D&D 4E Another math crunch and how fix 4E

[malcolm_n]

I have yet to run into a problem with PC's hitting monsters on average from level 1 to 30. When you get into those extra tiers, your leader, you, and probably others are getting abilities which grant at least a +1 to attacks.

There's also flanking to be considered, which is always a hefty +2 bonus.

As to (dis)allowing the feats from PH2, you're offering pretty much the same solution as the feats do without the cost. You want +1 to attack at first level, take Weapon Expertise. It balances your math at paragon and epic tier also with +2 and +3 respectively.

Similarly, you propose changing stats or adding to Defenses (not ac), but the feats you want to exclude handle that very problem.

I guess I fail to see the logic behind trying to fix what isn't broken.

 

[Elric]

As to (dis)allowing the feats from PH2, you're offering pretty much the same solution as the feats do without the cost. You want +1 to attack at first level, take Weapon Expertise. It balances your math at paragon and epic tier also with +2 and +3 respectively.

The Expertise feats are not a good method of giving players bonuses to hit. This has been gone over many times in other threads, but problems include: it doesn't apply to powers like a Dragonborn's Breath; characters with both an implement and weapon face a feat tax (and a character like a Swordmage-multiclass wizard-Wizard of the Spiral Tower faces an even larger tax, I believe), and characters who do not take these feats are much less powerful than those who do.

Similarly, you propose changing stats or adding to Defenses (not ac), but the feats you want to exclude handle that very problem.

I guess I fail to see the logic behind trying to fix what isn't broken.

The feats give too large of bonuses (Robust Defenses being the most egregious example; it has other adverse effects like not stacking with Shield Specialization, which noticeably lessens the power of that feat since most characters would take Robust Defenses in any case). Additionally, before you hit the epic tier almost nothing has changed based on PHII feats, so even if characters plan to max defenses come Epic, the gap is at its greatest at level 20 (your weakest FRW defense will already be down 5 points then).

 

[KarinsDad]

I guess I fail to see the logic behind trying to fix what isn't broken.

Same level monsters hitting on a 2 is broken. Same level PCs missing on a 15 is broken.

WotC fixed it by adding feats that every PC will take.

I fixed it by just having the game mechanics work correctly.

Either fix works, I just do not like fixing the game by having must take feats.

But, the game is broken. If a given DM does not use PHB II and only PHB without adjustments, his game will start falling apart with 20+ round hard encounters and TPKs at mid-Paragon and even worse at Epic.

There just are not enough synergy bonuses in the game system to handle the weak defense, and the strong defense/PC to hit problems (or even the heavy armor AC sag in mid-paragon problem which WotC fixed with masterwork bonuses in AV and PHB II).

 

[Bayuer]

By 30th level, the weak defenses are down by 7 minimum, by 14 maximum, by 11 on average.

By 30th level, the strong defenses are down by 4 minimum, by 4 maximum, by 4 on average.

Your solution is to add 2 to all defenses (except AC).

That basically works ok with the strong defense, but does nothing for the weak defense.

If a PC's weak defense is down by 5 at level 1 (compared to his strong defense, -2 for class and -3 for 12 instead of 18 ability score, total level 1 defense 11) and down by 12 at level 30, your solution will only make it down by 10 at level 30. The same level "other defense level +4" 30th level monsters will still hit it on a 2. The PC will have to take for example Lightning Reflexes AND Epic Lightning Reflexes, just so that the same level monster still hits on a 7 (Weak Defense = +2 14 ability score, +6 magic, +15 level, +2 paragon feat, +4 epic feat, +2 your house rule = 41, 30th level monster is +34 to hit).

A Paragon feat and an Epic feat, just so that the same level monster hits 70% of the time instead of 95% of the time. Required. If the PC does not take the Epic feat, he will always get hit 95% of the time with that defense.

A higher level monster is back up to hitting 80% to 95% of the time, even with the two feats. Your solution does not resolve the problem and forces every player to take the two feats at least once (and possibly for a second semi-weak defense).

My solution puts this at the same 30th level monsters hits on a 5 without any feats (it is hits on a 6 at level 1, regardless of solution). It also incentivizes players to start 3 ability scores at 14 or higher to handle the defenses since they know that the weak ability score can gain +4 instead of +1. The weak ability score is useful for other things like skills and powers, even at high level, so the player might start the weak starting defense at 12 or higher.

