Is the math off?

[Shazman]

I think it's just sad that they didn't get the math right from the beginning. Seriously, f you have 3 1/2 years to design the game, how hard is it to notice that epic level monsters are harder for a party equal to their level to hit than at heroic level, or that epic level monsters will hit epic level characters more than 70% of the time? It also doesn't take much effort to add a +1 to hit and to defenses at every tier as part of character creation/advancement in the first PHB. What's even more sad, is that they went on and on about how the math worked. It's pretty apparent that it doesn't work as good as it should.

 

[Reigan]

My thoughts:

The game is much too complex for some of this simple analysis to stand up to scrutiny. One character hitting one monster in a vacuum is not how the game is played.

What games are less off? In many rpgs it can be hard to tell how tough an opponent is.

If the game gets too easy you remove the incentive for players to use tactics & positioning. Why bother taking the risk of gaining CA if your probably going to hit anyway?

 

[Halivar]

how hard is it to notice that epic level monsters are harder for a party equal to their level to hit than at heroic level, or that epic level monsters will hit epic level characters more than 70% of the time?

I always thought that epic monsters should be harder. This math works for me and mine (well, maybe not during the fight itself, when there are quite a few "WTF" moments; but afterward I think they have a much greater sense of accomplishment). I certainly don't want perceived difficulty to be the same regardless of level; that's the "Oblivion" effect that most scared me about 4E upon its release.

Of course, it's easy enough to house-rule double-expertise if it's really killing you (and I don't mean that flippantly; the ease with which you can shift hit-boxes around with house-rule bonuses is one of the reasons why the math "works" so well).

 

[Shazman]

Maybe epic level mosnters should be harder to hit, but you don't want to have the non-optimized party members only being able to hit with 20's. Even if they are as realtively easy to hit as heroic level creatures, epic level monsters should have enough tricks and tactics, to feel tougher without being overwhelming. Just the sheer number of hit points they have ensures that they will last longer than lower level critters.

 

[Stalker0]

Weapon Expertise is mechanically an awesome feat, but I have never, ever seen a character made more interesting by getting +1 to hit.

It depends how you define interesting.

One thing about power...its fun. Its fun to be strong, to be powerful, to be influential. People remember the characters that shape the game.

In 4e, your to hit roll has a lot to do with your power because it applies to almost all effects. A wizard that can't hit isn't much of a controller, and most players don't think its interesting to play a failure (most of the time, every so often its a fun archetype).

Bonuses to hit mean your effects get applied more often, meaning you get to make more decision in a combat, get to affect your enemies more, help your allies more, etc. That's interesting!

Now will a +1 to hit cause a noticeable effect? Probably not. Would a +2? I feel that it would. Would a +3? Almost certainly.

 

[Dausuul]

It depends how you define interesting.

One thing about power...its fun. Its fun to be strong, to be powerful, to be influential. People remember the characters that shape the game.

In 4e, your to hit roll has a lot to do with your power because it applies to almost all effects. A wizard that can't hit isn't much of a controller, and most players don't think its interesting to play a failure (most of the time, every so often its a fun archetype).

Bonuses to hit mean your effects get applied more often, meaning you get to make more decision in a combat, get to affect your enemies more, help your allies more, etc. That's interesting!

So, by this argument, increasing the character's chance to hit increases fun and hence interest. I can see that.

Clearly, there is a point at which increasing chance to hit does not increase fun any further. (If nothing else, once you reach a 100% chance to hit, further increases are impossible and therefore cannot increase fun.) So there is some optimum chance to hit, which maximizes the value of the attack roll in terms of player enjoyment.

Then my question is: Why do you have to take feats and buy stats and collect magic junk to build up to, and maintain, that optimum value? Why not just start the PCs out at that value and keep them there, and use feats and stat buy and magic junk for other stuff?

Different players probably have different optimum values, but I doubt that difference has a big enough impact to be worth worrying about in design. It's going to have to be a "best guess" thing anyway, since the player can't predict what monsters the DM is going to throw at the party.

 

[Halivar]

Maybe epic level mosnters should be harder to hit, but you don't want to have the non-optimized party members only being able to hit with 20's.

What kind of sub-optimization are we talking about, here? A Tarrasque has AC 43. Let's take a player that decided to put a 9 in their primary stat, for a -1, and never increases it. At the appropriate level, he's got a +15 (because he couldn't avoid getting those +1's at 11 and 21), for a required die-roll of 28. This is, of course, a ludicrous example. This character is not sub-optimal; it's comedic relief.

Let's take a character with a prime stat of 16; reasonable if we assume we aren't picking a synergistic race/class combo, and certainly not min-maxed. If we consistently make our prime stat one of our ability ups, we have somewhere around a 24 at level 30. With a +4 weapon/implement (again, reasonable, and not totally optimal) and a +15 level bonus, we're looking at ~31 to-hit bonus (before weapon proficiency bonuses). Such a character needs to roll a 12 to hit the Tarrasque, and I think that's reasonable for an epic fight. Throw in expertise feats, Action Point Surge (or whatever it's called), and various one-off buffs from encounter and daily powers, and I think a whole party of such non-optimized characters will do just fine.

 

[keterys]

Ancient Red is AC 48, Orcus is AC 48, Runescribed Dracolich is effectively a 47... but yeah, getting to a 20 is just really difficult and a bit of hyperbole.

 

[keterys]

I'm a bit surprised it's 'only' about 60% thinking the math is off. Judging by the discussions, I've seen, I would have thought it to be a higher percentage. Must be this vocal majority thing

For the record: I think the math is fine as it is and Dice4Hire already said it all.

For clarity... does the math work now that you can get +3 to hit from expertise (or +6 if you're a draconic spellcaster with a rod), or did it work before when you couldn't?

Or is the argument that the feats don't appreciably change the math, so it worked both before _and_ after?

 

[Shazman]

What kind of sub-optimization are we talking about, here? A Tarrasque has AC 43. Let's take a player that decided to put a 9 in their primary stat, for a -1, and never increases it. At the appropriate level, he's got a +15 (because he couldn't avoid getting those +1's at 11 and 21), for a required die-roll of 28. This is, of course, a ludicrous example. This character is not sub-optimal; it's comedic relief.

Let's take a character with a prime stat of 16; reasonable if we assume we aren't picking a synergistic race/class combo, and certainly not min-maxed. If we consistently make our prime stat one of our ability ups, we have somewhere around a 24 at level 30. With a +4 weapon/implement (again, reasonable, and not totally optimal) and a +15 level bonus, we're looking at ~31 to-hit bonus (before weapon proficiency bonuses). Such a character needs to roll a 12 to hit the Tarrasque, and I think that's reasonable for an epic fight. Throw in expertise feats, Action Point Surge (or whatever it's called), and various one-off buffs from encounter and daily powers, and I think a whole party of such non-optimized characters will do just fine.

How about, you don't want the sub-optimized characters missing over 70% of the time, because that's not a fun epic fight. It's just frustrating.