Invincible PC's

[Turtlejay]

A few of the threads on the front page right now are discussing the defenses of PC's, the issues with Masterwork Armor, and game balance. One thing that bugs me about the discussion is the assumtion that one's FRW should be all around good. Several suggestions have been made about allowing 3 increases in stats to cover each defense, or no increase in stats, or a generic +1 to all defenses...

Does nobody think that having a weak defense is perhaps a good thing, and maybe a deliberate decision? Especially considering the top end stacked nature of some of these examples. If you have an 18 dex, and a 14 wis, and can only spare an 11 for str/con, is it any wonder you have a crap fort? Should you get a pass because you twinked your character, in turn bumping the defenses of the well rounded character into unhittable ranges?

The other assumption is that every PC must/will take the to hit and FRW improving feats. They are feats, the designers put them in as feats to make them optional, you can make a great character by taking other feats, and all those feats do is help you shore up a weak spot, or stand out.

I see no problem with the Necromancer with the vs Fort attacks trying to get past the fighter to the bow ranger. It makes each combat have a new dimension, and is an understandable behavior. It allows the defenders to defend, and the healers to heal. Weak spots are normal, and part of Fantasy tropes (Raistlin?!).

Of course, some builds would like to pump 2 attributes that contribute to the same defense (pacifist clerics, barbarians, wand wizards) and those are the characters most in need of those banned feats. This is why I dislike blanket outlawing of options, and prefer a more targeted approach. My opinions at least. Feel free to disagree. I wouldn't post this on a message board if was afraid of being disagreed with...

Jay

[Garthanos]

If I understand you....
This argument could be similarly applied to expertise feats saying they are very useful to enable somebody who choses not to up there up there main attributes by 2 at every tier it avoids them being gimped because they wanted to diversify their attribute enhancement

[keterys]

It's desirable to have differences in defenses, but you probably don't want those differences to be so strong that you enter any sort of 'auto hit' or 'auto miss' territory.

For example, if a creature needs a 7 to hit the weak Fort character and a 19 to hit the high Fort fighter, that's probably a bit too much. If a creature needs a 2 to hit the weak Fort character, that's downright poor too.

[chitzk0i]

In my experience, PCs who have gotten a really high will, reflex, or fortitude will still get hit in that defense 40-50% of the time. So if that PC had instead boosted her lowest defense, all of them would get hit 60-70% of the time.

[Stalker0]

Originally Posted by chitzk0i

In my experience, PCs who have gotten a really high will, reflex, or fortitude will still get hit in that defense 40-50% of the time. So if that PC had instead boosted her lowest defense, all of them would get hit 60-70% of the time.

I think this is the crux of the argument.

The main complaint isn't that a person's lowest defense gets hit a lot (although there are some builds that seem to get hit on a -1 or better...which is pretty extreme). The complaint is that a person highest NAD, they one they have actually tried to boost, still is hit the majority of the time.

[Victim]

Originally Posted by chitzk0i

In my experience, PCs who have gotten a really high will, reflex, or fortitude will still get hit in that defense 40-50% of the time. So if that PC had instead boosted her lowest defense, all of them would get hit 60-70% of the time.

My experience mostly agrees. Even our character's good NAD defenses are hit around half the time at best. And something like our Battlerager's Ref will be hit more than 80% of the time with or without Lightning Reflexes.

For example, my level 18 human barbarian has 34 Fort with Paragon Defenses. Looking through MM2, I'm seeing attacks from non Brutes against NADs coming in at 21-23. That puts my best defense in the 40-50% range hit chance range without any sort of extra edge like CA.

[Rothe_]

Yeah, I agree about the highest NAD comment. Currently, the characters have to take all the feats available to have a chance of a miss against them at epic levels.
With moderate defenses ou even have to get items that give bonus to your saves in addition to the basic neck slot item.

Think about it:

At level 21 (early epics), you have:
10 base
+10 levels
+7 ability score
+4 item
+1 (averaging out) class bonus
= 32

A monster at your level has about +25 to hit you - they hit you on a 7+. Something is off? Your character is actually supposed to have a really good defense here.

To get +3 more, you really have to do some work. Perhaps your ability score has to be higher (that lowers the other defenses probably) and maybe you can get an item to boost this specific NAD, but this is your highest one.

Basically your only option is to take the feats, which makes me sad - you have to take specific feats to get to the baseline situation of getting hit on a 10-11 +

[Jhaelen]

Originally Posted by Rothe_

Basically your only option is to take the feats, which makes me sad - you have to take specific feats to get to the baseline situation of getting hit on a 10-11 +

No. There's another option that's actually way better:
Have a leader that looks after you. Or still better: Have two leaders that look after you. Or still better: Have three ...

