Y'all are Missing Some Zeroes

I'm worried doubling the amount of monsters everytime is going to slow down the game.  I mean it's going to take 26 Humans or 13 zombies every encounter to hit that budget for three people.  Also, it strains the credibility the game had with it  3 people killing 26....not sure I like that.  Also, with this high a budget, I'm going to be going through this bestiary right quick.

Vampire Class/Feat in 2013!

I prefer Next because 4E players and CharOpers can't find their ass without a grid and a power called "Find Ass."

Actually I think that sounds reasonable. A commoner vs a highly trained fighter, a wizard, a deadly rogue, and a cleric. Few commoners would posses the skill to go against such a group except in large numbers. Also if you actually go with 26 humans, I doubt the pcs will walk away unharmed... Actually they will probably all end up dead, I don't see four level one characters surviving 26 humans.

As for the zombies, I think every movie shows that lots of zombies vs one hero is loads of fun
Actually I think that sounds reasonable. A commoner vs a highly trained fighter, a wizard, a deadly rogue, and a cleric. Few commoners would posses the skill to go against such a group except in large numbers. Also if you actually go with 26 humans, I doubt the pcs will walk away unharmed... Actually they will probably all end up dead, I don't see four level one characters surviving 26 humans. As for the zombies, I think every movie shows that lots of zombies vs one hero is loads of fun


I have to agree here. Numbers help. Still unsure as to the quality of the Xp budget, never really followed those before.
The real thing to notice is that the stats haven't really changed for humans only their xp value, so even in the previous playtest packet 26 humans would have provided the same challenge as 26 humans in the new playtest packet. The xp value is the only thing that changed between packets, so are you proposing to make pcs weaker or humans stronger?

My suggestion don't send the pcs against commoners. Give those commoners a level of fighter to make a challenge.
Also, it strains the credibility the game had with it  3 people killing 26....not sure I like that.



I agree, but I'm afraid we seem to be in a minority.

That's why I'm constantly championing for stronger monsters and reduced PC power - to get rid of what I've taken to calling "The Bloodbath Game" (i.e. where you're expected to create a bloodbath every time you get into a fight). I know that they're meant to be heroes, but a) not superheroes and b) not at level 1!

Sadly, most people here seem to want the exact opposite. I personally hope we have a way to change things so that we can create a more gritty, hardcore, semi-believable experience, but I think the only way of doing that is to tweak the hell out of the bestiary, or create an encounter of "Elite Kobold Huscarls" and pretend they're ordinary kobolds.
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
Actually I think that sounds reasonable. A commoner vs a highly trained fighter, a wizard, a deadly rogue, and a cleric. Few commoners would posses the skill to go against such a group except in large numbers. Also if you actually go with 26 humans, I doubt the pcs will walk away unharmed... Actually they will probably all end up dead, I don't see four level one characters surviving 26 humans. As for the zombies, I think every movie shows that lots of zombies vs one hero is loads of fun


I have to agree here. Numbers help. Still unsure as to the quality of the Xp budget, never really followed those before.



See I found the XP budget to be one of, if not the most helpful feature of DM support in 4E.  It was a great estimate for how to appropriately challenge the PCs.  It was a good yardstick.

I think the loads of Zombies point is a good one.  13 zombies (260 XP) sounds about right for a group of 4 adventurers to make the threat credible.  I think the monster power and PC power is good where it is.  But this makes every challenging combat encounter into chunky salsa.  But hey people loved minions in 4E, now we're getting them everywhere.

It feels like they felt PCs were steamrolling the last bestiary.  Now the pendulum is swinging in the other direction.  WotC is saying, bring down the XP to a minimum and you tell us how many goblins you need to make this feel challenging.  Because the math we've been given that 4 PCs in an average fight can take 260 XP worth of monsters or 26 goblins.  So when we test it out, someone's going to say, "Jesus 26 goblins per fight is kicking our ass, how about 10, or 18, or 13?" and whatever they come back with the next Bestiary can have adjusted XP values to what feels right.  I just wish they were upfront about that.

Vampire Class/Feat in 2013!

I prefer Next because 4E players and CharOpers can't find their ass without a grid and a power called "Find Ass."

Seems like the consensus is 26 goblins do not an encounter make.  It's an appropriate encounter, but it might not be fun.  You need traps and interesting features to turn it back from "26 Genericons kick open the door of the 8x8 room."  But our first reaction should not be "well you're supposed to ignore the rules."  I'd rather players feel like they have unlimited options.  As far as desigining challenges, I'm still relying on the professional game designers for adjudication.

Vampire Class/Feat in 2013!

I prefer Next because 4E players and CharOpers can't find their ass without a grid and a power called "Find Ass."