Epic 4e play: the system makes it too easy for PCs to hit, instead of too hard.

[keterys]

Said dracolich also hands out encounter-long -2 to attack rolls in a close burst 10 _and_ its interrupt blast 3 that stuns melee hands out a -2 to attack even on a miss.

So someone, only fighting a level + 2 solo, might be looking for 21s or 22s

A level + 4 solo (which can very much happen at epic) can hit that even easier. An ancient blue dragon, an artillery with a low AC (merely level + 14), would still require 17s from the level 24 barbarian or ranger, and it has an at-will close burst 3 that stuns. Thankfully it's against Fort, the barbarian's best defense, so he's likely only hit on a... *drumroll* 2 (+34 vs. lvl 24 barbarian's Fort of 10 + 12 (lvl) + 5 (enh) + 7 (stat) + 2 (class))

Best of all? An ancient red dragon's AC of level + 18 could require a 17 from an _even level enemy_. If it's level + 2, then you're looking for a 19.

It's less good at stunning and dazing though

 

[MrMyth]

Runescribed Dracolich (level 29 solo controller, AC 45) versus level 27 party. Said Dwarf Barbarian, with 16-starting Strength and a +6 weapon, would have +13 level + 6 enhancement + 2 proficiency + 6 strength = +27 to hit AC. Assume 18-starting strength or Demigod and it's +28 to hit, enough to hit 45 AC on a 17.

Edit- of course, solo design guidelines have changed so that solos do not have extra defense bonuses. Still, this AC of 16+level is typical for a soldier.

I think monster design guidelines in general have also evolved a bit to shy away from the sheer number of stuns that dude hands out - makes it really hard to put together any cohesive strategy or group attack implementation.

 

[Ravellion]

Runescribed Dracolich (level 29 solo controller, AC 45) versus level 27 party. Said Dwarf Barbarian, with 16-starting Strength and a +6 weapon, would have +13 level + 6 enhancement + 2 proficiency + 6 strength = +27 to hit AC. Assume 18-starting strength or Demigod and it's +28 to hit, enough to hit 45 AC on a 17.

Edit- of course, solo design guidelines have changed so that solos do not have extra defense bonuses. Still, this AC of 16+level is typical for a soldier.

As I said, dwarf barbarian is a worst case scenario build. Frankly, I'd call it a "poor build". Fighter, okay, you still mark, you have wisdom to Opportunity attacks with a feat, +1 to hit from class feature. But Dwarf Barbarian? I'd probably call the player aside to discuss a slightly more effective character.

Also, and far more important: this is not a realistic situation. This is a single character, without (apparently) any utility powers to help him hit. And without a party to help him hit. He's got no business fighting that solo. That's why I requested a situation, not a character. This is the kind of conjecture that led us to the (IMO) crappy expertise feats in the first place.

 

[Elric]

As I said, dwarf barbarian is a worst case scenario build. Frankly, I'd call it a "poor build". Fighter, okay, you still mark, you have wisdom to Opportunity attacks with a feat, +1 to hit from class feature. But Dwarf Barbarian? I'd probably call the player aside to discuss a slightly more effective character.

I could assume the character started with 18 Str, but didn't go Demigod, and end up with him needing a 17 to hit. I fail to see why Dwarf is such a bad race from to-hit perspective. Any +2 Str race starting with a 16 Strength would also end up with an 18. A Con Barbarian will typically want to use a Hammer/Axe to take advantage of his Con for feats.

18 Str and a +2 weapon makes for +6 to hit AC at first level. Do you consider all such characters ineffective builds?

Also, and far more important: this is not a realistic situation. This is a single character, without (apparently) any utility powers to help him hit.

Combat Surge (level 6 daily utility) is nice, but rerolls aren't that useful when you have to roll a 17.

And without a party to help him hit. He's got no business fighting that solo. That's why I requested a situation, not a character. This is the kind of conjecture that led us to the (IMO) crappy expertise feats in the first place.

His allies are a Human Fighter, an Eladrin Wizard, an Elf Wisdom Cleric, and a Human Brutal Scoundrel Rogue; she shoots him fetching glances but he's taciturn and unsure how to approach her; they've only been adventuring together for 25 levels! The party went out for beer the previous evening and left the Tactical Warlord with Lead the Attack behind. Ever since he became a Legendary General, there's no putting up with his preening.

 

[keterys]

As I said, dwarf barbarian is a worst case scenario build. Frankly, I'd call it a "poor build". Fighter, okay, you still mark, you have wisdom to Opportunity attacks with a feat, +1 to hit from class feature. But Dwarf Barbarian? I'd probably call the player aside to discuss a slightly more effective character.

Also, and far more important: this is not a realistic situation. This is a single character, without (apparently) any utility powers to help him hit. And without a party to help him hit. He's got no business fighting that solo. That's why I requested a situation, not a character. This is the kind of conjecture that led us to the (IMO) crappy expertise feats in the first place.

I gave it earlier - a shaman instead as the leader. Give him a fighter for his defender. He tries to get flank, but can't because his party is continually stunned or can't move into position (flying critters present problems like that, too). Look at the barbarian powers, if you want, but going against AC without a lot of bonuses is very par for the course.

And 18 starting Str or dwarf with demigod to get the 18 is a perfectly reasonable barbarian. Thankfully he'll be doing 8 or so damage every time he misses.

My barbarian misses all the time, and I started with an 18, have a fullblade, and expertise, and have a cleric around to occasionally hand out a -2 to defense or +7 to melee attacks.