D&D 4E 4E's math-- what am I missing?

[Oldtimer]

I don't think that was the point of the original post.

What he's saying is not "how do I get +30?", but rather, "how do I get +30 over and above my starting to-hit?"

His reasoning being that since monster AC and defences all go up by +1 per level, but PC to-hits go up by half that amount, a scaled or typical monster will beat the curve and become much harder to hit.

We can demonstrate that PCs can keep up a bit by stat increases and items, but not all the way - there remains a discrepancy of approximately +6.

I think you are corrent in your interpretation of the OP, but I'd like to reduce that +6 to +4.

The monster will gain +29 in its defences going from level 1 to level 30.

The PC will gain +25 in his attack bonus going from level 1 to level 30.
Breakdown:
+15 from half level
+6 from magic weapon
+3 from stat growth
+1 from levels 11 and 21 together

That leaves a discrepancy of +4 with must be made up for by other factors (feats, powers, circumstances, etc)

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[Jack Colby]

Powers tend to provide nice bonuses to hit. Don't underestimate this... it is not like earlier editions where the "attack bonus" is static and can be easily compared to enemy AC. It's going to change drastically depending on powers used.

 

[MarkChevallier]

It is +4, quite right.

I do think powers etc are where the meat of the rest of the to hit bonuses should come from. As such, it is somewhat dependent on power choice and tactical skill, although I don't think it requires too much of either.

 

[ObsidianCrane]

+4 seems pretty reasonable when you consider how many options Characters get to mess with that, most parties should have little trouble turning that +4 into a relative -2 or at such high levels. (ie needing an 8 to hit)

The OP is also missing the presence of Miss and Effect powers. Not everything in 4E actually requires you to hit.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

At level one, let's take an optimized dagger rogue:
To hit: +3 proficiency bonus, +1 dagger bonus, +5 dex = +9 vs. monster AC 13-17
(You need to roll a 4-8)
AC: 10 +2 leather +5 dex = 17 AC vs. monster attacks at +4 to +8
(He needs to roll a 9-13)

On the way to 30, we'll give him two armor feats (hide proficiency and specialization) and assume he takes the Demigod epic destiny for an extra +2 Dex. This isn't SUPER-optimized, but it makes the numbers straightforward.

So at level 30,
To hit: +3 prof +1 dagger +10 dex + 15 level +6 magic = +35 vs. monster AC 42-46
(You need to roll a 7-11)
AC: 10 +5 elderhide +10 dex +15 level +6 magic +1 feat = 47 vs. monster attacks at +33 to +37
(He needs to roll a 10-14)

It would seem that by these numbers, a character built intelligently but without a huge focus on min-maxing will have a slightly harder time hitting with basic attacks at level 30 than he does at level 1, but will be hit by enemies slightly less often.

What's missing here, of course, is that a level 30 character AND his enemies have all sorts of other abilities that impact how often and how hard they get smacked around. Plus all these numbers vary based on feat, paragon path, and epic destiny selection. And of course they're different for every class. But overall, I'd say the math doesn't really break down.

 

[Zogmo]

Here is how I see this even if there is a 4 to 6 point advantage to the Monsters.

A PC of Epic Awesomeness at level 30 is now going to be challenged.

3.5e epic characters were very hard to challenge and thus not too fun (generally speaking) to DM or play at those levels.

An experienced player by level 30 should be a more skilled player and be using items, skills, feats, powers and environment to make it a glorious battle.

Of course this also means a savvy DM to help make it a fun experience and not just be a battle of "whoever has the higher numbers wins". If that's what's happening then the fault isn't in the game.

 

[R_kajdi]

See, I'm not really all that convinced that's what's going on here. The problems I see are thus:

1. You still have the gear dependancy that everyone thought was dumb in 3rd edition. Scale things slightly more linearly, and you can completely remove the +s from items (special effects only) which makes magic more about weird effects than a pile of plusses.

2. You severely punish high level characters who don't go against the more limited defences instead of AC. If this is not a problem at 1st level, why alter it for upper levels. This leads into my next point--

3. You still have a "sweet spot", just like last edition. D&D 4E was almost an unmitigated success to me because at first it looked like the sweet spot extended over all the levels. If you liked play at 1st level, 30th level was basically the same with higher numbers. As it is now the game changes over levels, and I can't see that as a good thing.

4. This punishes characters who aren't strict specialists, which was a dumb issue in 3rd edition, and unfortunately still is around. Because you have to churn so hard to almost keep up, it's very hard to have a second area of competence at higher levels. You're pretty well stuck doing your one trick. A smarter move would have been to reduce the gap between competance and average ability by slowing down the gap between monster AC and level based bonuses, while also dropping the last few top end specializations into each area (maybe only have weapons go up to +3 or +4, and drop the last top +1s from the paths for specialization) With that, you'd see more well rounded characters, instead of characters who do one trick really, really well.