[Storminator]

I dunno, my cleric has a terrible Ref defense. Instead of bumping it up, we just try to kill anything that starts targeting my Ref. Considering how low damage output of monsters is at high level (according to all the hot threads!), maybe those monsters should be hitting all the time.

PS

[ExploderWizard]

The invincible PC/ super vulnerable PC are the natural result of bonus inflation. If the resolution mechanic die is a d20 and bonues can easily equal or surpass that range you will end up with a system that makes a strength nigh invincible and a weakness crippling.

It is difficult for one thing to meaningfully interact with another with such a wide range of difficulty. When a minimum roll still gets the job done with overkill or a maximum roll won't even get you close to a success then the system breaks down.

Use overall lower defenses, limit bonuses to perhaps +/- 10 maximum including circumstantials and let hit points do thier job.

[ValhallaGH]

Monster success rates are where you want player success rates to be, for general enjoyment (60-70%). Most people feel successful, increasing the fun, when they succeed in that 60-70% range. If the PCs are actually succeeding about that amount then the game math is pretty good.
Defensively, success is being missed. Getting hit as much as 50% is okay as long as you can't suddenly go from decent (right around bloodied) to dead.

Hit points have a job, to survive when you do get hit. Their job isn't to soak every single monster attack roll. And they do nothing to compensate for the status effects that accompany most high-level attacks.


It's true that the d20 is a big variable, but that doesn't matter much when discussing the relative differences in defenses.
If the difference in defenses is +3 to +5, that is meaningful and noteworthy without being crippling. A foe that will hit your weak defense on a 7+ needs a 10 or 12 to hit your strong defenses. That's playable, and that is usually the difference in ability score bonuses.
If the difference in defenses is +10 or more then there is too much differentiation. This enters into the can't miss / can't hit range, and that gets to be no fun to run or play.

Limiting the range of potential bonuses while still having enough increase to eliminate potential threats is the goal of any sort of Defense analysis.
The enemies have Level + X to hit (about +3). So, a good defense for any given level should be around Level + 15. A weak defense should be around Level + 11.
Assuming an ability bonus differential of +4, the basic defense calculation should be about Level for either defense.
The system gives you 5/10 level + 2/10 level (magic). Characters automatically get 7 / 10 level to all defenses. It expects characters to use feats or specialty items to make up the difference ( 3 / 10 levels). So by the end of Heroic tier each PC should have found some way to add +3 to their off defenses. By the end of Paragon, this is up to a +6 total. By the end of Epic, it should be up to a +9 total. This use of feats and non-neck items should finally get PC defenses to the point they are supposed to be at.

Unfortunately, the feat bonuses are +0 Heroic, +3 Paragon, and +11 Epic, after spending a total of 11 feats (over half of total feats). Only +9 at Epic for a "mere" 8 feats (almost half of total feats). This uses up half your character customization options to soak up the design difference between enemy attack progressions and PC defense progressions.
Without these feats, your defenses will sit around 7/10 Level + 15 (good) or + 11 (weak). While the monsters of your level start able to hit this on a 11+ / 7+, they end able to hit this on a 2+ / -2+. Monsters of higher levels, or using good tactics to get higher bonuses, will have correspondingly better attack rates.
They go from reasonable to certainty, assuming no PC feats are spent on increasing those defenses.



That's as much a weakness as Superman's vulnerability to kryptonite. This, making assumed and necessary numbers part of the "optional" advancement, is a major design oddity. It's counter-intuitive and generally lessens the fun of high level play.
Is it a surprise that people are trying to fix it?

[Rothe_]

It's true that the d20 is a big variable, but that doesn't matter much when discussing the relative differences in defenses.
If the difference in defenses is +3 to +5, that is meaningful and noteworthy without being crippling. A foe that will hit your weak defense on a 7+ needs a 10 or 12 to hit your strong defenses. That's playable, and that is usually the difference in ability score bonuses.
If the difference in defenses is +10 or more then there is too much differentiation. This enters into the can't miss / can't hit range, and that gets to be no fun to run or play.

Actually the problem is that the d20 range is too small. The bonuses reach the extremes too fast when you go towards epic levels.

[CapnZapp]

Originally Posted by Turtlejay

Does nobody think that having a weak defense is perhaps a good thing, and maybe a deliberate decision?

Well, if a "weak" defense was getting hit on perhaps a 5 or a 7 (with no special focus on boosting it), then yes.

As it is, however, the game heavily favors the specialist over the generalist.

It is very easy to create a character whose "weak" defense is always hit (except on natural 1's).

