D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
In terms of stat raises, I'd strongly be in favor of raising all stats rather than just three as a fix. Raising only three stats doesn't fix the entire problem (witness classes with aligned primary and secondary stats), and it does fix divergence of things like skills and init nor the requirement for extensive char-planning (which 4e was supposed to reduce). On the other hand, raising all stats hardly increases the problematic aspects of the fix; these being the possibility of imbalances made possible by avoiding feat prereq's (after all, even adding just one extra stat raise is probably enough to make 99% of all stat prereqs easily achieveable with planning). So, if you want a stat-based fix, I'd go whole hog and happily get rid of a bunch of problems related to stat modifier divergence by doing so, rather than just fix the weakest defense in some of the cases.
Raising all 6 stats does have a certain appeal, however, I think that opening up the smorgasbord of feats so that each PC can get most of the better non-class specific and non-race specific feats is a fairly large negative. There should be some feats that are only good for those that focus ability scores in those areas. And if a player spreads the extra bonus stat around to multiple stats for feat prerequisites, then he's not helping his lowest NAD. A trade off.
I consider the issue with the skills to not be problematic here, but it depends on how you view skills. I view the skill DCs as typically being about the same. I think most skill attempts should be relatively easy at higher levels, so the lack of the additional stat boost is ok.
For example, I go into an Inn at level 1 and use Streetwise to try to convince the bartender to give me information. The DC might be 20 for a given set of information. I go into an Inn at level 11 and use Streetwise to try to convince the bartender to give me information. The DC might still be 20 for the same set of information. The DC does not go up by 5 (in my game) because the PC is 10 levels higher. He is better at getting information than he used to be at level 1, so his chance of success should be greater.
The innkeeper should not suddenly be 10 levels higher.
I think that a lot of mundane uses of skills (climbing walls, jumping pits, talking to informants, hiding from town guards) should become easier as the PCs increase levels. They start becoming much better than others at these things to the point that at high Epic level, the innkeeper spills his guts to the PCs because these guys are practically known demigods (or if they are incognito, then because they easily sweet talk the info out of him because they have been doing this for so long and are so skilled at it).
Explicit skill challenges where the DM wants to hand out XP are different. There, the PCs that have focused on those skills should shine, the PCs that have not should look for unusual ways to use the skills where they have focused. I am ok with the PCs who have focused on certain skills gaining an ability score edge over PCs that do not. The Rogue's Stealth increases by 9 from levels 1 to 14 (without items or additional feats), the Wizard's Stealth only increases by 7 from levels 1 to 14. That's ok. The level 14 Wizard is still pretty darn steathly in mundane settings like town, he's just not that stealthy against a Beholder.
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
Last edited by KarinsDad; 31st October 2009 at 10:16 PM..
Absolute is if status effects matter. If it is just about dropping someone in a 1 vs 1 duel and comparing DPR, relative increases are more important.
(hit on 19 or 20 chance for 100 damage is better than hitting for 101 damage only on a 20; where hitting on a 2-20 for 1 damage is much worse than hitting for 2 damage on 3-20)
If you want to get a status effect on your enemy (which can have an impact for many rounds), or to get a massive damage spike in (status effect dying), every 5% chance counts.
And since such status effects are frustrating if you are hit all the time, IMHO something can be done.
@Karins dad: maybe you should also consider increase the recharge chances for some status effect powers, because they will fail more often after boosting defenses.
And yes, barkeepers stay at level 1 in the small village... and the towns barkeeper in the most noble inn, where informations relevant for paragon chars could be available will be level 11.
Last edited by UngeheuerLich; 31st October 2009 at 07:02 PM..
@Karins dad: maybe you should also consider increase the recharge chances for some status effect powers, because they will fail more often after boosting defenses.
I thought about it, but I don't see the need. Sure, they will fail slightly more often, but I also think that the NAD issue is a mistake by WotC. The monsters are supposed to fail slightly more often than core.
WotC screwed up. The lowest NAD should not be hit on a -2 at high Epic level. The house rules pull that back up to a 5 and that is a reasonable number. Hitting 80% against that weak NAD against one or two PCs instead of hitting 95% doesn't mean that the recharge 5 or 6 should increase by 16% to a recharge 4 to 6 against all PCs. IMO.
