What's wrong with Epic Tier and how do we fix it?

[Cadfan]

But anyone can complain about the far, far more important issue: that the resulting numbers don't result in a good experience playing at the table. In fact, I believe this entire thread demonstrates that players/DMs are able to spot issues with the resulting numbers for opponents and figure out that there's a problem.

I don't think this thread demonstrates that because I don't think that even a majority of the people posting in this thread have played epic tier. Of those who have, I don't think that a majority of them have played more than a handful of sessions.

 

[Runestar]

But if anything, combats at epic level should get tougher, since everything suggests that your attack bonus and defenses advance slightly slower than that of the monsters.

I don't see the rationale. A lv30 foe should be as challenging vs a lv30 party as a 1st lv foe challenges a 1st lv party. If you want a tougher challenge, then you use higher level foes. It seems to defeat the purpose of using monster level as a guideline if you are going to think "I want said monster to be tough, so I will make it more powerful than its level suggests it ought to be..."

While it is true that attacks lag behind monster defenses at higher lvs, my guess is that the designers felt that players would have more resources at their disposal at this point, and likely be able to find some way of working around this issue.

In fact, I believe this entire thread demonstrates that players/DMs are able to spot issues with the resulting numbers for opponents and figure out that there's a problem.

I should be a fine one to talk, since I don't even play 4e, but my impression of this thread is that the posters here at best can only get a very general idea that something is amiss, but they are not entirely sure where the problem lies, much less how to go about fixing it. It is going to take some heavy playtesting to find out what actually works and what doesn't.

It is my hope that the 4e method of opponent generation concentrates complaints on where they should be: how the opponent behaves at the table, rather than some kind of complaint that the calculations needed in monster generation weren't executed correctly.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear in my post, but I was not exactly criticizing the 4e monster creation guidelines, merely pointing out a "feature" as noted by Derulbaskul. I agree that it shouldn't really matter how their stats are derived so long as it results in a balanced problem (who really cares if a 1HD monster has 50hp if it plays properly).

For most part, 3e stat complaints tend to revolve around very superficial observations such as "That npc fighter has 2 more skill points than he should have!", which really have a negligible impact in combat.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Well, for example the melee attack of the drow arachnomancer would be doing 1d10+6 + immobilize instead of 1d6 + immobilize...

I have been using this method for a lot of my monsters for a few weeks, and it does make for more lethal encounters in general. I have strongly been considering implementing it for all of them, while removing 20-25% of their hit points. Not because combats lag for us (around 1 hour at level 12) but simply because I want them even faster

Dragons seemed to be quite low on the damage totem until I started actually adding things up, but I think I might move dragon breath weapon from being 'low limited damage expression' as an area to attack to 'high limited damage expression' as, well, dragon breath is about as iconic for D&D as it can get!

As one example, the adult black dragon (11th level lurker) would be expected to have 3d6+5 (avg 15.5) for its at-wills and up to 4d10+6 (avg 28) for its encounter power (although giving it maximum reduction for its area nature the encounter power could perhaps be 3d8+5, avg 19.5)

It actually has 1d8+4 (ongoing 5) damage from the bite, which averages out as 1d8+14 over time = ~18.5, or two claws for 1d6+4 each, which averages 15 damage. Breath is 2d8+3 ongoing 5, which averages to ~22 damage.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't see the rationale. A lv30 foe should be as challenging vs a lv30 party as a 1st lv foe challenges a 1st lv party. If you want a tougher challenge, then you use higher level foes. It seems to defeat the purpose of using monster level as a guideline if you are going to think "I want said monster to be tough, so I will make it more powerful than its level suggests it ought to be..."

While it is true that attacks lag behind monster defenses at higher lvs, my guess is that the designers felt that players would have more resources at their disposal at this point, and likely be able to find some way of working around this issue. .

I would guess the same, but purely arm-chair implications from the math seems to be that you hit less often, but maybe harder at epic levels.

