Fire Giant vs. Stone Golem: why the XP difference?

Im looking at the stone golem and noticed its XP value is 14,260.   Its  level 13 monster.

Now I'm looking at the fire giant.   Its a level 10 monster worth 7,900 xp.

Yet the fire giant has more hp, a better AC, moves quicker and does more damage.   It also has a further reach.  Same amount of attacks.

A Stone golem does have slow and some immunities.   Slow seems to slow down the creature by 10 feet a round... which isn't that terrible an ability.    The immunities don't seem to be damage related... blocks things like sleep.   Some spells have special effects on it like transmute rock to mud, stone to flesh and transmute mud to rock.

I'm skeptical that the extras outweigh the fighting advantages that the fire giant has.   And its also stupid as all heck with an Int of 3.

Where do you think the XP/Level difference is coming from?
Back in my day, monster experience were worth 300x(their CR). 

But now, I give up how they rate their experience on monsters.  
Back in my day, monster experience were worth 300x(their CR). 

But now, I give up how they rate their experience on monsters.  

I'm still assuming that somewhere during design, the adventures had rooms circled as "party levels up here", and the monster xp values are fudged to fit.

It seems you are either mising its completely immunity to weapons that are not either adamantine (no current rules for) or magic (specifically not assumed to be had at any particular point in the game), or are discounting it as not coming in to play because you unreasonably expect that the party will never find themselves facing one without the proper equipment (thus rendering a major feature of the creature's defense into wasted word count).

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

Why? Because 8 months in, and WotC has yet to hash out how they even want to treat monsters, let alone the details.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

Nigh-total immunity to magic is supposed to be a big deal, especially considering that golems are one of the few critters you can expect to not have awesome loot (and thus would otherwise be an excellent choice to disintegrate).

The metagame is not the game.

It seems you are either mising its completely immunity to weapons that are not either adamantine (no current rules for) or magic (specifically not assumed to be had at any particular point in the game), or are discounting it as not coming in to play because you unreasonably expect that the party will never find themselves facing one without the proper equipment (thus rendering a major feature of the creature's defense into wasted word count).

This thing right here. Golems are scary 'cause you won't necessarily have the means to hurt them and if you do it might be improvised. I once had an encounter where the players had to resort to beating a werewolf to death with a pair of silver candlesticks. It was awesome and I can't think of any reason why I would ever want to create a situation where the players don't have to improvise their way arond a creature they can't kill with their normal methods.

It seems you are either mising its completely immunity to weapons that are not either adamantine (no current rules for) or magic (specifically not assumed to be had at any particular point in the game), or are discounting it as not coming in to play because you unreasonably expect that the party will never find themselves facing one without the proper equipment (thus rendering a major feature of the creature's defense into wasted word count).



ha ha ha ha!   Thanxs!   I completely missed out on the magic immunities somehow.   That helps explain some of this to me.
you guys don't think that needing a +1 sword explains the big diff, do ya?   That can't be everything.   It sure does look like its a fighter centric foe.
you guys don't think that needing a +1 sword explains the big diff, do ya?   That can't be everything.   It sure does look like its a fighter centric foe.

Since fighters can't make magic items, its not really a fighter centric foe.  It always seemed wierd that even the monsters immune to magic still required magic to kill.

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad.

yeah, but spellcasters aren't going to do anything against it.   Its immune to almost all spells!
Its immune to all fighters as well. It requires items not assumed in the base game to exist and be available. So the only classes capable of killing it with out plot armor are spellcasters.

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad.

yeah, but the spells genearlly don't effect it.   I think there are only 3 that do.