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

[Crazy Jerome]

Decouple the status effects and normal hit point damage on attacks which target NADs. That is, let the normal hit point damage continue to pile up like it does now, but make it easier to avoid the status effects. This will solve the issue and nudge higher level play away from grind.

The crude way to do this is to provide a way to get a conditional bonus to FRW, which only applies to effects. Use feats or just give it at certain levels. You could use the +1/+2/+3 at 5th/15th/25th idea. Though if doing this myself, I'd be more tempted to go with something like +1 every full 5 levels, maxing out at +6 at 30th. That's overkill to fix the problem, but compared to current rules (with PHB2 feats), that is increased hit pont damage in return for even less status effects.

So a 20th level character gets hit with an attack versus Will for 20 damage and stun. The character has +4 more defense against the stun than the damage. Of course, the disadvantage here is handling time, since we just revived the problem that "touch attacks" had.

The less crude way to do it is to simply remove the NAD feats, but change the way saving throws work. For example, allow all saves at the beginning of the turn, and provide a few extra ways to get modest, conditional boosts to saves. So our example 20th level guy is still getting easily pinged for 20 damage from that Will attack, but he has a much better chance of simply ignoring the stun effect.

The disadvantage to that is changing the way saves works will have side effects--some of them probably not intended. A positive side effect is that solo and elite monsters just got tougher to take down.

 

[Elric]

So a 20th level character gets hit with an attack versus Will for 20 damage and stun. The character has +4 more defense against the stun than the damage. Of course, the disadvantage here is handling time, since we just revived the problem that "touch attacks" had.

This is too complicated. It would be easier to add to both FRW and attacks' damage.

The less crude way to do it is to simply remove the NAD feats, but change the way saving throws work. For example, allow all saves at the beginning of the turn, and provide a few extra ways to get modest, conditional boosts to saves. So our example 20th level guy is still getting easily pinged for 20 damage from that Will attack, but he has a much better chance of simply ignoring the stun effect.

The disadvantage to that is changing the way saves works will have side effects--some of them probably not intended. A positive side effect is that solo and elite monsters just got tougher to take down.

This change makes save-ends attacks weaker in terms of average rounds effective than until end of next turn attacks, even on a normal +0 save combatant (they’re much weaker against a solo with +5 to saves), which would be a significant change to the relative balance of save-ends and until end of next turn attacks. A monster with a one round dazing effect would be stronger than if it had a (save ends) daze effect.

 

[Neubert]

I think it is a very interesting idea however. Performing this change could remove some of the "stun-lock" on solo monsters (since the players won't know whether the monster will be able to act or not) and you can't stack the stuns.
So players and monsters be unsure whether their target gets to act.

Of course, as Elric mentions, this makes "save ends" less powerful. But could this be reversed by giving out a global negative modifier to all save rolls?

 

[Elric]

Of course, as Elric mentions, this makes "save ends" less powerful. But could this be reversed by giving out a global negative modifier to all save rolls?

Not really. If you want a character with a currently +0 save bonus to be affected for an equal number of rounds under the new system, changing it to saves at the start of the round, with a -4 penalty, gets you to almost the exact same number (1.82 rounds before, 1.85 rounds after).

However, solos, with their +5 save bonus becoming a +1 save bonus, are much stronger than before, with an average of 0.67 rounds after vs. 1.25 rounds before. If you want to make solos more comparable to their average number of rounds affected before, this dramatically increases the number of rounds a +0 save character is affected for. At a -4 penalty, characters already only make saves 35% of the time, so further penalties have very large effects on the average duration.

Edit- of course, the original point of this rules change was to weaken status effects. So if you don't end up changing the average rounds that a (save ends) status effect affects a character, then you're not accomplishing the original objective. I think that this isn't a good policy for dealing with poor FRW scaling, and the disparity from (save ends) vs. until end of next turn effects is just one issue that would arise. You should just fix FRW scaling directly and worry about something like status effects used on solos (see my thread linked below) separately.