The weak NAD is still getting hit a lot at 80%. Even if the Leader throws in another +2, it's still 70%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UngeheuerLich
And yes, barkeepers stay at level 1 in the small village... and the towns barkeeper in the most noble inn, where informations relevant for paragon chars could be available will be level 11.
Yeah, I don't usually run it that way (shy of an explicit skill challenge).
Barkeepers respond to money, regardless where they are located. I don't believe that the chance to succeed should be the same. And, I believe that the information acquired can still be useful and relevant, even at Paragon level.
I agree with you for an explicit DM set up skill challenge. When the skill is used like an encounter for XP, then yes, the DCs should be appropriately high.
But one of the advantages of being heroes should be that mundane use of skills becomes easier.
To put it another way, there was a TSR questionaire that DMs were supposed to hand out to their players several decades ago that asked the question "How heroic do you want your PC to be?". One of the answers was:
"In real life, I can trip over a garbage can. I don't want my Dwarf doing that."
or some such. That's how I view mundane skill use.
And I consider most information acquired by most townsfolk to be relatively mundane skill use. There are always exceptions and there are always NPCs that have hidden agendas, but for the most part, an innkeeper is there to make money and not tick off guys with massive swords strapped across their backs.
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
The entire premise is flawed under the assumption that all you cared about is damage.
Almost invariably status effects are the things I'm far more worried about. At which point going from a 2 to 7 instead of a 10 to a 15 is still all good
The suggested house rule seems fine though.
The premise of nothing but damage is fine. It's the implicit assumption "when you raise your high FRW defense you can ignore attacks on your low defense" that's flawed.
If a defense is very low relative to the attacker's attack bonus, a plus to that defense won't give you the same benefit. For many characters/opponents, you won't get the full benefit of a FRW-boosting feat because the monster would have hit you on a 1 if not for the auto-miss rule, pre-feat (e.g., "it hits on a -1 or better"), so some of the benefit of a bonus (e.g., that from a feat) will be lost. I'll set that possibility aside.
If you have two enemies, one of whom needs an 18 to hit you, and the other of whom needs a 2 to hit you, and they do equal damage, the average damage you take if both attack you once is the same whether you get a +2 bonus to the defense where you're hit on an 18 or the defense where you're hit on a 2. Just because you chose to take a +2 to your stronger defense doesn't mean you can ignore the attacks on your weak defense!
Edit: I find it pretty funny that I almost never disagree with either you or eamon, and here I'm disagreeing with both of you for different reasons in the same post
Last edited by Elric; 31st October 2009 at 08:43 PM..
Ok, i am still interested how it works out. Although i donīt believe the math is wrong per se. Only that they miscalculated what is fun.
I play 3.5 in the follwing way:
10 is easy, 15 is hard and 20 is expert difficulty. Take ten and take 20 preferred. (DMīs best friend may be applied to DC and check result)
reason behind it:
10: average person should be always able to do it when no unfavorable circumstances occur (+2 DC) or when under pressure (no take 10 allowed)
(Commoner)
15: 4 ranks, 13 in relevant stat
(Lvl 1 expert)
20: 5 ranks, skill focus, 15 stat or synergy bonus or dual skill bonus feat
(Lvl 2 expert)
these are my npcs
in 4e i rather see it that way:
A barkeeper in a noble in needs to be discrete and really good in what he is doing, getting paid a lot more than a barkeeper in a village
so beeing good at what he is doing means high level in is class which is barkeeper.
so trained in insight, level bonus +5, 15 relevant stat which results in a 22 (should be about the target number of a hard lvl 11 challenge.
he is no fighting character so he has neither armor, nor good stats and runs around with AC 15... and 1 hp.
you could as well make him level 1 and give him skill focus and better stats and give him real hp. doesnīt really matter... because i donīt want to think about NPCīs as much as i had to in 3.x (which i stopped doing once i ralized it is wasted time)
If a defense is very low relative to the attacker's attack bonus, a plus to that defense won't give you the same benefit. For many characters/opponents, you won't get the full benefit of a FRW-boosting feat because the monster would have hit you on a 1 if not for the auto-miss rule
Yeah, the extremes suck. I think it echoes why the 'many of same level' was more popular than 'make them higher level' in the recent poll. I actually very rarely encounter the case where a monster needs either a 1 or 20, so the math remains more stable in those cases. It may be that other people's games dip into those more frequently.