Not only does this feel wonky ("why even roll?") but the game offers very little reward for diverting your focus away from your strengths to strengthen this "weak" defense in any appreciable way.

Even if you spend several feats on the "weak" defense, you're likely to end up with something monsters will still almost always hit, so why bother?

The only solid way of getting a better defense is to devote stat increases to either of the two base abilities. And that the game simply discourages - you need those stat increases for your primary attack stat and your secondary "rider" stat and/or AC defense.

The cost of boosting your "weak" NAD simply is too great, especially when you consider the very piddling returns you'll get on that investment.

So if the baseline for a "weak" defense was, say 5-10 points higher than it is, then yes, I'd agree it would be a good thing to have a weak defense.

As it is, it feels as if there's something wrong with the game when your characters almost always end up with defenses that are lower than the attack bonuses of the monsters you're supposed to encounter.

[Johnnii]

One thing:

At the end of Heroic (this was before PHB2), my players complained that they always got hit in the NADs (and they did). And yet, they plowed through encounter after encounter with VERY few times that they "sweat".

I'm wondering, despite getting hit in the NADs constantly, is there a need to fix this "issue"? Aren't we DMs already having a hard time enough challenging the PCs (without the need to make every encounter Level+3 and beyond that) without these boosts to NADs and Hit bonus?

[keterys]

Oh, you might end up wanting to increase a bunch of damages as well. But working the game towards a happier medium is a good thing.

Fwiw, constantly throwing overleveled encounters is part of the problem, creating near autohit situations.

[Ryujin]

Originally Posted by Johnnii

One thing:

At the end of Heroic (this was before PHB2), my players complained that they always got hit in the NADs (and they did). And yet, they plowed through encounter after encounter with VERY few times that they "sweat".

I'm wondering, despite getting hit in the NADs constantly, is there a need to fix this "issue"? Aren't we DMs already having a hard time enough challenging the PCs (without the need to make every encounter Level+3 and beyond that) without these boosts to NADs and Hit bonus?

Unfortunately it's a bit of a spiral. People make heavily specialized and optimized characters that hammer through encounters, so the encounters are made tougher. The tougher encounters require tighter specialization in order to be as successful, which in turn breeds even tougher encounters.

Someone like me, whose character is two down on hits as designed for role play, gets left in the lurch. My character's FOR is a modest 24, at level 16. That's with Great Fortitude tossed into the mix also. In most encounters I seem to get hit on 2-3. My higher NADS are WIL 28 and REF 29. I seem to get hit on those on 8-10. Those seem to be pretty good defence numbers. Conversely I frequently need 13+ in order to hit the opposition; 16+ for the tougher guys.

It makes for a bit of a disconnect. Shouldn't the higher NADs be HARD to hit?

You don't foster role play by punishing those who design characters that have more flavour, but *slightly* less specialization.

[Storminator]

Originally Posted by keterys

Oh, you might end up wanting to increase a bunch of damages as well. But working the game towards a happier medium is a good thing.

Fwiw, constantly throwing overleveled encounters is part of the problem, creating near autohit situations.

Is lower hit chances but higher damage a happier medium? It would make combat more swingy, and on an unlucky day that means dead PCs.

My experience is closer to what Johnnii describes. I get hit in the Ref defense all the time. Frequently a 2 hits me (no class bonus, no stat bonus, no shield, no neck slot item... I think I have the minimum possible defense). Yet of all the times I've gone down, and all the times we've nearly tpked, no one ever said "if your reflex was higher this would be easier!"

PS

[Storminator]

Originally Posted by Ryujin

It makes for a bit of a disconnect. Shouldn't the higher NADs be HARD to hit?

I think the high NAD should be average to hit, and the low NADs should be easy to hit, considering that damage is pretty low. It makes it more like a timer - can you win before everyone's hp gets worn thru?

PS

[Ryujin]

Originally Posted by Storminator

I think the high NAD should be average to hit, and the low NADs should be easy to hit, considering that damage is pretty low. It makes it more like a timer - can you win before everyone's hp gets worn thru?

PS

The problem with that, as I see it, is you need to spend significant effort and resources on countering status effects, rather than trying to just avoid being hit in the first place.

[eamon]

Originally Posted by Rothe_

Actually the problem is that the d20 range is too small. The bonuses reach the extremes too fast when you go towards epic levels.

I don't want to derail the thread; but when it comes to defenses, the fundamental d20 mechanic favors the specialist over the generalist: raising a high defense helps more than raising a low defense (in terms of rounds-before-death). Strategy might mitigate that a bit; were it not that most creatures (even PC's, and certainly monsters) don't really have much choice on which defense they want to target.