This is somewhat off track for this thread, though, so I'll point you to my thread on solos and status effects, http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...s/254080-solos-status-effects-house-rule.html, where there's a lot of discussion of these issues.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Edit- of course, the original point of this rules change was to weaken status effects. So if you don't end up changing the average rounds that a (save ends) status effect affects a character, then you're not accomplishing the original objective. I think that this isn't a good policy for dealing with poor FRW scaling, and the disparity from (save ends) vs. until end of next turn effects is just one issue that would arise. You should just fix FRW scaling directly and worry about something like status effects used on solos (see my thread linked below) separately.

Well, the original point was that if wanted to fix the main problem of imbalanced NADs and feat tax and make solos/elites tougher and address higher level grind issues--then this is one way to do it--provided, of course, that you don't mind changing the way saves work.

I arrived at this as something to try because even at low levels, we don't really like how saves work. Specifically, we don't like having the saves at the end. So what is a bug for some is a feature for us, even if it does devalue status effects across the board. YMMV.

I do think it is often worthwhile to look at the problems holistically and try for a combined fix, rather than address each thing separately. It's harder to evaluate, and the side effects will be nastier to deal with--but the end product is likely to be more elegant than the individual fixes. And it is hardly true that the individual fixes won't have interacting side effects, anyway.

It also matters whether you care about keeping the results comparable to the base system. I used to care about stuff like that, but I don't as much anymore.

 

[Zinovia]

This thread has been precisely what I was looking for regarding the math issues in 4E - a cogent discussion of possible house rule fixes to eliminate the feat tax. Thanks to all who have posted.

While I have read a number of threads regarding these problems, please forgive me for having missed some of the discussion.

Are the math problems just with the non-AC defenses, or are there issues with AC as well?

How short on damage do you think the higher level monsters are compared to where they "should be" (since where they should be is somewhat relative). Are you looking at what percent of a character's health is done with each successful attack? I realize that status effects play a huge role in higher level combats, so it isn't just about the damage numbers.

I've seen discussion of the merits of reducing monster hp at various levels. My current party is striker heavy so things die fairly quickly at the moment. Will this likely change as they level up? Damage doesn't seem to scale with monster hp, but how big of an issue is it? The characters are also doing more status effects and gaining bonus damage due to powers at higher level.

Thanks for the great discussion so far. I am trying to decide which version of these various rules I will be adopting for my campaign. At the moment, the +1 to 3 stats at the 4/8 levels, and +1 to hit and F/R/W at 5/15/25 sounds pretty good.

 

[Elric]

How short on damage do you think the higher level monsters are compared to where they "should be" (since where they should be is somewhat relative). Are you looking at what percent of a character's health is done with each successful attack? I realize that status effects play a huge role in higher level combats, so it isn't just about the damage numbers.

Monsters in the MM tend to be short on damage even compared to the recommended damage guidelines on page 184 in the DMG. I believe someone said that at levels 25+ it was on average 7 damage short of the DMG's recommendations for at-will damage.

Edit- looking through some MM epic monsters, they seem behind the DMG guidelines on at-will damage, but not 7 points behind. I haven't played at epic or near-epic levels, so I can't say that my suggestion (+8 damage eventually) is the result of experience in play. It's also not the product of close calculation for what's need to make the MM numbers in line with the DMG's suggestions.

The general idea is that if you look at well-constructed, though not especially optimized, high level PCs, if the PCs scaled equally well to monsters in the game's default numbers, the monsters in the MM wouldn't be enough of a threat. These fixes come very close to making up the entire gap- e.g., Karinsdad's is -1 to hit, -1 FRW, -2 AC; my fix changes AC slightly so it's -1 to-hit, FRW, and AC (and AC in the default rules, using AV/PH II MW armor, still falls behind monster to-hit by 3 for many levels, while in my fix it never falls behind by more than 1) .