I did get attacked with a +8 Fort attack on my Level 12 Fort 28 barbarian in a module recently (21 Ref is his low, fwiw). And I believe the last encounter of a wotc module includes a +17 vs. FRW against level 10 adventurers.
Quote:
Edit: I find it pretty funny that I almost never disagree with either you or eamon, and here I'm disagreeing with both of you for different reasons in the same post
Using stat raises is comparatively easy; just raise all stats on levels 4/8 and (in combination with the general 5/15/25 raise) players will lose only 1 point vs. the monsters over their career, which looks OK to me.
...
I'm also not too thrilled about the way feat-prerequisites really punish people that don't pre-plan their character 20 levels in advance. Getting rid of those stat prerequisites is probably a good thing - unless it breaks game balance (I can't, off the top of my head, think of any examples thereof, however).
It also ameliorates the need for "fixer" feats like heavy armor for Str/Wis Rangers (still attractive, but no longer absolutely required) or like the primal con-to-AC feat (also still attractive for a non-Dex/Int build, but again, not absolutely required).
That's a bunch of nice side effects, IMNSHO :-).
There was a good discussion of having three discretional stat raises in this thread: Alternatives to the feat-tax solution to to-hit and F/R/W defenses. Compared to the default, besides the increase in weak FRW defenses, raising all six stats would mean that many characters gain additional surges and initiative from Con/Dex increases.
Some scaling benefits like Barbarian Agility could be problematic; my suggestion was to remove the scaling from "Barbarian Agility" as compensation. There are a few feats that might lead to problems; a Tactical Warlord/Battle Captain who gets 19 Cha at little cost and can take Supreme Inspiration (from mp) is one example.
A barkeeper in a noble in needs to be discrete and really good in what he is doing, getting paid a lot more than a barkeeper in a village
so beeing good at what he is doing means high level in is class which is barkeeper.
so trained in insight, level bonus +5, 15 relevant stat which results in a 22 (should be about the target number of a hard lvl 11 challenge.
Well according to the rules, Streetwise to gain information has set DCs, regardless of whether it is a village or town or city. Higher level PCs will be better than lower level PCs with Streetwise. Streetwise is like Jump. PCs get better at it as they level up. They get better at knowing who to talk with, how to convince NPCs to spill the beans, etc.
If the PCs are using Insight vs. the Innkeeper's Bluff to gain information, one has to wonder why an innkeeper is trying to bluff.
If the information is information that an innkeeper would hand out regardless (no matter how helpful or critical it is to the PCs), why is the DM asking for skill rolls?
I really don't understand the concept of rolling dice to gain roleplaying information like this unless there are explicit reasons the Innkeeper wants to keep the information out of the players hands. In that case, sure, it might be considered a skill challenge or might require opposed rolls.
Just because the PCs need the information does not mean that it should require a roll to get it either. The criticality of the information should not typically affect whether an NPC is willing to part with the information or not. Other factors should influence that (such as whether the NPC is friend or foe or even total stranger, the NPC's motivations, etc.). The criticality of the information might affect whether an NPC wants to negotiate the information's worth or not though.
But the concept that PCs are now Paragon level, hence, all skill rolls should have Paragon difficulty is not what should happen. That should mostly just occur for skill challenges where PCs acquire XP from it. Sometimes, it might occur just because what the players are trying to use the skill for is extremely difficult. But, that should not be the status quo. IMO.
PCs get better at stuff and this should be reflected in the game system. Throwing level appropriate rolls at them constantly does not reflect this.
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
If paragon level PCīs decide to attack kobolds who threaten a village. It will be easy. It was difficult when they were level 1, now its a cakewalk.
If they want to sweettalk the guard of winterhaven now. It will be easy, since he is more or less a commoner. (bluff vs insight or dibplomacy vs insight hence my example of insight before)
I would actually encourage using low DCīs here. If you are untrained and uncharismatic, you have still a chance to fail but your chances are good to be let in.
