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

[KarinsDad]

I like the simplicity of the "just add +1 to three scores" approach, but when I suggest a house-rule, I'd like to be sure that it's truly better that the WotC alternative.

I understand. However, does it really matter?

People keep talking about game balance as if it actually exists. Personally, after seeing the stealth armor fix and the expertise feats, there is no such thing as detailed planned game balance (just general planned game balance).

They are following a set of general guidelines (i.e. don't add more than +1 to hit, don't add more than +1 per tier damage) and then in a later supplement, ignoring those guidelines.

The fact is, they didn't even take out the time to figure out hit point, to hit, and damage math for every single level for both PCs and monsters for all defenses.

That's pretty darn lame. It takes all of 20 minutes to put that into an Excel spreadsheet. I've lost all respect for their balance claims pre-release.

The sole exception to this is Light Armor. Light Armor appeared to just work out of the box for all levels. Heavy armor and the other 3 defenses do not work, nor does to hit, nor do monster hit points/damages.


Btw, the best solution I have heard is to not do anything to the PCs. Lower the level of the monsters per tier above heroic and call it a day.

So, if you want a same level encounter at level 5, use level 5 monsters. At level 15, use level 14 monsters. At level 25, use level 23 monsters. This automatically decreases the monsters' to hits and defenses, and reduces the number of monster hit points without changing a single rule.

But, only do this by 2 levels by Epic. The reason is that the monsters hit AC by 2 less as well as hitting the other defenses by 2 less and AC is not really a problem area. If lowering the monsters' levels feels uncomfortable challenge-wise based on the DM guidelines, you could always throw in an extra monster per tier above heroic as well (so 5 n at heroic, 6 n-1 at paragon, and 7 n-2 at epic) to get a similar level of challenge, but having each monster hit slightly less often and gettting hit slightly more often.

The only reason I am changing the PCs instead of changing the monster levels is because I do want the high level PCs to fight Orcus and Demogorgon and a host of other deity level foes and I think that is extremely difficult (i.e. nearly impossible) with the core rules shy of some gimmic (like a Wizard auto-lock which my group does not try for).

 

[77IM]

Here's an approach to the defense issue that might make some characters' defenses more "lopsided" rather than less (which may be good, if you think it's more interesting for characters to have an "Achilles's heel" in one of their defenses).

Double the class bonus to defenses at 11th level and triple it at 21st level. So an 11th level wizard is getting +4 to Will and a 21st level wizard is getting +6 to will. An 11th level ranger would get +2 to Fortitude and Reflex and at 21st level +3 to Fortitude and Reflex.​

Granted, that's not enough to close the defense gap in general, and while it raises the average defense it increases the difference between defenses for a single character (especially guys like fighters who often put all their stat bumps into the same defense that is getting their class bonus). However it is an interesting idea. I wonder what the game would look like if they had given Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies some defense bonuses? Like maybe all the fighter paths get +1 Fortitude, and a net +2 added to the other two defenses (so Fort is still highest but the other two catch up somewhat).

-- 77IM

 

[Elric]

I like the simplicity of the "just add +1 to three scores" approach, but when I suggest a house-rule, I'd like to be sure that it's truly better that the WotC alternative.

Making the barbarian's bonus a non-scaling +1 is a decent fix - for this problem. But I can't oversee all the various combo's and interactions. How much better will a starlock now be, now that he can have 2 secondary stats? A tempest that can gain scimitar dance, pit fighter and marked scourge? A bard that's even better at multiclassing?

Many of these issues (and the "just add directly to weakest FRW" option) were discussed on page 1 of this thread. The Barbarian is the only class feature that needs obvious revision in this way. For what it's worth, a scimitar isn't an off-hand weapon. So Tempest fighter + Scimitars isn't a potential problem.

The Warlock probably falls into the category of "it would be better for game balance to let them raise Con/Cha/Int", since it doesn't seem like anyone at WotC considered the major problems that would arise from having Con/Cha as attack stats while wearing light armor.

Perhaps the Bear Shaman will get an "Ursine Agility" feat that adds +1 AC per tier while not in heavy armor (WotC seems to like "fixing" mistakes with feats). If so, you'd want to make a similar change to the fix as Barbarian Agility. If that's the approach you take, the Bear Shaman will have reasonably scaling AC both now and after the "feat fix." If you decide "I can't let players add to 3 ability scores because then the future Bear Shaman feat fix might not work out", then until that fix comes out you have the Bear Shaman AC problem, and afterwards if the fix works you don't.

I'd consider this a feature of adding to 3 ability scores, not a bug. It depends whether you consider the potential for too high AC Bear Shamans down the line if you don't correct a potential WotC's fix more of a problem than the actual current problem of too-low AC Bear Shamans because there is no fix.

Right now, even dragon magazine stuff works fine out of the box - with this change, you never know.

I highly doubt that there's anything in Dragon that would be worse than Punisher of the Gods (Dragon 372) if you could add to 3 ability scores.

