Non-AC Defenses

[KarinsDad]

I might agree if that was actually the case. What about aura effects? They hit automatically, every time. How fun is that?

Fun is about psychology. Auras are auto-hit. But, that doesn't matter because players EXPECT them to be auto-hit. Players can do things to avoid them completely. If I immobilize a foe and move away, the aura can't get me.

A roll to hit with a ranged power that hits on a 2 is not expected by players. There is little they can do to avoid this.

It's this psychology of expectations and ability to avoid which makes all of the difference between having fun and being frustrated.

And: Where are you pulling those numbers from? Picking a single monster shows nil.
But I'm already getting incredibly tired because that's what the old debate was all about and it's been repeated a bazillion times, already.

I remain unconvinced until I've had real playtesting experience with real encounters with a real group of pcs.

'Doing the math' will never be able to show you what the playing experience will be like. If it could, then why isn't there a program, already, that covers every aspect of 4E combat? (see the thread about applying the Monte-Carlo method to simulate 4E combat)

Picking examples won't prove anything. Ignoring items, powers, terrain, and tactics definitely won't.

Doing the math is better than doing nothing.

Obviously, playtesting experience is important.

But ignoring the math completely is silly. The math doesn't change that much, just because someone is playing the game. And, many intelligent people doing the math DO combine it with playtesting experience. You act as if it is one or the other. The first thing I did when I saw the math issues was ran a level 22 encounter.

If WotC would have ignored the math, they wouldn't have changed the masterwork heavy armor modifiers and added +4 Epic NAD feats and the Expertise feats.

Your POV that there are no math issues is not sustainable precisely because WotC added +3 to hit and +4+ to NAD defenses into the game on a D20 system. Those are HUGE percentages and WotC claimed before the 4E release that they wouldn't be adding in huge adds to hit. Now, they did.

Obviously, they did it for a reason. If there are no math issues because of the synergies of powers and items and feats, then WotC did it to break the system. That seems doubtful.


This concept that WotC got it correct right out of the gate is silly. Having been in programming for nearly 30 years, I know from experience that version 1.0 of any system will always have bugs. Always.

 

[Jhaelen]

Fun is about psychology. Auras are auto-hit. But, that doesn't matter because players EXPECT them to be auto-hit.

Well, if you believe that it will be more fun for the players, just _tell_ them, their characters have just been hit by an aura... Personally, I don't think it would change anything. It will still frustrate them.

A roll to hit with a ranged power that hits on a 2 is not expected by players. There is little they can do to avoid this.

They will expect it, if they've read any of your posts
I still firmly believe that being hit on a 2 will only happen in very rare circumstances. As much as you don't like to admit it (or continue to insist it isn't relevant for this discussion), the very same thing could happen in 3E, as well. And I'm not even sure if it's been as rare as it probably is in 4E.

Doing the math is better than doing nothing.

Sure, but it isn't everything - which seems to be a common misunderstanding. It's also important to look at the premise for most of the math discussions I've seen:
To simplify the math, they make assumptions, which may or may not be realistic. Typically, they ignore the bulk of what is part of a realistic encounter. The worst offenders use a one-on-one arena combat situation without any terrain features or using anything except at-will powers. IMHO, that's _worse_ than not doing the math, because it will give a false impression to those players who are impressed by and tend to trust the results of such comparisons.

It's similar to what the saying is about statistics: 'the only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself'. Ignore the premise and the results will be misleading.

The first thing I did when I saw the math issues was ran a level 22 encounter.

I know, I've read about it. And I don't think it's representative Mind, it's clearly better than not doing any playtesting, at all. But it also isn't sufficient to make any projections about the game as a whole.

Your POV that there are no math issues is not sustainable precisely because WotC added +3 to hit and +4+ to NAD defenses into the game on a D20 system. Those are HUGE percentages and WotC claimed before the 4E release that they wouldn't be adding in huge adds to hit. Now, they did.

Obviously, they did it for a reason. If there are no math issues because of the synergies of powers and items and feats, then WotC did it to break the system. That seems doubtful.

No, that's not my POV. And it's pure conjecture on your part. I happen to believe, those feats had already been written when PHB1 was released. They're intended for players who care about maximizing certain aspects of their characters. See above about players who care about defenses vs. those that don't. Ditto for attack bonuses. Imho, they're overcompensating.
I know, I'm in a minority, here (see Kzach's poll about this issue), but unless proven wrong, that's what I think.

This concept that WotC got it correct right out of the gate is silly. Having been in programming for nearly 30 years, I know from experience that version 1.0 of any system will always have bugs. Always.

Well, except this is version 4.0
But, yeah, of course, they might do things differently now. They might even come up with ways to make the game even more fun. The changes to creating solo monsters are an example for this.

 

[Tallifer]

Anyways ... tell the bard to get a level 18 Belt of Vim for +2 Fortitude, buy Great Fortitude and bring his constitution up to 12. That is +5 to his Fortitude Defense in all. <the smallest violin in the world...>

 

[Akaiku]

Anyways ... tell the bard to get a level 18 Belt of Vim for +2 Fortitude, buy Great Fortitude and bring his constitution up to 12. That is +5 to his Fortitude Defense in all. <the smallest violin in the world...>

You apperently loose 4 to all primary defenses and 8 to the lowest.