If you however decide to sweettalk your way into the queens bedroom... i guess this will be harder. I could imagine an elite (paragon) guard having his duty here.
Never ever should the world scale to the adventurers level. The adventures should decide on their own, who they deal with and with what challenges. The only thing i could imagine is the guard who has been sweettalked by PCs to raise in level (1 -> 2) because he has learned from his mistake.
With the addition of minons i can imagine NPCīs of level 1-10 running around villages. All minions with 1 hp.
There was a good discussion of having three discretional stat raises in this thread: Alternatives to the feat-tax solution to to-hit and F/R/W defenses. Compared to the default, besides the increase in weak FRW defenses, raising all six stats would mean that many characters gain additional surges and initiative from Con/Dex increases.
Some scaling benefits like Barbarian Agility could be problematic; my suggestion was to remove the scaling from "Barbarian Agility" as compensation. There are a few feats that might lead to problems; a Tactical Warlord/Battle Captain who gets 19 Cha at little cost and can take Supreme Inspiration (from mp) is one example.
I remember that discussion, and back then I was a little less enthusiastic about the stat-raise fix because of the way it messes up prereqs and class balance. But the situation has changed a little, and I look at prerequisites differently as well.
The barbarian is a great example - barbarian agility previously seemed overpowered when combined with full stat raises. However, meanwhile, wizards has release a feat (in primal power) that allows primal characters to use their Con mod instead - a huge boost. In fact, now, raising all stats may even shift that particular feat from the absolutely-must-have set to the very-nice-to-have set.
So, classes whose primary or secondary stat align with AC or init or Con still have a large advantage in terms of AC, Init or hitpoints+surges, but that advantage no longer grows as much as levels progress. I think that's fine. Bonuses to d20 rolls inherently scale with level, since the underlying effect gets stronger. It doesn't make sense to scale the bonus with level as well - so it doesn't make sense to make stat mods diverge.
As for stat prerequisites, the way I see it now, those were mostly a mistake. They either make little difference, or they make a difference, and in both cases they're not good. If they make no difference, just scrap them, and when they make a difference, it's worse, and contributes to the chasm of effectiveness between a power-gamed character and a more naturally built character. An optimizer can usually easily figure out which prereqs to get when. A pc built on the spur of the moment can't, and will either miss it by a point or two, or decide "hey, let's invest one of my 4/8 stat-raise points here", and that's worse, since now they're playing a stat array that's typically lower than 22-point buy, and they'll start falling further behind on to-hit, damage, and secondary effects.
That doesn't mean you can't award characters for focus - you can, but you should do so via prerequisites that represent actual focus (i.e., do you have this feat chain, or at least this number of "arcane" feats, or this race, or this skill, or whatever). Stat prerequisites more often than not seem arbitrary: some builds manage em easily, others don't have a chance (e.g. weapon mastery feats). There's no rhyme or reason to it, but you better watch out which build you pick, since these feats matter.
I also noticed that WotC uses far fewer stat prereqs now: Primal power has only two such feats, and one of those is Hide Armor Expertise (which grants Con mod to AC instead of Dex/Int), and the prereq of just Con 15 is probably there to protect the player, rather than anything else. I don't think the game'll break by removing stat prereqs altogether, but if you're worried, you could raise prereqs by 1 point per tier, which should keep prereqs out of hands of those that haven't invested anything. There's just so many decent feats to choose from by now, that I don't think a few more options is going to be problematic.
__________________
4e balanced random loot system
- Think item wishlists are devilspawn?
- Dislike the impact of a few bad item picks by the DM on the party?
- Or find it ludicrous that PC's constantly just "happen" to find magic items tailored to their needs?
Try: A simpler treasure system for (mostly) random loot.
3.5 death&dying variant
- Tired of players that won't cure their mortally wounded allies 'cause "he's only at -2"?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which uses anachronistic d10's?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which never kicks into action for high level characters, which tend to go from alive and kicking to instant death before anyone can intervene?
- Tired of horribly complex house rules?
Try: Death & Dying - a better (and simple!) system
Last edited by eamon; 1st November 2009 at 01:01 AM..