As Karinsdad says, it doesn't seem like the game is fine-tuned to only balance correctly over time because character add to exactly 2 ability scores. The only part of the game's basic math done correctly in the PH was AC for Light Armor users who boost Dex/Int; it's hard to imagine they carefully built the two ability score boosts into the system while messing up AC for Con/Cha Warlocks who stay in light armor, Heavy Armor AC, to-hit, and FRW defenses.

Btw, the best solution I have heard is to not do anything to the PCs. Lower the level of the monsters per tier above heroic and call it a day.

So, if you want a same level encounter at level 5, use level 5 monsters. At level 15, use level 14 monsters. At level 25, use level 23 monsters. This automatically decreases the monsters' to hits and defenses, and reduces the number of monster hit points without changing a single rule.

But, only do this by 2 levels by Epic. The reason is that the monsters hit AC by 2 less as well as hitting the other defenses by 2 less and AC is not really a problem area.

This doesn't fix the relative scaling of AC and FRW at all. That means that, like now, FRW attacks will hit much more often than AC attacks without giving up anything to compensate. There's also the issue I've mentioned before, that PCs might prefer to have the benefits of Expertise/the FRW boosting feats, rather than having those feats taken away with the promise that the GM will scale down encounters to compensate. +1 to hit and FRWs at levels 5/15/25 avoids both of these issues.

 

[KarinsDad]

Here's an approach to the defense issue that might make some characters' defenses more "lopsided" rather than less (which may be good, if you think it's more interesting for characters to have an "Achilles's heel" in one of their defenses).

Double the class bonus to defenses at 11th level and triple it at 21st level. So an 11th level wizard is getting +4 to Will and a 21st level wizard is getting +6 to will. An 11th level ranger would get +2 to Fortitude and Reflex and at 21st level +3 to Fortitude and Reflex.​

Granted, that's not enough to close the defense gap in general, and while it raises the average defense it increases the difference between defenses for a single character (especially guys like fighters who often put all their stat bumps into the same defense that is getting their class bonus). However it is an interesting idea. I wonder what the game would look like if they had given Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies some defense bonuses? Like maybe all the fighter paths get +1 Fortitude, and a net +2 added to the other two defenses (so Fort is still highest but the other two catch up somewhat).

-- 77IM

Wow! I think the PC delta is a major part of the problem, not the solution.

A Cleric at first level can have a Will defense 6 higher than some of his allies. At level 28, that's 9 higher.

9 higher when the game is designed around a D20 means that unless the Cleric gets hit on a 14 and his ally gets hit on a 5, someone is totally screwed. And this house rule would make it 13 higher??? On a D20?

The delta between PC abilities should be a small number, not a large number. A good solution is to bring the numbers closer together, not further apart.

If the foe is supposed to hit the hard to hit PC 40% of the time, it should be hitting the easy to hit PC 70% of the time at best. Not 95% of the time. IMO. The greatest delta between defenses for combat ever should be 6, not 10, not 15, etc.

Look at AC.

Leather armor vs. Plate and Shield (we'll ignore cloth armor since the vast majority of PCs never have it and upgrade to Leather at a minimum)

The worst Leather AC at level 30 = starting Dex/Int 16 +3, +10 magic/masterwork, +15 levels, +4 stat gain = AC 42. This is a PC that does nothing significant for his armor (except maybe bumping cloth to leather). He didn't even start with an 18 starting stat.

The best Plate and Shield AC (shy of some unusual tricks that I am unaware of) at level 30 = +20 magic/masterwork, +15 levels, +1 specialization (armor and shield specialization do not stack, you only get one), +2 shield, +1 paragon = AC 48.

This is balanced. The delta is 6. The delta is not 13. 30% of a D20, not 65% of a D20.

All defenses should work this way.

 

[KarinsDad]

This doesn't fix the relative scaling of AC and FRW at all. That means that, like now, FRW attacks will hit much more often than AC attacks without giving up anything to compensate. There's also the issue I've mentioned before, that PCs might prefer to have the benefits of Expertise/the FRW boosting feats, rather than having those feats taken away with the promise that the GM will scale down encounters to compensate. +1 to hit and FRWs at levels 5/15/25 avoids both of these issues.

I agree. It does nothing for the scaling. It doesn't fix the math. What it does is slightly balance the math without changing it.

Instead of:

PC hits monster AC 65% at level 1 and 45% at level 30
PC hits monster NAD 60% at level 1 and 40% at level 30
Monster hits PC AC 50% at level 1 and 60% at level 30
Monster hits PC 1NAD 45% at level 1 and 65% at level 30
Monster hits PC 2NAD 60% at level 1 and 80% at level 30
Monster hits PC 3NAD 70% at level 1 and 95% at level 30

one gets:

PC hits monster AC 65% at level 1 and 55% at level 30
PC hits monster NAD 60% at level 1 and 50% at level 30
Monster hits PC AC 50% at level 1 and 50% at level 30
Monster hits PC 1NAD 45% at level 1 and 55% at level 30
Monster hits PC 2NAD 60% at level 1 and 70% at level 30
Monster hits PC 3NAD 70% at level 1 and 95% at level 30

Yup. The weakest NAD is still just as weak. This does not address the weakest NAD at all. And yup, higher level foes still hit most NADs pretty darn easy.

