So, about defenses aka. PHB2 defenses feats

[AbdulAlhazred]

We just see things VERY differently. The way I see it you guys are having a problem not because the game is somehow broken, but because you are putting a lopsided emphasis on only one aspect of play. Of course if the only way to succeed is by slagging monsters in situations where the only options are which powers to blast things with then you have created this problem. It isn't a problem that is inherent to the rules system.

Try creating adventures where the ultimate encounter is a level + 4 skill challenge. It is just as much a high difficulty encounter as throwing the most brutal possible monsters at the party, but as the rules are written your super combat expert characters WILL FAIL. They should fail because they are one sided characters and the reason they're one sided is that that's all they were ever asked to do! Every problem's solution that they ever faced was whipping out their trusty brutal superaxe and hacking things up.

Combat encounters can also involve a lot more stunting opportunities and mixed skill challenge and combat elements instead of just a battlefield with monsters to kill. I'm not saying a good proportion of encounters shouldn't be mainly combat, but a good proportion should be the other type too.

When you simply give everyone all the various numbers that your totally combat-dominated games require, you're solving your adventure design issue, but what about the type of game I'm talking about? It would be unplayable by your approach since the characters will certainly have all the skills they need, given that they got every combat benny for free.

I think at least a part of the blame for this rests with the 4e designers, especially WRT the DMG. They did pay lip service to non-combat elements of the game, but they failed to emphasize that these needed to be just as critical as combat. The various module authors have followed suite and pretty much created canned adventures that always revolve around mostly only what you can do with your sword. I'm sure it requires a lot less thought and creativity to build adventures like that, and they simplify play, but that doesn't make them superior game design.

Good 4e REALLY requires a LOT from DMs in terms of adventure design. Just like it requires a lot from players if they want to succeed. I think the vast majority of DMs have just been encouraged to take the easier path, and then it shows up problems. They aren't necessarily problems with the design of 4e. They can also be the result of limited adventure design channeling the party too much in one direction IMHO. I just would be disappointed if the game system itself gets munged into a shape where that is the only way you can play it, and I'm actually glad to see that the 4e core design team seems to understand that.

 

[Elric]

We just see things VERY differently. The way I see it you guys are having a problem not because the game is somehow broken, but because you are putting a lopsided emphasis on only one aspect of play. Of course if the only way to succeed is by slagging monsters in situations where the only options are which powers to blast things with then you have created this problem. It isn't a problem that is inherent to the rules system.

Try creating adventures where the ultimate encounter is a level + 4 skill challenge. It is just as much a high difficulty encounter as throwing the most brutal possible monsters at the party, but as the rules are written your super combat expert characters WILL FAIL. They should fail because they are one sided characters and the reason they're one sided is that that's all they were ever asked to do! Every problem's solution that they ever faced was whipping out their trusty brutal superaxe and hacking things up.

Part of the point of building these fixes into the rules is to avoid having players who don't take certain overpowered feats be underpowered relative to the other party members who do. You've got that backwards- the character who benefits most from building these fixes into the rules isn't the character who would have taken Weapon Expertise and Robust Defenses anyway- it's the character who wouldn't have taken either, but from a mathematical effectiveness standpoint, should have. That's why I propose banning the overpowered PH II feats in addition to building their benefits into the rules.

 

[KarinsDad]

We just see things VERY differently. The way I see it you guys are having a problem not because the game is somehow broken, but because you are putting a lopsided emphasis on only one aspect of play.

You must never have designed a game product. I have. Several times.

Designers cannot catch everything when they first design a game. Many times, they only discover something after the product has been released and used.

Just think about what we are talking about here. 3 Epic feats that add +4 to defense. Not +1 or +2 like practically every other bonus in the game system.

+4.

That's HUGE. The only reason to add a feat that works 24/7 for the PC and is that large is because the game math is broken.

No other reason.


Before release, WotC stated on several occassions that there would be very FEW bonuses to hit in the game system since this is an area where syngeries broke down in 3E and allowed for mega-PCs builds. They explicitly stated that.

They then turn around in PHB II and add in feats that add +1 to +3 to hit.

+3. Where else in the rules is there a +3 to hit that works 24/7?

Sorry, but the game math is broken and WotC is trying to fix it without interfering with the core math.

You can believe otherwise, but the facts speak for themselves.


Ditto for Adventurer's Vault and PHB II for Heavy Armor. The Heavy Armor math was broken in mid-paragon level, so WotC added a bonus to the masterwork portion of heavy armor in those levels in both of these products. Any DM that uses the original magical heavy armor rules in the PHB is screwing his players whose PCs use heavy armor.

