Non-AC Defenses

[Herschel]

By coupling status effects to defenses, 4e has made it so it doesn't matter what damage is connected to the attack, the defenses still need to scale somehow.

While I can agree to an extent, you're also leaving out resistances. Sure, they're a bit more varied, but fire, necrotic and even poison come up quite a bit. As an example: Last Saturday's paragon adventure. It was scaled for a 13-14th level party and my Swordmage was at 11, with two 12s and 2 13s. Incline leading to bridge, leading to frontline defending BBEG Necromancer flanked wide by two artillery.

I win initiative, double move, Armathor's Step to the balcony with an action point and mark the Necromancer while in his face. He teleports out and crits me for 40 Necrotic + 10 Ongoing Necrotic. And I failed the Ongoing Necrotic save for three rounds but I negated his best regular attack and made him change. Also, a beefed up Boneclaw moved between us after squeezing up the stairs (I had been imobilized for two rounds after failing that save too but the Necromancer was out a couple of rounds then due to a Sleep spell from the Orb Wizard).

I had initiative, I hit the Boneclaw with my Voidcrystal Longsword and next round placed him safely back on teh lower level three squares diagonal.

I took only 30 of 70 damage which negated more than an actual hit would, didn't take numerous attacks that could hit me fairly reliably (even with a 32 AC) because I displaced the Boneclaw.

These things exist outside of the raw math.

 

[KarinsDad]

Do you have any proof?

If the sample characters I created and the actual character my players created are any indication, it's a small minority that doesn't have any real options to keep their lowest defense high enough to make a difference.

One could ask the same of your opinion.

Do you have any proof?

Could you post these sample and actual characters to support your POV?

 

[keterys]

While I can agree to an extent, you're also leaving out resistances.

Since I was arguing that the defenses need to scale for status effects, regardless of damage, of course I was ignoring resistances. They've nothing to do with my argument.

These things exist outside of the raw math.

That said, how does resistance exist outside of the raw math? I mean, I assume people tend to manage to get 5 resistance to fire and necrotic per tier and that many, many creatures get completely screwed by it. Energy damage is often based on auras and zones that bypass FRWs entirely of course.

 

[Jhaelen]

One could ask the same of your opinion.

Sure!

Do you have any proof?

Of course not. A bunch of sample characters doesn't 'proof' anything. You'd have to look at every possible combination of race/build/stat array and compare them over level 1 to 30 to 'proof' anything.

Could you post these sample and actual characters to support your POV?

I could (and actually have done so a couple of months ago), but because of the above it wouldn't do anything to convince anyone who thinks otherwise.

I'd just be accused of picking only those examples that support my view (as was the case a couple of months ago). I've got better things to do with my time, thank you very much.

 

[Rothe_]

Referring to the hill giant example, that is actually just what brutes are in 4e. Their attack bonus is lackluster, they deal a lot of damage on hits - defensively they rely on lots of hp but low defenses.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Referring to the hill giant example, that is actually just what brutes are in 4e. Their attack bonus is lackluster, they deal a lot of damage on hits - defensively they rely on lots of hp but low defenses.

Yes, but the difference was MUCH more extreme. For example here are the stats to a 1e Hill Giant. AC 4, HD 8 + 1-2, #AT 1, DPA 2-16. They also have a ranged attack R 20" DPA 2-16.

As you can see the giants defenses (AC) are nothing special and in fact your average 1st level fighter has a similar AC (chain and shield) and can hit AC 4 on a 16 (probably a bit less even, he'll likely have SOME strength bonus). The equivalent 4e monster is a level 13 brute and has AC 25. A level 1 PC might hit it on a 17 so he CAN hit. In either case its a tough fight and I suppose a group of level 1 PCs could potentially defeat a Hill Giant in 4e. Part of the difference is just lower variance in hit points and damage in 4e. The 1e Hill Giant averages 40 hit points. The 4e version has 159, which is probably a lower ratio vs PC hit points, but with the larger number of attacks needed by either side to hurt the other it will be tough for the party to get a bit lucky and do the job. Actually overall the Hill Giant is probably about the highest level 4e monster I could imagine a party killing and in that sense its not so different.

The upshot is the less swingy combat math of 4e does result in less chance to get lucky and defeat some powerful monster. Of course it also means you don't have so many of those lovely 3rd level party wiped out by lucky orcs kind of experiences either.