But except for the weakest NAD, these are all more semi-reasonable numbers. The monsters also have fewer hit points which helps with the grind issue. And, since the PCs hit the foes easier, other defensive buffs are easier for the PCs to accomplish for those powers which work off of to hit.

Is it perfect? No. Is it the least intrusive adjustment that still accomplishes part of the goal? Yes. A player does not have to make a single change to Character Builder.

 

[eamon]

If the foe is supposed to hit the hard to hit PC 40% of the time, it should be hitting the easy to hit PC 70% of the time at best. Not 95% of the time. IMO. The greatest delta between defenses for combat ever should be 6, not 10, not 15, etc.

I don't have a problem with a wide divergence of defenses, in particular if they represent rarely-targeted NAD defenses. A weakness in a defense isn't necessarily unplayable, and might be a valid trade-off for a character. The difference between 40% and 95% is large, but it's not even a factor three - so it's definitely compensateable (the other way around doesn't work - the difference between a 5% and a 50% hit rate is very high - bringing several defenses to the 5% hit rate level would be game-breaking).

I do have a problem with lack of scaling. Eventually NADs simply turn into a very like to sure hit. At this point, the NADs almost might as well not exist - the balance difference between 65% hit rate and 95% is perilously small, in particular if that's you're best NAD and smart opponents might pick and choose such that they attack those players with those attacks guaranteeing 95% hit rate on almost all NAD-targetting attack's (after all, it's the attacker's choice).

The guaranteed effectiveness of any NAD attack makes the game boring. Similarly, feat-tax's make the game boring. That's what I'm opposed to - undifferentiated characters that include various statistics that the player might as well never bother looking at since he can't do much about it anyhow.

The scaling should be fixed, but the differentiation per se is OK. 4e in any case has rather little differentiation, which is probably part of the reason that "grinds" are a risk. But this differentiation shouldn't be in player defenses - that turns the game into russian roulette: You can't much do much about having a weak spot, and it's large enough that no amount of preparation can protect you should the next monster happen to target your weak spot. In the extreme case, the first random encounter that involves your bad NADs and a few monsters with status effects, and you all die - better hope the DM chooses a different monster...

That's not fun; that's why 4e should have a decent NAD baseline and probably leave good situational defensive boosts in the hands of the player's - a far cry from the current state of affairs.

 

[Stalker0]

I like the +1 to three stats idea because it does allow a wider range of builds, but agree from a simplicity standpoint it can have a lot of other alterations that are not intended.

So why not go back to the base idea of +1 to FRW at 5th,15th, and 25th? Do people think that's too little of a change?

 

[KarinsDad]

I like the +1 to three stats idea because it does allow a wider range of builds, but agree from a simplicity standpoint it can have a lot of other alterations that are not intended.

So why not go back to the base idea of +1 to FRW at 5th,15th, and 25th? Do people think that's too little of a change?

Yes. It's not enough.

From 1st to 30th level is an increase of PC FRW and to hits of +25. It's an increase of +29 for monster to hits and defenses.

Additionally, the weakest non-AC defense is only +22. So, it loses 7 compared to monster attacks over 29 levels and it is already the lowest of them all (often by 4 to 6 lower).

The +1 to hit and FRW at levels 5, 15, and 25 takes care of the 3 of the 4 delta and the +1 to a third ability score takes care of the other 3 of the 7 for the weakest NAD.

With these two rules, it becomes:

PC hits monster AC 65% at level 1 and 60% at level 30
PC hits monster NAD 60% at level 1 and 55% at level 30
Monster hits PC AC 50% at level 1 and 60% at level 30
Monster hits PC 1NAD 45% at level 1 and 50% at level 30
Monster hits PC 2NAD 60% at level 1 and 65% at level 30
Monster hits PC 3NAD 70% at level 1 and 75% at level 30

The weakest NAD still gets hit a lot, just not 95% of the time. And, this is for same level monsters. The monsters still have a decent chance to hit the PCs and higher level monsters have an even higher chance to hit. It's just not the near automatic of core rules. A level 33 monster (like Orcus) hits on average 2 out of 3 NADs 95% of the time on level 30 PCs, that's basically ridiculous.

Who really wants to play a level where the PC can get hit on a 2 and the same level monster can only get hit on a 13 in return and higher level monsters need a 16 or 17 to hit? It can get really frustrating to have to roll a 17 to hit.

 

[eamon]

I like the +1 to three stats idea because it does allow a wider range of builds, but agree from a simplicity standpoint it can have a lot of other alterations that are not intended.

So why not go back to the base idea of +1 to FRW at 5th,15th, and 25th? Do people think that's too little of a change?

With the extra +1, 2/3 NADs and to-hit increase by +28, AC by +27, and the weakest NAD +25.

I'd say that's quite the improvement. It's not perfect; but it's better that the current alternative.

 

[KarinsDad]

With the extra +1, 2/3 NADs and to-hit increase by +28, AC by +27, and the weakest NAD +25.

I'd say that's quite the improvement. It's not perfect; but it's better that the current alternative.

It's an improvement, but the weakest NAD starts our 5 or 6 lower than the best, so it will now be 8 or 9 lower. That's still flawed.