However, this is a case where WotC could fix the math without resorting to feats. Like Elric stated, that is definitely preferable.

 

[DracoSuave]

So far, all I've seen are threads that claim that encounters of your level are too easy.

Then I see threads like this saying that the math is too far stacked in favor of your opponents just because feats exist to bolster certain aspects of your character, making encounters too difficult.

Either encounters are too easy, or encounters are too hard.

All this mathcraft ignores interactions between powers, how rogues synergize, tactics, etc, etc; things that can't be determined by a spreadsheet but which come up each and every encounter.

Not every feat is a bug fix in a game where chainstunning Orcus is a viable tactic.

 

[Elric]

So far, all I've seen are threads that claim that encounters of your level are too easy.

Then I see threads like this saying that the math is too far stacked in favor of your opponents just because feats exist to bolster certain aspects of your character, making encounters too difficult.

Either encounters are too easy, or encounters are too hard.

It is very easy to reconcile these two perspectives. Those threads: at low levels, encounters at your level are too easy. This thread: as you gain in levels, the math goes against the PCs, which means PCs who are only slightly optimized will fall behind relative to where they were. Done.

All this mathcraft ignores interactions between powers, how rogues synergize, tactics, etc, etc; things that can't be determined by a spreadsheet but which come up each and every encounter.

Not every feat is a bug fix in a game where chainstunning Orcus is a viable tactic.

While it's true that there are increasing extra bonuses to hit as you gain levels, these bonuses tend to be only on encounter and daily powers (Righteous Brand is an exception and is, not coincidentally, too powerful for at-will). If you design a character who dual wields Reckless/Bloodclaw weapons with Iron Armbands of Power and the game's best multiattack powers, a few to hit bonuses is all you need, but I see AV's strongest weapons as more poor design as well.

Yes, it's also true that parties heavy on stun powers will have an easier time with solos (easier still with a Champion of Order's Certain Justice power, or an Orb Wizard, but unlike stun powers, which are generally reasonable, both of those are overpowered), but I'm not sure what that proves.

As Karinsdad said, +4 to FRW on a feat as an untyped bonus (he didn't emphasize the fact the bonus is untyped and not a feat bonus) screams "math fix."

 

[Ghost0]

Is it possible by anyone's standards to adjust monsters' to hit and defenses to make up for the discrepancy? Instead of adding all of these feats or flat bonus boosts over levels, perhaps the DM could take on the unbalance and compensate by just adjusting the scores of the creatures?

 

[KarinsDad]

So far, all I've seen are threads that claim that encounters of your level are too easy.

There is a difference between "not challenging" and easy.

I think you are getting confused between the two. They sound similar, but are miles apart.

High level encounters are not necessarily challenging. The monsters hit for too little damage, they have too many hit points, and players have too many ways to help each other out.

So, the encounter is not challenging. It easily takes 20+ rounds to play as the players drudge through the mega hit points of the monsters.

But, no real challenge. Not easy, just time consuming and resource consuming.

It's obvious that very little (if any) Epic playtesting was done pre-release.

As an example. Take an encounter with 3 25th level Death Titans versus 5 25th level PCs. This is between an n and n+1 encounter XP-wise. The creatures are the exact same level as the PCs. It should be a walk in the park for 5 25th level PCs. Not easy, but pretty much typical.

The PCs have to eat through almost 2000 hit points of the monsters (including soul shards).

The monsters have to eat through <700 hit points (1000+ with heals) of the PCs.

The monsters hit the Legion plate and heavy shield specialized defender on a 12 (due to the aura). 45% of their normal attacks hit, so they average about 20+ points of damage per round against the defender, more against other PCs. Attacks versus AC are not a problem. At 60+ points of damage per round and healing surges, it takes the 3 monsters less than 20 rounds (maybe 18) to kill the PCs. Not including their Soul Devourer or Soul Burst powers.

The defender hits back on a 14.

The PCs each average maybe 35 to 40 points of damage with Encounter and Daily powers and have about 12 such powers (including items). But, these powers only hit about 50% of the time max (if that high, including synergies, the aura hampers melee PCs quite a bit). That's 1125 of the 2000 points they have to do and 12 rounds to do this damage.

The PCs each average maybe 25 points of damage with At Will powers. Again with a 50% chance to hit, it takes 14 more rounds to do this damage or a combined total of 26 rounds.

From this, it would seem like this is a lopsided fight strongly in favor of the monsters. But, although it takes the PCs more rounds to kill their foes straight up, their foes are often stunned or slowed or immobilized or dazed or caught in area effect powers which gives the PCs an edge. The PCs can focus fire against a single foe (5 vs. 3) than the monsters can and change the action economy easier. The PC's synergies end up winning this fight.

