Is the math off?

[rjdafoe]

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.

Has that 70% of the time miss factored in teamwork bonuses? At level 1, my 1/2 orc Cleric can add +3 to hit on a character of my choosing, at will.

IMO, it works, and I like that way it works. I don't want a 12 to hit a rat at 1st level, and a 12 to hit Orcus when I am at 30th. I am OK needing 16 or higher, and getting some of those bonus' back with team synergy.

 

[Stalker0]

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?

I guess this is ultimately a question of what hit percentage is the sweet spot?

I know 70% is thrown around as a psychological feel good point for success. Apparently if human have around 70% chance to succeed it is the most fun. Less and its too hard, more and its too easy.

An interesting comparison to make is how 3e handled its high level math. In 3e, offense generally outweighed defense by a solid magin. Fighters didn't miss with their first attacks at high levels very often, spellcasters had high DCs. But at those levels you had the immunities that kept up.

I can't beat your DC, but I'm immune to death effects. You are going to hit me, but my DR 15/- will weaken your attack, etc.

So what is a better model? Being able to almost always succeed most of the time, except the times when you have no chance of succeeding, or having a decent chance of succeeding all the time?

 

[Halivar]

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.

I don't know how you get 70%. Again (respectfully), I ask: how sub-optimized are you talking about? Because the example character I posited can hit AC 43 almost half the time (40% chance for what I consider a REALLY non-optimal character). Throw in other peoples class buffs (especially at high level) and there is no reason to expect you can't hit the higher 48 or 49 AC half the time. And, again, that example character is not counting any weapon prof. bonus.

70% seems pretty ridiculously high miss chance, and I'm wondering if these characters you're talking about are worse than "sub-optimal".

 

[Dausuul]

I don't know how you get 70%. Again (respectfully), I ask: how sub-optimized are you talking about? Because the example character I posited can hit AC 43 almost half the time (40% chance for what I consider a REALLY non-optimal character). Throw in other peoples class buffs (especially at high level) and there is no reason to expect you can't hit the higher 48 or 49 AC half the time. And, again, that example character is not counting any weapon prof. bonus.

70% seems pretty ridiculously high miss chance, and I'm wondering if these characters you're talking about are worse than "sub-optimal".

Better check your math. An attack stat of 24, a +15 level bonus, and a +4 weapon comes out to +26, not +30.

Now, let's make the weapon a bit more plausible. +4 is really quite low - you should have at least a +5 by that level. Since you're not optimized, though, you maybe went with a battle-axe instead of a nice accurate sword. So, a base attack stat of 16 boosted to 24 (+7), level bonus (+15), and a +5 battle-axe (+7), comes out to +29 with proficiency bonus included.

Against the tarrasque, that means you have to roll 14 or higher, giving you a 65% miss chance. Then consider that the tarrasque is a brute, and its AC is a bit low even for that. A "normal" solo of that level would have an AC of 46; 80% miss chance. An ancient red dragon, being a soldier, has an AC of 48; 90% miss chance, meaning you have to roll a 19 or better!

Before Expertise was released, even your optimized Demigod-destiny buddy, with a 30 in his attack stat and wielding a +6 bastard sword, missed the dragon 65% of the time.

Now let's compare that to the same character at 3rd level, fighting a young white dragon with an AC of 18. Attack stat of 16 (+3), level bonus (+1), and a normal battle-axe (+2), comes out to a total of +6, meaning you hit on a roll of 12 or better - 55% miss chance. And the white dragon's AC is a bit higher than normal for a solo brute.

A solo soldier at 3rd level would have an AC of 21 and you'd hit it on a 15 or better. Not great, but a lot better than having to roll a 19!

Bottom line, your attack accuracy relative to monsters of your level drops by about 4 points relative to monster defenses as you advance from Heroic into Epic. So, yes, without Expertise the math is off.

 

[kenmarable]

Better check your math. An attack stat of 24, a +15 level bonus, and a +4 weapon comes out to +26, not +30.

Now, let's make the weapon a bit more plausible. +4 is really quite low - you should have at least a +5 by that level. Since you're not optimized, though, you maybe went with a battle-axe instead of a nice accurate sword. So, a base attack stat of 16 boosted to 24 (+7), level bonus (+15), and a +5 battle-axe (+7), comes out to +29 with proficiency bonus included.

