Let's keep in mind that epic characters do have more abilities to handle damage, effects, and the like. It might not be a problem that a fighter is hit on its will save more easily at epic than it does heroic, as long as its not on a 2 all the time.
Alternatives to the feat-tax solution to to-hit and F/R/W defenses
- Thread starter CapnZapp
- Start date
Let's keep in mind that epic characters do have more abilities to handle damage, effects, and the like. It might not be a problem that a fighter is hit on its will save more easily at epic than it does heroic, as long as its not on a 2 all the time.
With the +1 per tier rule only, it is not a 2 all of the time, but it's pretty darn close. For same level average foes, it is:
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 90% at level 30
90% is still pretty darn high. Higher level monsters (and even some same level monsters) can hit 95% of the time.
I just find that to be problematic. I've always had a problem with auto-hit or auto-damage or auto-success type elements that include a die roll in the game (e.g. 3E Tumble was automatic by level 5 or so, Aid Another tends to be automatic, etc.). Why have a rule to roll a die if it is going to occur 95% or 100% of the time?
I don't find that fun as a DM and especially as a player.
The sweet spot for combat (skills can vary more due to specialization, but everyone gets into combat) should be in the 35% to 65% success range and it should rarely get outside that range. IMO.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Those numbers do bother me a lot, only mildly tempered by the idea that maybe the really powerful monsters are meant to require banes.. to be truly defeatable. Ie maybe you don't just head to head with Orcus, you research him find out his vulnerabilities go on the quest to find the sword of X which will allow you to take him on.
There are issues with that as well.
The game is pretty much designed over a set of abilities. When you make those abilities moot, it defeats the purpose of the game.
As an example, we had a trap that required a high Acrobatics or Athletics roll to get out of. The party Invoker, the Ranger's pet, the Cleric, and the Bard all got stuck in the trap. The Bard eventually got out, but the Invoker, Cleric and pet did not due to not having those skills trained until the Rogue came over and disarmed the trap. The Rogue was busy in combat, so she couldn't come over for many rounds (something like 5 or 6, most of the combat).
The issue here is that two players were out of combat because they did not have the proper tools to get out of the trap. This has taught me as a DM to give a bonus to the roll each round in this type of situation and to let the player know that the PC is making progress. There has to be normal ways to eventually succeed or the game becomes unfun.
Ditto for Orcus. IMO.
Unlike normal monsters, a foe like Orcus typically should not be killed by the PCs. He goes screaming back into the Abyss or something, but there are reasons to make him not a normal foe. Your bane idea might be something used to permanently kill him or some such (or drive him away for a century or millennium or whatever), but it shouldn't be required to fight him.
eamon
Explorer
It could be as extreme as Con fighter (+2 fort +5 Str, no dex or int) for +7 or as little as +2/+3 if you start with a 16 primary, and raise a tertiary score to 13 for feat reasons. I think a +4/+5 difference to start with is reasonably normal, resulting in +7/+8 difference eventually. That difference is livable although poor, meaning that you'll eventually reach approx a 36 defense in your poorest score, for a level-equivalent enemy hit rate of about 90% (likely commonly 95% too). In short, the NAD's as a whole need to rise for such a difference to be viable, or the weakest NAD needs to rise. It's possible that the permitting the "epic defense" line of feats in addition to this fix would suffice. It's my impression that those feats are far less "auto-picks" than expertise, and there's a real choice as to how far you're willing to go in picking them.
ravenheart
Explorer
First of all, great discussion. Secondly, I'm inclined to make house rules as simple as possible. Therefore I think of doing it like this:
EDIT; Oh, and sorry 'bout the necromancy. Ph35r teh undead threads, rawr!
And I won't ban any feats. If a player wants to spend feats cheesing his/her character out, be my guest.
EDIT; Oh, and sorry 'bout the necromancy. Ph35r teh undead threads, rawr!
Last edited:
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
I like that attitude actually. Here is something I consider ... once the math is fixed.. the feats are less ummm imbalanced. If players are at 60% and only getting a +15% thats oh great but not horrifyin... that same 15% bonus if their chance to hit is 10% is now the equivalent of 2.5 x the effectiveness...
resurrection is cheap these days, ;-)
Pbartender
First Post
I agree with this completely. However, I'm taking a slightly different tack with the house rule...
Instead of giving the PCs bonuses to attacks and defenses, I'm going to subract a penalty to attacks and defenses from all monsters across the board as needed.
That way, the players don't have to worry about it at all. The entire solution is on my lap as the DM, it's completely transparent to the players, they can still use the Character Builder without adjustment or worry, and I don't have to keep an extra eye on their character sheets to make certain they didn't goof the bonus up.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Most of these monsters are advancing too fast woes are still controllable by the DM simply by controlling level they make encounters variable PC interest in Tactics alone are going to cause serious fluctuation in the balance. Lagging tertiary defenses are a different issue though... that can be seen as a tacit approval of "balanced characteristics" building for characters... but it is hidden awfully well.