Get the 3 +4 epic feats, the +2 to all epic feat and the belt.

You have now lost no ground on your low def and gained 2 on the other 2 for the low low price of 4 epic feats and an item slot dedicated to the persuit.

 

[Tallifer]

Firstly, the bard in question is paragon not epic.

Secondly, even if he were epic, there would not be so much need to get Epic Will and Epic Reflexes since those are his better defenses. Robust defenses is just a normal feat everyone buys. That means he only has to buy Epic Fortitude and an excellent belt in place of two other fluffier choices.

 

[Akaiku]

Firstly, the bard in question is paragon not epic.

Secondly, even if he were epic, there would not be so much need to get Epic Will and Epic Reflexes since those are his better defenses. Robust defenses is just a normal feat everyone buys. That means he only has to buy Epic Fortitude and an excellent belt in place of two other fluffier choices.

Then he'd be statistically 2 worse off then he was at level 1, which he could possibly not care about, his call. And that belt does NOTHING except raise his fort by 2, so it's not excellent in a non-numbers raising way.

 

[eamon]

It's similar to what the saying is about statistics: 'the only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself'. Ignore the premise and the results will be misleading.
[...on the topic of a playtest...]
I know, I've read about it. And I don't think it's representative Mind, it's clearly better than not doing any playtesting, at all. But it also isn't sufficient to make any projections about the game as a whole.
[...]
I know, I'm in a minority, here (see Kzach's poll about this issue), but unless proven wrong, that's what I think.

There are clear, simple analysis that demonstrate that FRW defenses and attacks fall behind as levels rise. There have been playtests.

Proof in this context is a meaningless and unreasonably high threshold of certainty to demand. You prove a small, limited mathematical theorem that can be precisely expressed (and even then, typically only after much discussion about the exact semantics of the expression you aim to prove).

D&D balance? I'm going with Occam's Razor here: there's ample evidence to suggest the balance deteriorates as levels rise across the board. Barring some equally convincing, general evidence - so if the evidence points one way - that's what you should conclude too.

Asking for proof is tantamount to saying that evidence is worthless - instead, you demand absolute certainty. If that's the case, why bother discussing it in the first place?

Of course, perhaps there are good reasons for you to conclude otherwise, or perhaps you just don't think it matters. I respect your position and concede that it may be true. However, asking for proof is placing the burden of evidence in an absurdly one-sided fashion.

There is evidence. It suggests the defense/attack scaling degrades as levels rise.

 

[KarinsDad]

I happen to believe, those feats had already been written when PHB1 was released. They're intended for players who care about maximizing certain aspects of their characters.

If they were +2 feats, I might buy into this theory.

But at +3 for Expertise and +4 for NADs (and +2 to three NADS for a total of +6), nope.

I don't buy it for a second.

There are no automatic +3 or +4 feat or ability boosts (to combat offense and defense) anywhere in the game system. There are a few single target if it hits boosts this high or higher, but not automatic day in and day out every single round ones.

+3 and +4 which stack with everything are HUGE in a D20 system. Not just good, but HUGE. Game breaking if the game is already balanced.

Add +2 to Will at Paragon and +4 to Will at Epic to a Cleric at high level and that Cleric is nearly immune to Will attacks. For example, level 30, 2 for Cleric, 1 for race, 15 for level, 9 for stat, 6 for item, 6 for feats, 2 for Pitmail Armor, 3 for another will item such as Circlet of Indomitability = 54.

The highest vs. Will in the Monster Manual is +35. It hits this 54 on a 19 (this does not even include powers or Paragon or Epic abilities). The vast majority of monsters hit on a 20.

Why? Because AV added in +2 for Pitmail Armor and +3 for Circlet of Indomitability and PHB II added in +4 for Epic feat. That's +9. Fricking +9 is HUGE.

They are not there just to make min maxers nearly immune. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

They were added in so that auto hit became not so auto. As a side effect, min maxers are now nearly immune.

They were added to fix the low end, unfortunately, that has the side effect of unbalancing the high end. Opps.

The math IS important when nearly all foes need a 20 to hit the Cleric. It PROVES that the game is now imbalanced when taking two feats and two items does this.


And this is not really min maxing. It's just two feats and two items. The Cleric (or most any class) can have two defenses nearly this good.


As a DM, do you really want to be playing a high level campaign where several of the PCs can only get hit on nearly a 20 for some of their defenses?

Does that sound like fun to you???

 

[sfedi]

+3 and +4 which stack with everything are HUGE in a D20 system. Not just good, but HUGE. Game breaking if the game is already balanced.

Worse thing is, the game IS balanced for some cases.

So this "fix" has more potential of disaster than no fix at all.
For example if the chars that should take those feats/items don't take them, and those that shouldn't take those feats/items, take them.

As you already pointed out.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Worse thing is, the game IS balanced for some cases.

So this "fix" has more potential of disaster than no fix at all.
For example if the chars that should take those feats/items don't take them, and those that shouldn't take those feats/items, take them.

As you already pointed out.

I agree 100%.