Alternatives to the feat-tax solution to to-hit and F/R/W defenses

[Neubert]

KarinsDad:
Would you also drop "Paragon Defenses" (which seems like the smaller brother of Robust Defenses)?
Also, would the following three epic tier feats also be dropped: Unyielding Fortitude, Opportune Reflexes, Indomitable Will?

 

[KarinsDad]

KarinsDad:
Would you also drop "Paragon Defenses" (which seems like the smaller brother of Robust Defenses)?
Also, would the following three epic tier feats also be dropped: Unyielding Fortitude, Opportune Reflexes, Indomitable Will?

I think Unyielding Fortitude, Opportune Reflexes, and Indomitable Will are fine. These Epic feats are a little nicer, but they are still +2 to defense and the player has to take 3 feats to max it out. I would suspect that unless someone has specific Epic feats that s/he wants, they those will retrain over the Paragon level ones. And, the PC can only retrain one feat per level. But, the extra +2 to specific saves gain above the +2 for these three feats is fairly minimal and those are Epic feats.

The problem with Robust Defenses is that it is +6 total for a single feat. Three feats in one. I find that unbalanced. I think the math is fine for +2 per feat since it takes a real commitment (3 feats) to boost all 3 defenses doing it that way. Robust Defenses is a no brainer feat and a single feat. It's like free candy. Everyone will take it.

At level 30, a PC which starts out with ability scores 18/18/12 and has a +1 bonus to the two higher defenses (15 15 11) and boosts all 3 with the house rules would end up with defenses of:

43 43 39 whereas same level monsters hit with a +31 through +35. That means that the monsters hit the best defenses on an 8 through 12 and the worst defense on a 4 through 8.

With 3 feats, that becomes 10 through 14 and 6 through 10.

Same level monsters. Higher level monsters hit easier. Monsters that throw conditions like Daze or Stun get +2 more to hit. Monsters with special powers might hit easier, etc.

These seem like reasonable to hit ranges to me.

Hitting on a 2 or 3 or 4 on a PC when the PC took a +2 feat to help protect against that does NOT seem reasonable to me.

 

[Elric]

3) Monster damage is too low, so Paragon level creatures do one extra die of damage and Epic level creatures do two extra dice of damage.

Why this as a solution, instead of a static bonus to damage for monsters? As I see it, static bonus would have the following differences:

1) It doesn't require rolling additional dice.

2) Unless you're changing minions to do damage dice, you're going to want to increase minion damage via static bonuses in any case.

3) It's more gradual, so you can phase it in over more levels and it doesn't affect things as much all at once. For example, make changes at levels 11/16/21/26 instead of all at once at 11/21.

4) Increasing damage dice has greater effects for some monsters than others. Is it the case that the monsters that deal higher-sided dice should get a bigger damage bonus? That's not clear to me. You'd have some strange effects, like a Green Slaad's (level 18 controller) ranged, dazing at-will doing 2d20+4, essentially the same as the Blue Slaad's (level 17 Brute) melee at-will doing 3d10+10.

5) That said, Brutes should get a larger bonuses to damage than Soldiers under this rules change. Do Brutes do higher-sided die, or just more die/bonuses? Since Brutes hit significantly less often than Soldiers, adding a set +X damage benefits Soldier DPR more than Brutes. Figure something like +2 damage at levels 11/16/21/26, +3 damage instead for Brutes.

 

[Neubert]

I actually did some quick calculations (even though my math-fu isn't what it used to be), and came up with the idea of adding the damage lost from NAD attacks to AC attacks. I've heard several people say that ordinary attacks against AC aren't as dangerous as being affected by effects, so as long as you have a balanced mix of monsters, the damage should stay about the same.
I didn't factor in high- or low-hitting monsters of course.
From my calculations, 2.25 damage is lost in the middle of the paragon tier (using "Normal Damage Expression", level 13-15, Medium damage) and 7.05 damage in the middle of epic tier (level 25-27).
On the paragon tier, the lost damage goes from 1.8 damage lost per attack (damage bracket 10-12) to 2.78 (level 19-21), with an average of 2.29.
In the Epic tier we go from 5.55 (19-21) to 7.35 (28-30), average of 6.45.

