Expertise justification?

[Regicide]

here I agree: The two +1 bonuses every few levels are no increase in skill. it decides which defense you allow to fall behind.

The Immortal: Highest AC (without total defense or similar) - Wizards Community

 

[KarinsDad]

Because I don't think pcs SHOULD hit 55% of the time at paragon and epic tiers (out of the box).

Just curious, but why not?

If 60% to hit is fun at level one, why is 40% to hit fun at level 29?

I would think the opposite should be the case. With fewer options at low level, the chance to hit can be somewhat less because the actual game play time is not slowed up as much by players deciding on their actions. With more options at high level, the chance to hit should be somewhat greater because the actual game play time is slowed up by players deciding on their actions.

It would seem that high level would be slower by definition everything else (including to hit) being the same. The DM and players both have more conditions to keep track of, more options to decide upon, more game interactions to take into account.

Player: "Can I move here and not get OAed?"
DM: "Well, remember that we have already seen that creature #3 has both reach and can OA with it."
Player: "Oh yeah. Forgot about that. What if I slide over here?"
DM: "You can do that, but you will enter the aura of creature #2 by doing that."
Player: "Shoot. What about...?"

Now, this is a bit of an exageration to get the point across (and some DMs might not be this helpful), but high level play is a LOT more complex and time consuming for many people than low level play.

So, why make the encounter drag out even more from say 10 rounds to 14 rounds (as an example) by decreasing the chance to hit?

From the "fun perspective", is it fun for an n+2 encounter to last 45 minutes of real time at level 1 and still fun for it to last 120 minutes (or more) of real time at level 30? Is it actually fun to miss 3 times out of 5 when the PC used to hit 3 times out of 5?

I'm not seeing the same level of fun here.

 

[AllisterH]

Isn't it considered good game design that the game gets progressively harder the longer you play?

You master the character/object/whatever but the tracks get narrower, the monster gets tougher, conditions don't work as well, it takes longer to kill off bosses etc?

 

[kilpatds]

However, PC death in 4th edition from what I've seen in our current campaign and the 8th level Dungeon Delve we did a few weeks ago (so admittedly limited to Heroic Tier) is NOT even likely in very Hard combats with poor party tactics and skewed die rolling like we had last night!

As an LFR DM who's had two TPKs out of 20 or so sessions, I'd like to say that while the difference between a moderate battle and a hard battle is much THICKER than it looks, the difference between a hard battle and a TPK is much THINNER than it looks.

I think you were closer to a TPK than you think you were. That the difference between 2 PCs at death's door and a TPK is a very small one.

I'd suggest running a "it was just a dream" scenario. Stat out a hard encounter for the group, and then run it really trying to kill them instead of doing the normal DM thing of slightly pulling punches. Drop the leaders first. Try to set things up so you can drop all of them on the same turn. Then just focus fire on every one else, leaving the battlerager for last. I expect you'll be able to put down the with much less effort than you think.

Once the leaders are down, the other players really just stop bouncing up. And then the fight's just over except for the rolling. Once the monster side can eliminate the source of the PCs buffer (the leader's ability to trigger surges), PCs tend to stay down and hard fights (or even medium fights) turn into TPKs.

 

[KarinsDad]

Isn't it considered good game design that the game gets progressively harder the longer you play?

You master the character/object/whatever but the tracks get narrower, the monster gets tougher, conditions don't work as well, it takes longer to kill off bosses etc?

There is nothing wrong with this concept.

The problem is one of:

Round one: "I miss"
Round two: "I miss"
Round three: "I miss"
Round four: "Oh joy, I finally hit"

Making the encounters more challenging is a good idea. For example, it taking 6 successful hits to down a monster instead of 5; or immobilizing the monster does not help, but daze does. Doing it by decreasing the chances to hit is just begging to introduce boredom at the table.

I see boredom at the table if a PC is caught in a trap for many rounds and cannot contribute. There's not much difference between that and a player who gets to roll the dice, but the result often fails.

 

[Nail]

Because I don't think pcs SHOULD hit 55% of the time at paragon and epic tiers (out of the box).

Okey-dokey.

As should be obvious, I think 55% (at all levels) is a minimum. I also think that with help from multiple party members and optimal positioning, it should never be over ~80% (at all levels). As a game designer, you have a very narrow path to walk...and you should be *very* cognizant of that as you add things to the system.

 

[Nail]

I think you were closer to a TPK than you think you were. That the difference between 2 PCs at death's door and a TPK is a very small one.

Exactly, kilpatds. We really were right there at the edge of TPK-land. We were just able to pull it back from the brink with a little luck and all of our resources.

 

[DrSpunj]

Thanks for the comment, kilpatds. But I want to ask you & anyone else like Nail who agrees with you:

Should there be a middle option at the end of a tough battle between "Short Rest and we're probably good to go if nothing really mean is around the next corner" and TPK?

In tough battles with bad luck or tactics (or especially both!) on the PCs part I think one PC death is an acceptable part of the game.

Maybe we should fork this out if there's a lot of opinions here?

 

[Nail]

Thanks for the comment, kilpatds. But I want to ask you & anyone else like Nail who agrees with you:

Should there be a middle option at the end of a tough battle between "Short Rest and we're probably good to go if nothing really mean is around the next corner" and TPK?

In tough battles with bad luck or tactics (or especially both!) on the PCs part I think one PC death is an acceptable part of the game.

Maybe we should fork this out if there's a lot of opinions here?

I agree: This is a (good) separate topic. Fork it.

 

[Akaiku]

Thanks for the comment, kilpatds. But I want to ask you & anyone else like Nail who agrees with you:

Should there be a middle option at the end of a tough battle between "Short Rest and we're probably good to go if nothing really mean is around the next corner" and TPK?

In tough battles with bad luck or tactics (or especially both!) on the PCs part I think one PC death is an acceptable part of the game.

Maybe we should fork this out if there's a lot of opinions here?

In my experiance, there is really little area between tpk and everyone is ok. Generally speaking, unless something contrived and/or targeted to a specific player comes up, everyone is fine or everyone is dead. I have only had players actually die-die when a leader isn't present or a tpk is immenent. The GM did a fiat-kindess after 2 people died in the latter that stopped a tpk. The non-leader present one was someone getting downed then ongoing damage auraing dead.

Leaders are effective. Players tend to not die till the leader drops, then they ALL die.