Maybe part of this is that I have a different idea of a top end design goal than D&D's designers themselves, but it really does seem like the game breaks for certain character types at the top levels still. Staying in the heroic and low paragon tiers, this gap should be minimized, so that you aren't punishing people for not playing super-specialists or the "wrong" character type. I see absolutely no reason why a character concept should not be equally viable at every character level.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

1. You still have the gear dependancy that everyone thought was dumb in 3rd edition. Scale things slightly more linearly, and you can completely remove the +s from items (special effects only) which makes magic more about weird effects than a pile of plusses.

Yeah, one of the design goals was: "People like Magic Items. They expect to get them as they go up levels. They expect them to make them better at fighting. Plus weapons and armor are too much a part of D&D to remove. So, we put them in, but we make sure the math from beginning to get takes them into account in a very predictable way." That's exactly what has been done.

2. You severely punish high level characters who don't go against the more limited defences instead of AC. If this is not a problem at 1st level, why alter it for upper levels. This leads into my next point--

There is a very small difference. At it heavily depends on the monster you are fighting. And the melee people(i.e. the people attacking AC) are the ones most likely to be the ones receiving bonuses from other people's powers, and from Combat Advantage.

3. You still have a "sweet spot", just like last edition. D&D 4E was almost an unmitigated success to me because at first it looked like the sweet spot extended over all the levels. If you liked play at 1st level, 30th level was basically the same with higher numbers. As it is now the game changes over levels, and I can't see that as a good thing.

They were using the term sweet spot to mean: The time when you didn't feel overwhelmed or underwhelmed by monsters. You didn't get frustrated because being a mage meant never being able to attack anyone with a weapon ever. Or when your bonus to hit was so high you needed 2s to hit almost constantly. Even within the so called "sweet spot" there was a difference in your chance to hit from 5th to 12th level.

The numbers never drift out of the 25-75 percent chance to hit. That's the idea.

4. This punishes characters who aren't strict specialists, which was a dumb issue in 3rd edition, and unfortunately still is around. Because you have to churn so hard to almost keep up, it's very hard to have a second area of competence at higher levels. You're pretty well stuck doing your one trick. A smarter move would have been to reduce the gap between competance and average ability by slowing down the gap between monster AC and level based bonuses, while also dropping the last few top end specializations into each area (maybe only have weapons go up to +3 or +4, and drop the last top +1s from the paths for specialization) With that, you'd see more well rounded characters, instead of characters who do one trick really, really well.

Remember, most people want to be the best. Sit an average person down at a game and tell them they can spend points to increase something to make them better. They'll take close to every advantage they can get.

Plus, people always want more. Part of the reason the "sweet spot" worked the way it did in 3e is because you could get a meaningful bonus at almost every level. You were always getting cool new magic items that made you better to hit, same with cool new armor. After 12-14th level, armor and weapons stopped giving you pluses to hit. Instead, you already had +5 weapons, now you were just adding properties to weapons which sometimes did nothing at all. People didn't like that.

Maybe part of this is that I have a different idea of a top end design goal than D&D's designers themselves, but it really does seem like the game breaks for certain character types at the top levels still. Staying in the heroic and low paragon tiers, this gap should be minimized, so that you aren't punishing people for not playing super-specialists or the "wrong" character type. I see absolutely no reason why a character concept should not be equally viable at every character level.

You have to plan for the worst. Because there will be power gamers out there who choose the "best" character. So, all the monsters are built around the "best" character. However, the numbers are small enough that the difference between the best and the worst characters are small. The best might have a 60% chance to hit an enemy while the "worst"(that is still reasonable for the class) has a 45% chance of hitting.

And at high levels, you are almost always flanking, spending action points(since you get 3 and a new one every 2 encounters), you get bonuses for using your action points, often to hit. You leader can put up bonuses or give you extra attacks on a regular basis. The difference is mostly negated. But the game is a cooperative one, so it assumes other people around.

 

[Nifft]

You still have the gear dependancy that everyone thought was dumb in 3rd edition. Scale things slightly more linearly, and you can completely remove the +s from items (special effects only) which makes magic more about weird effects than a pile of plusses.

You can do that with 4e. Here's how it works:
+1 to attack, damage, and defenses ever 5 levels.
+1d6 damage on critical hits every 5 levels.
...
All that's left are the special effects.

You still have a "sweet spot", just like last edition. D&D 4E was almost an unmitigated success to me because at first it looked like the sweet spot extended over all the levels. If you liked play at 1st level, 30th level was basically the same with higher numbers. As it is now the game changes over levels, and I can't see that as a good thing.

I don't get it. You want literally the same game, just with bigger numbers? Isn't that a bad thing?

This punishes characters who aren't strict specialists, which was a dumb issue in 3rd edition, and unfortunately still is around. Because you have to churn so hard to almost keep up, it's very hard to have a second area of competence at higher levels. You're pretty well stuck doing your one trick.

The unit of combat in 4e isn't the PC, it's the party. Your uniqueness is in how you all work together, not how your one guy can do everything himself.

Staying in the heroic and low paragon tiers, this gap should be minimized, so that you aren't punishing people for not playing super-specialists or the "wrong" character type.

You're wrong here. A poorly made character will suck at 1st level. You need to be able to hit your foes. That's non-negotiable. You can play a dude who hits them AND does something cool, but there is no cool without hit.

Cheers, -- N