I wouldn't see DCs ever changing based on character levels, no. The concept is that the higher level PCs just do things that are more difficult in general. The level 1 PCs might socialize with commoners and low level thugs etc. The higher level PCs are more likely to have to deal with sophisticated nobles and master thieves and such.
There are times when gaining information CAN require die rolls, its fine. The plot just has to be structured to allow for other ways to either get the information or go ahead without it. I suppose the DM could drop plot hooks based on die rolls too, but it just means enough of them will have to be available that the party will grab one and the DM has to be ready to roll with whatever comes up.
It all depends on game style. If its a linear type adventure then its pretty much pointless to roll for stuff like that.
I also noticed that WotC uses far fewer stat prereqs now: Primal power has only two such feats, and one of those is Hide Armor Expertise (which grants Con mod to AC instead of Dex/Int), and the prereq of just Con 15 is probably there to protect the player, rather than anything else. I don't think the game'll break by removing stat prereqs altogether, but if you're worried, you could raise prereqs by 1 point per tier, which should keep prereqs out of hands of those that haven't invested anything. There's just so many decent feats to choose from by now, that I don't think a few more options is going to be problematic.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the concept of stat prereqs. The way they have been used is frequently not so good. The real issue was always excessive feat synergy. Its great in theory to think that bonus type stacking would deal with that, but the sheer number of feats in the game means the designers no longer have a firm grip on what might combine with what else. Plus they basically blew that whole concept by simply releasing so many untyped bonus feats.
I'll agree though that it makes just as much sense in most cases to simply use other types of prereqs. The one issue with that is insisting on certain classes or certain other feats narrows the utility too much in many cases and also doesn't allow for future uses when new stuff comes out. Stat prereqs has the advantage of avoiding that.
No, they don't. From an absolute standpoint they are identical (+/-5%). From a relative standpoint, small additions to low defenses mean you're not affected a greater percentage of the time (+1 = +100% more misses) and small subtractions to high defenses mean you are affected a greater percentage of the time (-1 = +100% more hits). Vice versa if you flip the bit. So it's all a matter of perspective for what you're looking for. Which means absolute is the most useful for discussing effects.
The effect of a +1 on defenses vs. a status effect is only identical in an absolute sense when considered over the span of one round. However, D&D combat continues until one combatant loses. Effects such as daze hurt your chances of success by making you easier to hit (this is comparable to receiving damage) and by making you less effective (this is comparable to dealing less damage).
Imagine two combat scenarios, both being barely fairly balanced. In one scenario you are almost always hit, and in the other you are rarely hit. All else being equal, if in one combat you get hit every time, you will die earlier than in a combat in which you are rarely hit. Now, if your defenses change by one that has some absolutely identical effect in both high-hit and low-hit scenarios.
The same absolute effect will however occur fewer times in a combat where you are hit with high probability since that combat is shorter. Ergo, the +1 to defenses will matter more often in a long battle than a short one, and thus will matter more when you defenses are high than when your defenses are low.
Further, there are tactical reasons why a change in high defenses matter more. Many buff/healing powers can ameliorate an effect; but these are usable only a limited number of times. For instance, a halfling's second chance is worth more when the reroll has a high probability of missing. Many leaders can remove a save-ends effect, but can do so only once (or some limited number of times) - so these powers become a more effective stopgap when the base defense is already good.
Effects do muddy the waters: but I'm convinced that for (most) effects too, changes to low defenses matter less than changes to high defenses.
__________________
4e balanced random loot system
- Think item wishlists are devilspawn?
- Dislike the impact of a few bad item picks by the DM on the party?
- Or find it ludicrous that PC's constantly just "happen" to find magic items tailored to their needs?
Try: A simpler treasure system for (mostly) random loot.
3.5 death&dying variant
- Tired of players that won't cure their mortally wounded allies 'cause "he's only at -2"?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which uses anachronistic d10's?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which never kicks into action for high level characters, which tend to go from alive and kicking to instant death before anyone can intervene?
- Tired of horribly complex house rules?
Try: Death & Dying - a better (and simple!) system
Further, there are tactical reasons why a change in high defenses matter more. Many buff/healing powers can ameliorate an effect; but these are usable only a limited number of times. For instance, a halfling's second chance is worth more when the reroll has a high probability of missing. Many leaders can remove a save-ends effect, but can do so only once (or some limited number of times) - so these powers become a more effective stopgap when the base defense is already good.