Well without any adjustment to math, monster have +10 adventage. With +2 on epic it drops to +8. Now you can take Epic feat + paragn feat (+6 to DEF) and make it +2 adventage. But this situation will come only with primary stat max buff (20 on 1 lvl). And that the choice that player make. I think most builds will have 14/16 in teritary stat, becouse you don't need very strong primary stat now, couse we fixed the to hit math.

Well, you solution is quite nice, but I don't want to change too much. I think it's ok for player to have the weak spot and then fix it with feats. I just don't like when you need take feats for things that should work from the beginning.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think it's ok for player to have the weak spot and then fix it with feats. I just don't like when you need take feats for things that should work from the beginning.

Except every player is forced to fix the weak defense with the two feats every time. Not doing so results in a 95% chance to hit for same level high level monsters.

How exactly is it balanced to be forced to take two feats?

A PC with a relatively strong weakest ability score of 14 starts with Fort 12 (for example). Level +4 first level same level foes hit on a 7.

At level 30, his ability score is 16 and his Fort is 34. Level +4 30th level same level foes hit on a 2. With your house rule, they still hit on a 2. With your house rule and the paragon feat, they hit on a 4. Higher level monsters (which should be encountered) still hit on a 2. With your house rule and a feat, they still hit on a 2.

And this is for someone who pushed a bit and put a 14 into that tertiary score at level 1. What about someone with a 10?

You think it is ok for this player who pushed his ability score at first level fairly high and took two feats and still gets hit by some higher level foes on a 4 or a 5. With two feats that give +6.

I don't think this is ok. When a player goes out of his way to protect his weakest defense, he should not be hit on a 4. IMO.

 

[Bayuer]

At level 30, his ability score is 16 and his Fort is 34. Level +4 30th level same level foes hit on a 2. With your house rule, they still hit on a 2. With your house rule and the paragon feat, they hit on a 4. Higher level monsters (which should be encountered) still hit on a 2. With your house rule and a feat, they still hit on a 2.

Well with 14 on stat you have FORT34. Monster has adventage of +9. With my house rule it drops to +7. When he take paragon feat it makes it +5, and with epic feat it gives +1. I can say not bad. Only 2 feats needed now. The middle DEF will need only one feat to make monster adventage to +0 and the primary DEF is fine as it is.

I see your point and I think that this gap shoulden't be so large, but I realy can't say how to make it work ok without to many complications. Your solution is nice couse it gives another +6 to lowest DEF making monster adventage at +4... my makes it at +8. So you need feats to make things go right. Well, I don't like the idea of three atributes development. Thats just it.

 

[Elric]

Except every player is forced to fix the weak defense with the two feats every time. Not doing so results in a 95% chance to hit for same level high level monsters.

How exactly is it balanced to be forced to take two feats?

You seem to be forgetting that going by PHII, the Robust Defenses feat means that, at epic, characters only need 1 feat to get the benefit of the 3 PH feats. So if you give characters +2 to FRW by epic levels, as the original poster does, then taking Robust Defenses and one Epic [FRW] feat (for your weak defense) leaves you even on your stronger FRWs, and up 1 on your weak one.

I don't endorse this solution-the strong FRWs can end up too high based on just scaling and the PH II feats, it requires players to take these overpowered feats, and it relies on massive bonuses for hitting epic levels. However, it would fix all the scaling issues with little feat investment required.

 

[Bayuer]

Well I think that the fair solution will be also (as addition to previev solution) to give just players for free one Epic defense feat (Epic Wiil/Reflex/Fortitude). That will make your lowest DEF at +4 (of monster adventage) - he must roll 6 on die to hit. This also will give options to players which defense feats to take and none will be banned.

Another approch is to just give players feats for free. One Weapon/Implement Expertise on 5 lvl. Paragons Defenses at 11 level (or another paragon defense feat). Robust Defenses (or any other epic defense feat) and one Epic FRW feat at epic tier. That will make the math work as intended (well almost as intende) and will be easy to make with Character Builder.

 

[ObsidianCrane]

How did you derive the monster defences?

Did you use the DMG tables or actually derive the average defences from MM1?

 

[Bayuer]

How did you derive the monster defences?

Did you use the DMG tables or actually derive the average defences from MM1?

14+lv 12+lvl 5+lvl 3+lvl
AC DEF vs.AC vs.DEF

This are skirmiher stats taken from DMG (chapter about creating monsters).