www.hackslash.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/fighter_graph1.jpg)
Discuss.
RPGPundit
Are you using minions goblins for the 4e numbers? Because 23 of just about any regular monster would do-in a first level 4e character otherwise, barring a threshold to fight in or similar, and even that might not be enough.
Also, why is 2e's so much lower than 3e's? A 2e fighter could specialize at first level; with a decent weapon, they could tear through a lot of the lil' buggers right quick, maybe moreso than the strictly-attack limited 3e fighter could.
I'd have to see the math and the assumptions. In 4e it's a bit too easy to choose your goblins by whatever criteria you like -- Pog, the level 9 elite goblin, destroys the level 1 fighter. So you gotta have some assumptions, but what's an "average" goblin?
ha! This answers a question I was just about to post. The wife let me scan around in the bookshop (B&N) while she did other stuff.
So, I don't play dnd4e but was reading the adventure module Sceptre of Spellgard.
The opening recommendation for level 1 characters is right at the start, fight 4 kobold skirmishers which are then joined by 6 kobold slingers, then by an ochre jelly. Once all this combat has ended they then fight 5 kruthik young.
(I was taking notes)...
The GM then levels up them to level 2 and gives them a "level 1 minor quest reward".
Can a level 1 group actually fight + survive 10 kobolds, 1 ochre jelly then 5 kruthik??
That seems pretty steep right off the bat just to get them to level 2.
Looking at your graph, that kind answers my question.
They probably can, but in no small part due to the increased ability of leader and healer characters to keep the party going. A lone fighter against a bunch of regular level 1 goblins (say, Goblin Warriors and Goblin Archers) is probably going to go down, and pretty quick at that.
More specifically regarding that Spellgard fight: That particular fight gets pretty damn hairy if they don't drop the first and second wave right quick.
Amusingly, the most infamous TPK encounter in the WotC modules is led by a goblin. (Go, Irontooth!)
In D&D Extreme Edition (D&DX for short), you'll be able to take on entire armies of Goblins as a 1st level Uberwarrior (the new name of the Fighter character class). :)
I dug it up, because I believe in proper attribution. It's from a series of posts on hack/ (http://www.hackslash.net/):
The Evolution of the Fighter - Part 1: OD&D (http://www.hackslash.net/?p=212)
The Evolution of the Fighter - Part 2: BD&D (http://www.hackslash.net/?p=213)
The Evolution of the Fighter - Part 3: AD&D1 (http://www.hackslash.net/?p=214)
The Evolution of the Fighter - Part 4: AD&D2 (http://www.hackslash.net/?p=215)
The Evolution of the Fighter - Part 5: D&D 3e (http://www.hackslash.net/?p=216)
The Evolution of the Fighter - Part 6: D&D 4e (http://www.hackslash.net/?p=218)
The 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?
The whole thing is a sham. The 4e goblin is a 1 HP minion. Just more of the senseless 4e bashing.
The choice of powers is very odd; Sure Strike is good for pinging minions and...
well...
notably little else. It's a bit like the equivalent of stating up a 3e spiked chain wielder, but more limited; good at one thing, but that's all they're doing.
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=285873#post285873
Take your hand off the Forum's cock, pundit.
What, he's touching you Aos?
yeah, but only because his mom got tired.
Quote from: Windjammer;334155http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=285873#post285873
OMG funny.
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. :D
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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=286104&postcount=974), 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.
Quote from: Thanlis;334308You 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.
Dude, you do realize that is most definitely not what you just did, right?
"You, Sir, are a moron, but I'll just gloss over this fact and move on" is not what I'd define as a "polite smile".
Quote from: David R;334226This whole forum is the Pundit's cock. And anti 4E threads is the K-Y.
Regards,
David R
And you can't help but watch? ;)
I ran a single PC against a single Standard monster in 4e, several times. 50/50 kill ratio.
3-6 minions can kill a PC. 23 minions, even one at a time, is far more than a PC could handle, without over-optimizing - A threat in any edition.
Let's look at numbers. Supposing they have a 50/50 chance to hit each other. An average combat minion does 4 damage. Supposing the PC has 28 HP. Healing Surge of 7.
The chance to hit can be dropped; algebra. They're matching pairs.
35 / 4 = 8.75
If you're going to hate WotC, at least use proper math.
For the record, WotC stole from me when they pulled their .pdfs from drivethru. I'm not defending WotC. I'm defending good math.
4e doesn't inspire me. I have to work to be creative in it. It's too blandified in the powers.
But the *Math* is good.
Quote from: Nazgul;334327And you can't help but watch? ;)
I do more than watch, brother.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Thanlis;334308OK, 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.
Actually, I demonstrated why the results would end up the same (in terms of proportion), but I'll go over it more clearly for you. You'd have to factor in the chance the fighter could get to a corner (completely negating flanking), the probability of getting to a wall (nearly negating flanking), or a doorway (probably negating flanking), add in the expectation of the bonus for cleave and the like (canceling, possibily even overmatching, the three way calculation previous), and don't forget to cross reference versus the probability of being in a narrow hall or dead end corridor. So, no, unless you can prove otherwise, it's the same. Keep in mind, no matter what probability you set (say, 15% chance of finding a corner), someone can argue that it's something different (gee whiz, I'd put it at 90%, can't hardly remember ever seeing a dungeon without a corner).
So, may as well do 1 on 1, to avoid such irrelevant ramblings.