This is the singular point I can agree with - Second Chance is more effective when your defense is high.
Given that increasingly high defenses can result in you not being hit by a status effect at all, your argument about ameloriating effects only being available a limited time does not justify increasing higher defenses more. If anything, it suggests increasing lower unless all of your defenses are sufficiently low that you're going to get hit by that status effect multiple times (which is totally possible).
Quote:
Effects do muddy the waters: but I'm convinced that for (most) effects too, changes to low defenses matter less than changes to high defenses.
I believe that you're correct in two very specific cases:
1) Your defenses would be hit on a number lower than a 2 if that were possible (extremely high level, or DM/module using monsters too high level)
2) You have a plethora of make an attacker reroll an attack powers
Which I suspect are not actually the reasons you're selling.
Let's take a theoretical 10 round combat against a solo in which every round it does a stun attack on two people.
The first is hit on a 3 (90% chance to be hit). The second is hit on a 11 (50% chance to be hit).
So, the first is being stunned 9 of 10 rounds at the moment. Which sucks, oh boy. The second is being stunned 5 of 10 rounds at the moment. Which still sucks, but is significantly less annoying.
If you gave both +4 to the defense in question, the first would no longer be stunned in 2 rounds. And the second would no longer be stunned in 2 rounds. Absolute effect, identical.
This would change their rounds of usable combat from 1 to 3 (+200% rounds) or 5 to 7 (+40%) respectively. Comparative effect, to the lower defense.
In terms of effectiveness, the first guy is now unstunned long enough to get to throw out his strongest encounter powers. The second guy gets to throw out two additional at-will powers. Comparative effect, to the lower defense.
I'm not entirely sure how you'd quantitate fun between the two - but I can say that I suspect being able to act two more times would probably remove a lot more of the frustration from the 1/10 guy than the 5/10 guy. Purely cause he'll have a lot more frustration built up. So comparative effect, to the lower defense.
So, simple example in which improving the lower defense was more useful. And there are lots of others. The warlock or ranger who gets dazed less so they can quarry more, which is hardly something they need to do every round. The fighter who gets immobilized less so he can get into melee then lock something down. These are things where being near autohit is potentially crippling and being able to avoid that for just a few rounds is a fantastic boon.
I don't actually advocate boosting lower over higher - I'm more disputing your claim that higher clearly over lower.
Last edited by keterys; 3rd November 2009 at 10:53 PM..
Reason: Fixing a typo, thanks Starfox
there are no mnsters which are harder to hit and hitting worse or easier to hit and hiting better.
Without this strict rule, i assume there would be less balance debates. (I browsed through MM2 and nearly always def is 9 points higher than attack bonus) IMHO they are overusing the math. And to be on topic: make lower defenses count against many monsters.
Read part of the first page the other day and part of this page (5) today.
All I can say is that if you are routinely throwing enemies at a 15th level party that have +22 attacks against non-AC defenses, then you're doing something wrong.
It's not the defenses that are the problem, it's the GM that thinks this is SOP.
Once in a while, solos, bosses? Yup.
Every combat? What the blankety-blank is wrong with you?
__________________ 'Fair' is a Human Ideological Concept.
Perception, the bastard child of Subjective Reality.
"Spinning is so much cooler than not spinning. I'm the general and I want it to spin." - Stargate Episode #200
All I can say is that if you are routinely throwing enemies at a 15th level party that have +22 attacks against non-AC defenses, then you're doing something wrong.
It's not the defenses that are the problem, it's the GM that thinks this is SOP.
Once in a while, solos, bosses? Yup.
Every combat? What the blankety-blank is wrong with you?
The problem isn't with +22 versus NADs at level 15 (although that's ridiculous). It's +17 with a recharge area attack with a same level monster.
Only 34% of Paragon level monsters in the Monster Manual have AC-only attacks. 66% of them have one or more attacks that target a NAD.
So, the DM can either not use monsters that target NADs, or he can use them.
The typical range of the worst NAD at level 15 is from 20 to 25 (10 starting stat +3 item through 13 starting stat +4 item +1 race +1 class).