If we want to end up with 8 added damage at level 30, one option could be to add +2 damage at level 11, 16, 21 and 26. The reason I went for level 11 and 21 is that players usually get a fairly big boost in their capabilities due to epic/paragon paths.
If we want to end up with 7 added damage, we could also do the following progression:
Level 6: +1
Level 11: +2 (+3 total)
Level 16: +1 (+4 total)
Level 21: +2 (+6 total)
Level 26: +1 (+7 total)


Elric, I would like to hear your thoughts on which monsters should have an "extra" bonus (or penalty), such as brutes as you mentioned. +50% extra damage for brutes perhaps?

 

[Elric]

Elric, I would like to hear your thoughts on which monsters should have an "extra" bonus (or penalty), such as brutes as you mentioned. +50% extra damage for brutes perhaps?

Looking at the DMG's guidelines for creating monsters (pg 184), the high damage attacks of lurkers should probably get +3 damage as well (if everyone else gets +2).

You could consider giving less bonus damage for the melee attacks of artillery and attacks by controllers with significant control functions, but I think that's probably too complex. Similarly, changing limited use (Encounter or recharge) powers differently also seems too complex.

Minions getting the same bonus to damage as other monsters seems reasonable due to their increasing vulnerability at higher levels; 4 minions become progressively easier to kill relative to a normal monster over time. However, if you're increasing minion damage and not making any other changes that makes them more durable (such as some ability to avoid automatically dying to auto-damage, e.g., from a Stormwarden or Winter's Wrath), then minions are becoming even more of glass cannons than they are now, which I'd see as a negative.

 

[KarinsDad]

Why this as a solution, instead of a static bonus to damage for monsters? As I see it, static bonus would have the following differences:

Because I roll dice in front of the players, rolling more dice seems more intimidating and threatening. It's not just about adding the damage, but adding dread and suspense to the scene.

Bottom line: Rolling some extra dice will be more fun for me as the DM than adding in set numbers. Either solution works.

1) It doesn't require rolling additional dice.

Yup.

But, I can already roll more damage dice, just by picking a different monster out of the MM.

2) Unless you're changing minions to do damage dice, you're going to want to increase minion damage via static bonuses in any case.

My minions already roll damage so that players do not immediately know that they are minions.

3) It's more gradual, so you can phase it in over more levels and it doesn't affect things as much all at once. For example, make changes at levels 11/16/21/26 instead of all at once at 11/21.

To me, the big gains for PCs are at levels 11 and 21, so I don't need a gradual solution as much as I need to offset PC gains at those levels.

4) Increasing damage dice has greater effects for some monsters than others. Is it the case that the monsters that deal higher-sided dice should get a bigger damage bonus? That's not clear to me. You'd have some strange effects, like a Green Slaad's (level 18 controller) ranged, dazing at-will doing 2d20+4, essentially the same as the Blue Slaad's (level 17 Brute) melee at-will doing 3d10+10.

Although what you say is true, you are mixing apples and oranges here.

The Green Slaad's Claw attack would go to 3D10+3 whereas the Blue Slaad's Claw attack would go to 3D10+10.

As for the Green Slaad's Chaos Bolt, yes, this is what would happen. There are only two monsters in the entire MM (489 creatures?) that roll a D20 for damage (both Paragon level), so shrug. It's not really that big of a deal. I have to add in another number anyway. Once we drop to D12s and lower, it works out ok. Sure, a few Epic monsters use D6s instead of D8s through D12s, but they tend to be lower level Epic monsters (e.g. level 22). Meh.

Push comes to shove, I could change D20 attacks to 2D10 attacks and add an additional D10 for those two specific monsters and it would still work reasonably well.

5) That said, Brutes should get a larger bonuses to damage than Soldiers under this rules change. Do Brutes do higher-sided die, or just more die/bonuses? Since Brutes hit significantly less often than Soldiers, adding a set +X damage benefits Soldier DPR more than Brutes. Figure something like +2 damage at levels 11/16/21/26, +3 damage instead for Brutes.