 

[Alisair Longreach]

Because of the disparity of monsters vs. PCs at the Epic tier the PCs attacks miss two out three strikes while the monster hit with three out four strikes. The monsters also need to be hit more times before they die because of the monster/PC hit point disparity.

According to the DMG p. 184 monster AC, defenses and attacks increase by +1 per level. PCs get a total +5 level bonus per tier and a +2 magic item bonus increase and finally a +1 ability bonus increase. PC damage increase only with better magic items and higher ability scores.

Monster get an average 8 hit point increase per level while PCs only average 5 hit points. Monsters get 30 hit points more than the PCs per tier while PC damage only increase +3 per tier.

The final result is that it gets harder to kill the monsters as the PCs go up in level.

My suggestions on how to fix it?

Increase the level bonus to +1 per level for PCs and add it to the damage of all their powers. It's a simple and easy fix and it will make combat faster and make players feel totally badass. But many DMs will feel that this fix is an example of demented munchkinery and reject it.

 

[Fenes]

Don't the powers' damage scale as well? That should add too.

 

[Alisair Longreach]

PHB p. 276 states that the level bonus is not added to PC powers but monster damage output increase with level as per the guidelines in the DMG p. 185.

4E is biased against the PCs on AC, defenses, attack and damage output.

 

[Vayden]

Epic 4E is biased against the PCs on AC, defenses, attack and hit points. It is biased against the monsters on damage output.

Fixed your quote. Thanks for all the suggestions guys - when I DM Epic next (not this Friday due to Watchmen replacing the game), I think I'll be using monsters of PC level -1 or less, reducing all hp by 25-50%, and using the high-end damage output from the DMG for all monster attacks. That being said, aside from the two WotC guys posting in here, I haven't seen anyone else actually playing/running epic. Am I the only DM on ENworld doing so? Anyone with actual play experience on fixes that work?

WotC guys - any hope of seeing some of the suggested changes sneaking their way into MM2?

 

[Jack99]

Because of the disparity of monsters vs. PCs at the Epic tier the PCs attacks miss two out three strikes while the monster hit with three out four strikes. The monsters also need to be hit more times before they die because of the monster/PC hit point disparity.

Please provide a concrete example proving the bolded part of the statement. Because I have tried on my own, but apparently I am doing something wrong, as the epic characters I make do not miss 2/3 times.

Edit: Okay, made a mistake. I see how you get the 2/3 - in the case of characters starting with low prime scores or worst case scenarios (such as targetting brutes' Fortitude. Meaning, if you hit the worst defense, characters throughout epic tier seem to have about a 55% chance to hit (ie 20% more than you claim). All this without any power bonuses, class bonuses or otherwise. Sure, if you use solos and elites only, they have higher defenses. But they are supposed to be harder to hit.

 

[Cadfan]

I guess the problem I have with this issue is...

A disparity of 5 points in attack bonus versus AC should be instantly noticeable. INSTANTLY. That's the difference between hitting the typical enemy on a 7 to a 10 as my character does now, and hitting the typical enemy on a 12 to a 15.

One playtest session should indicate that this problem exists. Just one.

So I guess that leaves two possibilities.

1. The armchair math is correct, and nothing else is factoring in to mitigate or negate it. Epic tier is broken, and WOTC never noticed it, even though noticing it would be really, really easy. Apparently the epic tier was never playtested at all.

2. D&D is a complex system, and something else is being factored in. Or, a player who is skilled with his character hits more often at epic tier than the armchair math suggests. We lack testimony from such players because everyone in the conversation either hasn't played epic tier, or, created characters who started at epic level and which they either didn't create well, or didn't play well due to lack of experience with the system.

I know someone will chime in now and tell me that WOTC always screws up this stuff and I shouldn't be surprised, but seriously, I have trouble believing that something so obvious as a five point disparity could be missed. Five points on a 20 point distribution is enormous.