Additionally, people report that fights become longer (indeed, too long) at higher levels, which provides a reason for wanting to fix the problem by making monsters more damaging, not by increasing their durability (increasing player to-hit by an eventual +3 should speed up combat a good deal as well). That said, the MM2 previews suggest that 1), monsters are getting nastier in general and 2) Monsters are becoming comparatively stronger offensively than existing monsters (while becoming comparatively weaker defensively; e.g., the reduced HP on some of the solos).

To the extent that the PH-II feats and their substantial upgrade in character power become integrated into the designer's mindsets when creating further monsters, and to the extent that they've realized that monster offense relative to defense should go up, applying a one-size fits all solution to monsters across multiple published products may not work. This is a reason why WotC should have done the math correctly in the first place.

While I have read a number of threads regarding these problems, please forgive me for having missed some of the discussion.

Are the math problems just with the non-AC defenses, or are there issues with AC as well

The basic math underlying this thread is:

Over 29 levels, from a starting level 1 character (with no magic items) to level 30:
To-hit, AC, and Fort/Reflex/Will gain +21 from levels/enhancement bonuses.

Assume you split your stat boosts to two stats that add to different FRW defenses. One of these stats is your primary attack stat. If you wear light armor, one of these stats boosts AC.

AC gains +6 more: either +6 from Masterwork Heavy Armor, or +2 from MW Light Armor and +4 from increases to an ability score which adds to AC.
To-hit and your two strong FRWs gain +4 more from Primary/Secondary Attribute advancement
Your one weak FRW gains +1 from the ability score boosts at levels 11/21.

So AC gains +27, to-hit and your two strong FRWs gain +25, and your weak FRW gains +22.

Over these 29 levels, monsters gain +29 to their to-hit and to all defenses. Compared to the monsters, players lose 2 on AC, players lose 4 on to-hit and their two strong FRWs, and lose 7 on their weak FRW.

These numbers don't take into account powers, Paragon paths, Epic destinies, or feats. This is just the raw effect of levels, stat increases, and enhancement bonuses of magic items.

 

[eriktheguy]

From what I read, the solution (+1 to 3 stats at 4/8/14/18/24/28) has the problem that players can use it to powergame rather than to boost their weak defense. I see two simple solutions...

Leave it: Let the players simply choose stats for the sake of attacks and suffer when their weakest defense leaves them vulnerable in some battles.

Stop it: Require the stat increases to be in the three stat categories, you must increase Str or Con, Dex or Int, Wis or Cha

With the first choice the intent seems to be that you discuss the house rule with your characters and they agree not to abuse it (for their own good).

I don't like the second choice as much, it seems like more of a fix for weaselly characters than a fix for rules. It makes sense that your character is forced to grow physically, mentally and spiritually as they level, but the rule still seems really random and contrived.

 

[KarinsDad]

From what I read, the solution (+1 to 3 stats at 4/8/14/18/24/28) has the problem that players can use it to powergame rather than to boost their weak defense. I see two simple solutions...

Why is this a problem? Do you have mature gamers at your table, or not?

If WotC would have had three stat increases instead of two (or even all six instead of two) in the first place, we might not even be having the discussion.

There is no significant abuse here. If a given player powergames, this is going to be a very minor portion of the powergaming compared to how things like Orb of Imposition can be abused.

We had Email discussions on why I was changing this with my players. They know the reason why. If they choose to ignore that, I'm ok if a given PC gets hit by the BBEG on a NAD with a 3.

 

[Zinovia]

I told my players the reason I'll be giving them three stat raises at the 4/8 levels. If they choose to not spend those wisely, that's their lookout, and I won't feel guilty hitting them on a 2 or 3 against their weak defense. I did warn them about that.

Having said that, 4 of the 5 are likely to make considered decisions about where to put that extra stat gain. The 5th, I'm not so sure about. While she's a mature person in most aspects of life, she is a bit of a munchkin when it comes to gaming. She wants her character to be more effective than everyone else's. There's a bit of a problem there - but I won't get into that here and derail the thread.

If she chooses to not boost her character's will defense, then she's going to be frustrated down the road. But all of them have been warned. She may well choose to listen to that. After all, having a weakness means her character isn't uber. We'll see what happens.