Against the tarrasque, that means you have to roll 14 or higher, giving you a 65% miss chance. Then consider that the tarrasque is a brute, and its AC is a bit low even for that. A "normal" solo of that level would have an AC of 46; 80% miss chance. An ancient red dragon, being a soldier, has an AC of 48; 90% miss chance, meaning you have to roll a 19 or better!

Before Expertise was released, even your optimized Demigod-destiny buddy, with a 30 in his attack stat and wielding a +6 bastard sword, missed the dragon 65% of the time.

Yes, but as others have pointed out - are these PCs fighting in a vacuum or are they helping each other out? What about combat advantage, bonuses to attack from the leaders, possible defense penalties from controller's effects, etc.? Maybe I'm not following the math very well, but it does seem to be ignoring having any help whatsoever from allies if I've read it right. Considering how spelled out the roles are in 4e, and how much the game is structured around an effective "group" rather than effective "individuals", any mathematical analysis that ignores help from leaders and controllers seems flawed at a fundamental level.

 

[The Little Raven]

Solos and elites (and other high level monsters?) have been stealth errated

It's not stealthy when they openly publish it in a core book.

End result, your attack accuracy relative to monsters of your level drops by about 4 points relative to monster defenses as you advance from Heroic into Epic. So, yes, without Expertise the math is off.

Your math accounts for level, enhancement, proficiency, and ability scores, but not bonuses from party members and situational effects, which are a key component of gameplay. When you've got leaders granting attack bonuses, and other characters imposing penalties on enemies, this "problem" disappears.

Not accounting for teamwork reflects a single character alone against a monster, which is not how the game is actually played.

 

[Dausuul]

Yes, but as others have pointed out - are these PCs fighting in a vacuum or are they helping each other out? What about combat advantage, bonuses to attack from the leaders, possible defense penalties from controller's effects, etc.? Maybe I'm not following the math very well, but it does seem to be ignoring having any help whatsoever from allies if I've read it right. Considering how spelled out the roles are in 4e, and how much the game is structured around an effective "group" rather than effective "individuals", any mathematical analysis that ignores help from leaders and controllers seems flawed at a fundamental level.

Okay, assume you get +2 from combat advantage and another +2 from the party leader. You're still missing the dragon 70% of the time and the tarrasque 45% of the time. Not exactly a stellar performance. And the monster's not necessarily going to sit still for it either. The tarrasque is just a big bag of hit points and damage, but an ancient red dragon leads off combat with a nasty stun-followed-by-attack-debuff, and anyone who tries to flank it gets whacked for a bunch of damage and shoved back 3 squares.

Not accounting for teamwork reflects a single character alone against a monster, which is not how the game is actually played.

Granted, but those same benefits apply to the lower-level character too. And don't forget that a lot of those bonus-granting, penalty-imposing effects require you to score a hit in the first place.

Once again - your relative attack bonus drops by about 4 between Heroic and Epic tier. So either Heroic is way too easy or Epic is way too hard.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

Okay, assume you get +2 from combat advantage and another +2 from the party leader. You're still missing the dragon 70% of the time and the tarrasque 45% of the time. Not exactly a stellar performance. And the monster's not necessarily going to sit still for it either. The tarrasque is just a big bag of hit points and damage, but an ancient red dragon leads off combat with a nasty stun-followed-by-attack-debuff, and anyone who tries to flank it gets whacked for a bunch of damage and shoved back 3 squares.

Once again - your relative attack bonus drops by about 4 between Heroic and Epic tier. So either Heroic is way too easy or Epic is way too hard.

QFE.

I had a long post about this, but right before I posted, I saw Dausuul covered my main points.

 

[FireLance]

Once again - your relative attack bonus drops by about 4 between Heroic and Epic tier. So either Heroic is way too easy or Epic is way too hard.

Alternatively: Heroic is slightly easier, Epic is slightly harder, and Paragon is just right.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

keep in mind that if everything scaled togather it would mean the game was static and boreing...

Alternatively: Heroic is slightly easier, Epic is slightly harder, and Paragon is just right.

gee kinda like the treats increase as you face harder monster... wow