Brutes typically do larger dice. So, it works ok. There are some exceptions, but I'm not too worried about that.

Your solution works fine too.

 

[77IM]

Why this as a solution, instead of a static bonus to damage for monsters?

Here's one reason. I'm bad at math. So I see a huge difference between these two processes:

"Ah, it's a level 15 monster, so the 2d6+8 attack becomes 4d6+8, I'll just grab four d6's instead of two and put them in the pile for that monster..."

"Hmmm, it's a level 15 monster, and a brute, so its damage bonus should be... uh... 1/3 level is 5, +2 is 7, so +7 to all his attacks, and then 8+7 is 15, so now it's a 2d6+15 attack. Let me just scribble that into my printout of the MM so I don't forget... I think I can squeeze it it there..."


The first one is much easier up-front. Rolling extra dice does produce extra math on each roll -- but it's easier math (and something I am more "used to") and my players usually help add up big dice pools. Plus it's fun. Plus it makes crits nastier. >:}

Additional static damage sounds like a better solution for me if I were making a lot of monsters from scratch. I would add it in as part of the monster creation math and probably wouldn't even notice. People who are faster at math might also find the static bonus easier to calculate and more consistent to apply.

-- 77IM

 

[Elric]

Here's one reason. I'm bad at math. So I see a huge difference between these two processes:

"Ah, it's a level 15 monster, so the 2d6+8 attack becomes 4d6+8, I'll just grab four d6's instead of two and put them in the pile for that monster..."

"Hmmm, it's a level 15 monster, and a brute, so its damage bonus should be... uh... 1/3 level is 5, +2 is 7, so +7 to all his attacks, and then 8+7 is 15, so now it's a 2d6+15 attack. Let me just scribble that into my printout of the MM so I don't forget... I think I can squeeze it it there..."

I'm not sure how you arrived at this complicated of a process, given that my original suggestion was:

Figure something like +2 damage at levels 11/16/21/26, +3 damage instead for Brutes.

 

[Sadrik]

Here is a couple of solutions to other problems that remarkably touch base on what this thread is attempting to do.

1. Stat polarity fix (the three pairs of abilities that form the defenses) the problem is that during character creation it forces your hand and makes you maximize one stat and dump the other. This creates characters that are optimized yet de-humanized if you follow me. The fix as discussed in various other threads is to allow the player to pick their three defenses as opposed to the game designers picking them.

So this makes defenses a little higher because obviously you pick your three highest stats for your defenses. It may be enough to shore up those defenses at higher levels. Not sure about that though.

2. Characters with a worthwhile basic attack. The problem is that the characters are forced into spamming their at-wills when not using an encounter or daily power. This gives the players a reason to use DMG page 42 and break out of the at-will spamming mold. Bottom line: they can use a weapon they want and add the fluff they want.

"I Attack"
At-will, Weapon, (basic attack)
Attack: STR+2 or DEX+2 vs. AC
Hit [W]+STR or DEX

This may not be the fix sought because this will basically only pump up the basic attack and I think the overarching goal is to make all attacks better moving through the epic levels.


3. Another attacks option:
Has anyone considered giving masterwork item attack bonus similar to the masterwork armor bonus?
+1 attack bonus for a minimum enhancement bonus of +2
+2 attack bonus for a minimum enhancement bonus of +4
+3 attack bonus for a minimum enhancement bonus of +6

Anyway something along those lines. Come up with some nifty names like black Razor steel and star blossom wood and you have a complete system that is shorn up and made within the guidelines of the PHB.

 

[Neubert]

Since some people mentioned they would rather like to roll dice, here is the same system with dice instead of static bonuses:
Paragon tier:
+1d4 damage (average of 2.5, which is quite close to the lost damage of 2.25)

Epic tier:
+2d6 damage (average of 7, very close to the 7.05 lost damage)

Now, to make this easier to remember, we can bump the damage at paragon tier to +1d6, which only means an extra point of damage per attack (3.5 instead of 2.5).