The encounter was challenging in that it took a lot of resources to win, but it was not suppose to. It was not an n+3 encounter, it was not even n+1. And, it took about 20+ rounds to play out. How boring.

The reason is that the PCs are not hitting as often as they should be and the monsters have too many hit points. At this point, the PCs have a 15% less chance to hit than they did at level one. A 15% better chance to hit means that the combat ends 3 rounds earlier at a minimum and probably closer to 5 or 6 rounds earlier.


This encounter also did not use the PC's Epic Destiny Class Features. Just the PCs powers. The class features give the PCs the edge to win this relatively close on paper fight (but not as close in game).

The encounter is challenging in that it uses a lot of resources, but it is not challenging in that the players feel like their PCs are going to die. The PCs are not going to die here. They are just going to use a lot of resources.

But they are going to use a disproportionate amount of resources against a less than n+1 encounter than they should. If they do not use up quite a few of their Daily powers, the encounter will drag out further and their healing will not keep up.

And, this less than n+1 encounter easily takes 20 rounds to complete. That's a LONG time.

 

[Bayuer]

@AbdulAlhazred
You still talking about diffrent thing that I'am. Roleplaying isn't topic here. We talking about facts. The fact that wizrds gives us overpowered feats that fix the math, and the fact that was bad idee. Thus I give my proposition how to fix that issue, by giving this feats for free, couse this feats are overpowered/must-have/disturbed balance of the game/make the game as it suppose to be from the beginnig.

Then I see threads like this saying that the math is too far stacked in favor of your opponents just because feats exist to bolster certain aspects of your character, making encounters too difficult.

I said that the math is broken on higher level. Did math crunch. Compared it to feats from PHB2 and conclusion was simple. That is very bad math fix made by WotC. I don't say monster are to easy/too hard. I just comparing this simple facts togheter to make simple conclusion: something it's very bad here, and it's the math of 4E.

There are almost none option how to suddenly avoid monster attacking you NADs if he needs roll 2 on dice to hit you. Even if you could get cover/concealment and +4 from your ally this is still ocasional and work not very offten (alies don't always grant you bonuses to you NADs). The monster uses his at-wil in next turn. Bam. You suck. Dominated!

Is it possible by anyone's standards to adjust monsters' to hit and defenses to make up for the discrepancy? Instead of adding all of these feats or flat bonus boosts over levels, perhaps the DM could take on the unbalance and compensate by just adjusting the scores of the creatures?

That's too problematic solution. If make monster attack weaker, then characters whos NAD targeted by monster is the highest possible, the PC will be almost never hit. The fix is here. The feats from PHB2, by this is bad fix! That's the problem.

 

[Elric]

Is it possible by anyone's standards to adjust monsters' to hit and defenses to make up for the discrepancy? Instead of adding all of these feats or flat bonus boosts over levels, perhaps the DM could take on the unbalance and compensate by just adjusting the scores of the creatures?

You could, for example, say "All monsters of level 5-14 get -1 to defenses and attacks vs FRW; make this -2 for levels 15-24, and -3 for level 25 up." This would be similar to giving the benefits to PCs directly.

Two problems:

1) It's way too much work unless you're building your own monsters. Imagine trying to use a published adventure, or creatures out of the MM. If you can fix things with the PCs changing things once, that's a lot easier than changing the monsters every time.

2) It makes there certain levels of monster (5/15/25) that don't benefit adequately relative to their level 4/14/24 counterparks. This is already a bit of a problem for PCs, and this extends it to monsters as well. For example, a level 14 party fighting level 15 monsters isn't at a disadvantage on hitting/being hit relative to their level 13 counterparts fighting level 14 monsters. If you give the PCs the pluses to hit on their levels, you don't have this problem, because everyone scales by roughly 1 point to hit/defenses per level.

 

[KarinsDad]

Is it possible by anyone's standards to adjust monsters' to hit and defenses to make up for the discrepancy? Instead of adding all of these feats or flat bonus boosts over levels, perhaps the DM could take on the unbalance and compensate by just adjusting the scores of the creatures?

The advantage of adjusting the PCs instead of the monsters (with the possible exception of high level monster hit points) is that it only has to be done once every 40 gamings sessions or so (10 encounters per level / 2 encounters per session * every 8 levels a PC would be modified) instead of every single encounter.

The DM does not have to constantly modify the 4 dozen or so monster that the PCs encounter each level for every single encounter. Instead, the PCs are modified every 8 levels or so (e.g. a typical house rule is to add +1 to hit and +1 to non-AC defenses on levels 5, 10, and 15, so these would be 10 levels apart).

Much easier on everyone.