So, about defenses aka. PHB2 defenses feats

[keterys]

Yep, me. Have you noticed how Bayuver suddenly claims that being hit on a 8 is STILL a problem that needs to be fixed?

I must have missed that - I'll admit I'm just skimming it, but I didn't see that on a quick check back either?

So obviously everyone thinking like him won't do it

Given he's complaining it's too easy to hit people, I'd imagine he's the kind of player that would spend them (all the while disagreeing at the need to do so)... I do assume that for many people they wouldn't pick up the feats until late epic, but they're mathematically _very_ strong and especially when you're fighting things like dracoliches and phanes I could see players going 'Screw that, I'm getting the +4 Will feat, I'm tired of this'.

Reiterating the same points over and over doesn't get anyone anywhere. I just don't agree with you guys and that's that.

Amusingly I mostly checked on the thread to see if anything interesting had been said and suggest that people give up and go their separate ways if not

 

[Regicide]

The PCs would need some major mojo to even compete.

I think a wizard/planeshifter/arch lich in a party would pretty much cripple him.

 

[James McMurray]

On a totally different tact... is there anyone who thinks it likely that by 30th, a character who has access to the PH2 feats will not have spent 4 of his 16 feats to secure +6 to all 3 of his defenses?

Assuming I ever get to play at that level instead of GM, I won't have. almost certainly the +2 to all 3 feat, and one iteration of the +4 to bump my weakest defense. But I prefer feats that are fun (i.e. let me do stuff) rather than feats that sit there doing nothing.

 

[Regicide]

Assuming I ever get to play at that level instead of GM, I won't have. almost certainly the +2 to all 3 feat, and one iteration of the +4 to bump my weakest defense. But I prefer feats that are fun (i.e. let me do stuff) rather than feats that sit there doing nothing.

The majority of characters won't even be getting attack rolls against them all that often. Having every character spend 4 feats on that is pretty unlikely. Front liners may spend 4 on it if their schtick is to not be hit, and it will be a great investment, but most other characters will probably spend at most 2 feats on them because it just doesn't matter what those defenses are since they're almost never attacked.

 

[keterys]

Yeah, it seems pretty hard to say no to the +2 to all... then which get picked I wonder. It'd help to have some folks who are actually playing at the 24th-29th level range to get an actual feel for it.

Spose I could also do a quick glance at CharOp to see how common they are there. Though I imagine that certain classes just have a serious dearth of options at the moment...

 

[jasin]

The majority of characters won't even be getting attack rolls against them all that often.

I think this is a very unusual statement, and would like further explanation.

 

[James McMurray]

I think this is a very unusual statement, and would like further explanation.

NADs are attacked less than AC by quite a bit. Defenders are attacked less than other PCs fairly frequently. If you're not a defender, you're not getting attacked as often. when you are attacked, the odds are decent it's against AC.

I might be tempted to take the +4 to Will for many characters. It would depend on the campaign, but Will seems to have the nastiest side effects (stun, daze, and dominated) attached to it pretty frequently at epic levels.

 

[keterys]

That's not very accurate for an epic campaign - the statistics on which attacks go against what defenses include basic attacks (which everything has, even if they never use them) and ranged and area attacks (those most likely to hit those hanging in back) have a much higher percentage of being against NAD than AC.

Even many of the AC attacks include secondaries against a NAD.

 

[KarinsDad]

NADs are attacked less than AC by quite a bit. Defenders are attacked less than other PCs fairly frequently. If you're not a defender, you're not getting attacked as often. when you are attacked, the odds are decent it's against AC.

Not in the 4E monster manual I own.

There, NAD attacks are 44% of the number of attacks. A given weak NAD might be as low as 11% (I do not have the exact numbers at work, they might be 11%, 15%, and 18%). And, these numbers are skewed by low level foes which tend to often only have attacks against AC. The NAD issue is not a heroic tier issue. Once one gets to late Heroic levels and above, NAD attacks come close to 50/50 and IIRC, they actually become a higher percentage than AC attacks. As an example, Elites are 1 foe in 12 at Heroic tier and 1 foe in 3 at Epic tier. Solos are 1 foe in 33 at Heroic tier and 1 foe in 5 at Epic tier.


And at least in our games, the Defender in a 5 person team might soak up 1 attack in 4 because he cannot be everywhere. He takes a slightly higher percentage of attacks, but it's nowhere near to even 1 in 3. It's easy to walk around a Defender or attack with an area attack. So, a given well protected PC might get hit by 1 attack in 10 instead of 1 in 5, but he still gets attacked. Every PC in our games get hits, gets damaged, and uses up healing surges. Some more than others, but not to the point that a given player would say 'Nah, I don't need good NADs, I hardly ever get hit".

 

[Jhaelen]

I must have missed that - I'll admit I'm just skimming it, but I didn't see that on a quick check back either?

Well, I was referring to this:

But you forget about something. Even your best NAD will be hitted on 8 at late epic. It is you best NAD that at least should be hitted on 10!

I ran a 21 level N+3 encounter. After 20 rounds, the BBEG was still not dead. The PCs were hardly ever hitting (16 or 17 typically being needed) and the BBEG was hitting them at will (4 or 5 typically being needed).

I proved it to myself.

It's not the test I would have run but it certainly beats not testing it at all. This is an encounter you might actually run into if the DMG advice is followed, so I admit it's a valid example to test your theory.

Maybe that's sufficient to consider the theory proved.