QuoteYou 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.
Heh, you don't seem to understand expectation very well; you'd have to weigh in that 25% chance of not getting a kill versus the better than 50% chance of scoring the extra hit necessary on the next swing, over the fact that you're only looking at less than 8 goblins. So, needing an extra swing only matters for mathematically less than 2 goblins, which will probably only get one more swing at most before dying anyway. So, assuming the worst, maybe one less goblin. Thus, the results of the tests (namely, a huge jump for DnD4.0) are addressed..
I hope this clarifies things for you.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;334333I ran a single PC against a single Standard monster in 4e, several times. 50/50 kill ratio.
3-6 minions can kill a PC. 23 minions, even one at a time, is far more than a PC could handle, without over-optimizing - A threat in any edition.
Let's look at numbers. Supposing they have a 50/50 chance to hit each other. An average combat minion does 4 damage. Supposing the PC has 28 HP. Healing Surge of 7.
The chance to hit can be dropped; algebra. They're matching pairs.
35 / 4 = 8.75
If you're going to hate WotC, at least use proper math.
For the record, WotC stole from me when they pulled their .pdfs from drivethru. I'm not defending WotC. I'm defending good math.
4e doesn't inspire me. I have to work to be creative in it. It's too blandified in the powers.
But the *Math* is good.
I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from. A typical level 1 fighter has an AC of 19 (scale, heavy shield), a goblin cutter has +4 to hit, thus needing a 15 or better, which is more like 30%, not 50%; the fighter has way better than 30% chance of hitting the cutter, pretty much negating everything you say after that point. In any event, the site explains exactly what they're basing the calculations on, their math is good, for what it is.
I would have to say the correlation between the previous editions Goblin and 1st level Fighter more resembles the correlation between the Goblin Warrior and the 4E Fighter than it does the Goblin Cutter(minion) and the 4E Fighter.
Using the cutter is a bad model for the original table, and the results are wildly different when you plug the Goblin Warrior into that table instead of the Cutter.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;334376I would have to say the correlation between the previous editions Goblin and 1st level Fighter more resembles the correlation between the Goblin Warrior and the 4E Fighter than it does the Goblin Cutter(minion) and the 4E Fighter.
Using the cutter is a bad model for the original table, and the results are wildly different when you plug the Goblin Warrior into that table instead of the Cutter.
The results are also wildly different when you plug in silver dragons instead of goblins. But, the goblin cutter is the standard, most common, goblin you'll find (just crack open the KotS), and is, indeed, a very comparable creature to the 'typical' goblin one would find in editions of D&D (wherein goblins are easily killed, only dangerous in numbers, and slaughtered greatly and quickly against even 'lowly' level 5 characters, much less higher levels, which never happens with Goblin Warriors, which cannot even reasonably be one-shotted by a level 5 fireball spell).
If you use the Goblin Warrior (i.e., a goblin 10+ times as powerful as a typical goblin) in the DnD4.0 test, then you'd have to go back and redo all the previous tests with "goblin generals" (or whatever high level goblin is dangerous individually and cannot be trivially one-shotted by level 5 characters/spells) or whatnot.
Quote from: Doom;334374I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from. A typical level 1 fighter has an AC of 19 (scale, heavy shield), a goblin cutter has +4 to hit, thus needing a 15 or better, which is more like 30%, not 50%; the fighter has way better than 30% chance of hitting the cutter, pretty much negating everything you say after that point. In any event, the site explains exactly what they're basing the calculations on, their math is good, for what it is.
Good point. I have, however, ran minions against a fighter and, if not dribbled, they are deadly. But the same can be said of any goblin.
The math of 4e isn't good. It is better than the math of 3e, but it isn't good, not by a long shot.
Quote from: Doom;334567If you use the Goblin Warrior (i.e., a goblin 10+ times as powerful as a typical goblin) in the DnD4.0 test, then you'd have to go back and redo all the previous tests with "goblin generals" (or whatever high level goblin is dangerous individually and cannot be trivially one-shotted by level 5 characters/spells) or whatnot.
In previous editions the fighter, in addition to the goblin, could be killed in one blow. That is not the case in 4E. So you're applying the "must be able to be killed in one blow" to the goblin but not the fighter. Your claim that goblins are only dangerous in numbers in previous editions is specious, because a lucky blow from one could take down your fighter.
The point about the goblin warrior is that it is much closer in combat ability to the fighter than the cutter is. It also better approximates the relative power of a goblin vs. a 1st-level fighter in earlier editions.
The fact that
everything in 4E takes more than one hit to take down (excepting the new category of monster, the minion) is similar to the elimination of the save or die effects. It's not about 1st-level characters being more powerful. It's about them being able to survive more than a single attack. That's a design decision. It doesn't make 1st-level characters in 4E uber, because the monsters are similarly empowered.
No argument that the math of 4e is bad, especially once you hit paragon.
And, there were a few editions of D&D where a goblin, rolling a d6 for damage, was very hard pressed to deal out 10+ hit points of damage in a single hit, especially when there were no critical hits.
As far as "well, it only works because you're using the monsters that can be killed in one hit", that's a 'yep', change it to silver dragons, like I said before, and it changes dramatically. But, to be consistent, it makes sense to use the same types of monsters throughout all editions of D&D and, for DnD4.0. Whether the comparison is meaningful is absolutely a matter of personal opinion.