The range for level 15 monsters is +16 through +20. So, the +16 hits on a 4 through 9. The +20 hits on a 2 through 5. The average +18 hits the average NAD 22 on a 4. Note: few PCs have bonuses to race and/or class in their worst NAD.
These are same level monsters out of the MM. And, it's ~2/3rds of the monsters (at Paragon level) out of the MM.
Is the DM just supposed to throw out these monsters and not use them?
For the 15 15th level monsters, there are:
Code:
2 no NAD attacks
1 +17 encounter area effect
1 +17 recharge area effect
1 +16 encounter area effect
1 +18 at will single target, minor
1 +19 at will single target plus
+19 encounter area effect plus
+19 recharge area effect
1 +20 immediate reaction at will single target no damage plus
+20 recharge area effect plus
+20 encounter area effect
1 +18 at will single target plus
+18 encounter single target no damage plus
+18 recharge area effect
2 +18 recharge single target
1 +20 recharge single target
1 +20 at will single target no damage, minor
1 +19 encounter area effect no damage
1 +16 at will single target plus
+20 two times per encounter single target plus
+20 recharge single target
Only 13% of these monsters do not target NADs. Should the DM not use most of the other 87% of them?
And, these are same level monsters. What about higher level monsters? Should the DM never use higher level monsters that target NADs?
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
there are no mnsters which are harder to hit and hitting worse or easier to hit and hiting better.
Without this strict rule, i assume there would be less balance debates. (I browsed through MM2 and nearly always def is 9 points higher than attack bonus) IMHO they are overusing the math. And to be on topic: make lower defenses count against many monsters.
I can identify with this sentiment. In old D&D there was no particular relationship between offense, defense, hit dice, etc. This did give you a wider array of tactical possibilities (which the rudimentary combat system promptly made mostly irrelevant, but that's another story). Giants for instance had lots of hit dice and did high damage but generally had relatively poor defenses.
Of course the problem was it was pretty hard to gauge the threat level of individual monsters and any given monster or combination of monsters could be all over the map. Even fairly low level parties could take on a hill giant. It was risky, but if you could stay out of club range killing it was actually pretty trivial. Now put the same monster in the midst of even a few fairly low level archers and all of a sudden it could be a huge threat. Not to say some of the same considerations don't apply in 4e, but with all monster attributes in lockstep with each other you never get the chance to face something that's easy to hit but has loads of hit points or vice versa.
Its kind of a trade off, but I do miss that aspect of old style monsters sometimes. I guess one answer is to simply ignore the monster design guidelines at times, but it would be nice if that was an acknowledged option that some official monsters employed.
Of course the problem was it was pretty hard to gauge the threat level of individual monsters and any given monster or combination of monsters could be all over the map. Even fairly low level parties could take on a hill giant. It was risky, but if you could stay out of club range killing it was actually pretty trivial.
Agreed.
We once had a 3E encounter with zombies outdoors. Since the zombies only got a single action, they moved. The PCs used their move to back up and stay basically the same distance away and then fired ranged attacks. The zombies were stupid, so they kept on approaching. The damage reduction turned it into a longer encounter, but there was no danger.
The same encounter in a smaller room would have been a lot more challenging.
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
From a player's perspective, that seems like an unnecessary limitation of options. Why do this?
1. Because that's what's the PHB suggests.
2. Because it protects careless players from creating unbalanced characters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eamon
This is also completely unreasonable. The low NAD's are not due to player decisions but due to an imbalance in the base game.
Well, that's YOUR opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by eamon
the vast majority of characters have no real options to avoid being trivially easy to hit for the vast majority of NAD-targetting monsters
Do you have any proof?
If the sample characters I created and the actual character my players created are any indication, it's a small minority that doesn't have any real options to keep their lowest defense high enough to make a difference.
The only one of my sample characters that had a problem with a low NAD, was the artful dodger halfling thief. It may just have been coincidence, but this character also happened to have the best chance to hit.
In fact, the character's to hit chance was so good (around 90% until mid paragon tier), it would probably have been better if I had spent more resources on trying to up his low defense instead of always going for options that increased his attacks.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
