"Math glitch" -- explanation or pointer?

[keterys]

Or an errata that just added +1 to attack and FRW at 11 and 21. Frankly that'd be close enough.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

yeah, this would be in line with the bonuses to stats at this level. But then I believe a nonscaling expertise feat at heroic would be nice, because this is unused design space and it had settled the issue right there.

 

[Garthanos]

yeah, this would be in line with the bonuses to stats at this level. But then I believe a nonscaling expertise feat at heroic would be nice, because this is unused design space and it had settled the issue right there.

still boring... but not as much of a no brainer

 

[Blackbrrd]

Are people seeing this problem in play?

My campaign has gotten to level 8 and the only time there has been "too many" misses was when fighting level 8 soldiers at level 7 with +1 items. (At level 8 they got 3 better to hit, +1 extra from weapons, +1 from stat gain, +1 from level).

 

[Infiniti2000]

Are people seeing this problem in play?

My campaign has gotten to level 8 and the only time there has been "too many" misses was when fighting level 8 soldiers at level 7 with +1 items. (At level 8 they got 3 better to hit, +1 extra from weapons, +1 from stat gain, +1 from level).

If keterys's suggestion is close enough, then you wouldn't notice the problem until 11th level. Even then, we're talking about only 5% or so, which is hard to notice unless you're tracking it closely. I'd say you'd probably be able to notice it more readily at about 21st level.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Considering that WotC is generally willling to eratta things they think are broken with an actual eratta document, I've begun to think the math glitch is intentional, and the designers don't feel it needs to be fixed. I think that as you increase in level, you're intended to fight lower-level monsters more and more. Very few level 30+ monsters exist at all, and the few that do are all designed to be one-time, big nasty fights. Minions, however, cap out at much lower than 30.

DMG, p 56, Step-By-Step Encounters:
An easy encounter is one or two levels lower than the party's level.
A standard encounter is of the party's level, or one level higher.
A hard encounter is two to four levels higher than the party's level.

There are several further mentions of party/PC level relating to enounter/monster level, and nowhere is there any hint that high level PCs are supposed to fight lower level monsters. Here's a much more likely explanation for the relative lack of epic monsters in the MM: most groups focus on the heroic tier, especially in the short months after the game's initial release, and therefore high level monsters are a low priority. Heck, if epic PCs were intended to fight lower level monsters, why is Orcus higher level than any PC can even get?

Yes WotC is willing to errata more minor glitches in the game, while dragging their feet every step of the way, because everyone knows that typos and minor lapses in playtesting and judgment can happen to anyone. But if they can put out a few feat tax math semi-patches, which they know a certain percent of players will defend regardless of circumstance, and avoid the embarrassment of admitting a fundamental flaw in their self-purported perfectly balanced game of course they will.

 

[keterys]

yeah, this would be in line with the bonuses to stats at this level. But then I believe a nonscaling expertise feat at heroic would be nice, because this is unused design space and it had settled the issue right there.

Honestly, all the 'hyperspecialize on one weapon' stuff is really a bad idea, especially when it's eating up so many feats. A character could easily have superior weapon proficiency, weapon focus, weapon expertise, weapon mastery, weapon-specific special paragon thing... and other than that last feat, none of it's really interesting or healthy. Just a lot of feats spent to make problems for handing out treasure, screw up balance when not allowed your primary weapon, penalize those who can't specialize in a weapon, etc.

 

[Nifft]

I previously thought that Epic-tier handled this growing gap between PC attack and critter defenses through the increasing bonuses granted by Leaders and utility powers.

For example: a 1st level strength-based Cleric's at-will grants one ally a +4 bonus to attack. Same Cleric, at 30th level, could to be granting a +9 bonus with the same power. So the fact that all 30th level PC attacks were at -3 relative to 1st level target number could have been compensated by the difference between +4 and +9.

However, such scaling attack bonuses may have been the exception, not the rule: new Leaders seem to give more static attack bonuses.

The Expertise line of feats is an admission that my thinking wasn't what WotC was working towards at all.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Garthanos]

DMG, p 56, Step-By-Step Encounters:
An easy encounter is one or two levels lower than the party's level.
A standard encounter is of the party's level, or one level higher.
A hard encounter is two to four levels higher than the party's level.

There are several further mentions of party/PC level relating to enounter/monster level, and nowhere is there any hint that high level PCs are supposed to fight lower level monsters.

For me I have no inclination or reason to believe the game world would have as many epic challenges ... or that an epic challenge might not usually be a larger number of lower... creatures or enemies.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

For me I have no inclination or reason to believe the game world would have as many epic challenges ... or that an epic challenge might not usually be a larger number of lower... creatures or enemies.

Look at this from a game design PoV: D&D is a level based game. Different things of the same level are supposed to have a certain degree of equivalence. To write a level-based game where that degree of equivalence changes from level to level is fundamentally misleading: The whole point of a level-based system is to be able to glance at two stat blocks and instantly know how equivalent they are in power; not to glance at two stat blocks and then have to think 'well, they're both the same level, so the monster is actually meant for higher level PCs...' if WotC had intended higher level PCs to fight lower level monsters, they would have mentioned it somewhere. Or, more likely, they would have simply made higher level monsters less powerful. (By lowering monster attacks and defenses by 1 per sub-tier, for example.)

Now look at this from an in-game PoV: levels don't exist because they're a rules-construct. No, there aren't as many epic challenges in-game as there are heroic challenges, but when has this kind of logistical information ever been relevant to D&D adventurers? Do epic adventurers grind through endless hordes of mundane kobolds before fighting Tiamat? Do heroic adventurers have to avoid 1,000 odd encounters with ancient dragons and hordes of kobolds before finding that one encounter with just a few kobolds that they can handle? No, of course not! The DM tailors encounters to the PCs using metagame information: monsters of X level are good challenges for PCs of X level. if you understand this, why would you think that in-game information (less epic monsters) would hedge out metagame information (level X = level X) at higher levels?