 

[Rothe_]

I think you are not comparing apples to apples. A HD 8 hill giant should be compared to an 8th level hill giant in 4e. You cannot make direct comparisons of monsters by name only between the editions for this kind of thing.

The level 8 brute would be defeatable by 1st level PC's, although it could kill a character with a few blows if it gets lucky.

Anyway, that is not even how 4e is designed to be played. The idea would be to lower the gian'ts level and make it into an elite or even a solo if it is faced by 1st level characters. Then the fight makes a lot more sense. Later on the characters might meet a similar giant and it would be treated as a regular monster if it suits the story. In any case it is best to keep the monster levels close to PC level.

 

[Starfox]

Let's take a theoretical 10 round combat against a solo in which every round it does a stun attack on two people.

The first is hit on a 3 (90% chance to be hit). The second is hit on a 10 [Starfox: this should be 11] (50% chance to be hit).

So, the first is being stunned 9 of 10 rounds at the moment. Which sucks, oh boy. The second is being stunned 5 of 10 rounds at the moment. Which still sucks, but is significantly less annoying.

If you gave both +4 to the defense in question, the first would no longer be stunned in 2 rounds. And the second would no longer be stunned in 2 rounds. Absolute effect, identical.

This would change their rounds of usable combat from 1 to 3 (+200% rounds) or 5 to 7 (+40%) respectively. Comparative effect, to the lower defense.

Reading and unserstanding this text changed the way I view low NADs.

 

[eamon]

Let's take a theoretical 10 round combat against a solo in which every round it does a stun attack on two people.

The first is hit on a 3 (90% chance to be hit). The second is hit on a 11 (50% chance to be hit).

So, the first is being stunned 9 of 10 rounds at the moment. Which sucks, oh boy. The second is being stunned 5 of 10 rounds at the moment. Which still sucks, but is significantly less annoying.

If you gave both +4 to the defense in question, the first would no longer be stunned in 2 rounds. And the second would no longer be stunned in 2 rounds. Absolute effect, identical.

This would change their rounds of usable combat from 1 to 3 (+200% rounds) or 5 to 7 (+40%) respectively. Comparative effect, to the lower defense.

A relevant error in this analysis lies in the bolded part. Also, stun is a best-case status effect for your argument. The length of the combat is not fixed, and, in fact, is affected (even effected ) by the outcome of various attacks.

The combat against the guy who's hit (esp. if stunned) 90% of the time will be over much quicker than the combat against the guy who's hit only 50% of the time; particularly if you consider the fact that the guy that's stunned so often will be at a huge tactical disadvantage (not heal when he needs to, be unable to maneuver or sustain powers with a very high likelyhood, etc.), in addition to being easier to hit simply by virtue of grant CA.

Now, in actual combat with a party, this solo is going to take out the guy that he can hit so easily very quickly, even with the +4 defense boost. The real question is how long the members with decent defenses will survive. These members will determine the outcome of said battle, not the guy doing nothing by virtue of being stunned or unconscious almost all the time.

Additionally, stunned is a really exceptional effect here, being one of the least clear-cut cases. If the effects include things such as, say, forced movement (throw em into the ravine over there) or any other primarily offensive effect, it's again far more clear-cut in favor of raising high-defenses. The vast majority of attacks are primarily offensive, hurting the opponent(s) - unlike stunned, which has a large defensive component as well (avoiding damage to yourself). Effects may go both ways, and even depend situationally.

As I said before, effects muddy the waters; not to mention tactics. The basic damage-based trend remains however, and damage (direct/indirect) remains a critical part of this equation, and that part clearly indicates that the low defenses need a helping hand to become relevant; relying on character-optimization to choose to raise the lowest defense and help balance things is unwise.

Hence my suggestions to raise the NAD's (particularly the low nad too) as part of the global game levelling mechanics, and not as part of the character customization-choice via feats. Feats just work really poorly for this.

 

[Tuft]

A relevant error in this analysis lies in the bolded part. Also, stun is a best-case status effect for your argument. The length of the combat is not fixed, and, in fact, is affected (even effected ) by the outcome of various attacks.

Neither does the argument take into account save-ends status effect and ongoing-damage effects; the duration of those are not proportional to the defense in the way that it requires.

Hence my suggestions to raise the NAD's (particularly the low nad too) as part of the global game levelling mechanics, and not as part of the character customization-choice via feats. Feats just work really poorly for this.

What was it someone counted in this or the parallell thread? Eleven feats that had to be stacked to keep the defenses up to par with the monster levels?