Are PC defenses too low?

[Stalker0]

After a fight against a couple of controllers and other monsters, my group had the complaint that the monsters attack bonuses seemed so high that they were always under some nasty condition.

Its a 7th level group, so I decided to take a look at some 7th level and 8th level monsters and see what was there. On average it appears to be a +11 vs fort, ref, or will.

My guy currently has a 22 fort defense (+5 str, +2 amu, +2 class), 15 ref, and 17 will. My defenses are certainly not the best in the group, but I don't think they are that low either.

Against these attacks, I will get hit 50% on my fort, 85% on my ref, and 70% on my will. Well....yeah that does seem pretty high. Even on my best defense I have a coin flip to get nailed with a condition, and on reflex attacks if its got any rider I am nearly always taking it.

Now, one of the things about 4e is that conditions are supposed to be weaker but more frequent, but 70% seems a bit high to me.

What has been other people's experiences?

 

[Wik]

Depends on who's swinging at you. A brute should hit you less than a soldier, but when he does, he'll hit you for more. And so on.

I know that in our group, there are PCs that I have a very hard time hitting. We have rogues with some decent ACs (though if they do get hit, they're bloodied). And the defenders are definitely rather tough, unless you target their weak points.

Remember, not every character has all high defences. You're supposed to have weak points - if you see a monster targeting reflex, it might be a good idea to avoid them. I'd guess you're playing a defender... you should avoid ranged attacks (which frequently target reflex) and stick to a melee fight.

 

[frankthedm]

[vodka]Yes! PCs get hit. One of the few savings graces 4E has {IMHO] is even if the players try to powegame every bit they can, they still get hit regularly. [/vodka]

 

[Victim]

Characters who increase attributes in the same defense type (eg, STR/CON fighters, or CHA/WIS pallies) will get hit all the time on their other defenses. Something like a sword or flail fighter (high Dex) with a shield will generally do much better defensively

I think the designers agree with you though, hence all the defense boosting stuff in AV.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't know. I didn't have much problems with most of my characters. Only problematic issue was a Star Pact Warlock I played. I didn't do anything to boost his AC or Reflex Defense, and that hurt a lot. Though I also forgot some of my abilities then (I had to run two characters, it can happen!) like the Concealment Bonus from moving 3 sq.

The Dragonborn Warlord (level 15+), the Fighters (Level 4+ and Level 15+) seemed to have no big holes in their defenses. Sure, my Wizard (Level 1+) isn't all too great, but he's not attacked all that often, either. That's why Defenders were invented.

You might want to ensure you have at least passable scores for all 3 defenses. (Str or Con, Dex or Int, Wis or Cha).

 

[wedgeski]

It seems fine to me, probably relating to the fact that in 3.5 I seemed to barely be able to scratch the PC's most of the time. Many of the occasions when they were in real trouble arose only because of an unusual coincidence of circumstances. 4E has turned that around and it's a lesson at least one or two f my guys have had to learn the hard way. Ablation, man. It's the only way to fly.

 

[Iron Sky]

The monster creation guidelines in the DMG suggest about level+3 to level+7 to hit vs defences. So, say it averages about level+5.

Our group is level 9, so monsters should have about a +14 vs AC, about +12 vs other defences.

Our group also rolled our stats rather than point buy, but I'll adjust those down.

Elven TWF Ranger: AC 25, Fort 21, Ref 23, Will 18. Hit vs AC ~50%, Fort ~60%, Ref ~50%, Will ~75%
Halfling Dagger Rogue: AC 22, Fort 19, Ref 21, Will 19. Hit vs AC ~65%, Fort ~70%, Ref ~60%, Will ~70%
Dragonborn Melee+Healing Cleric: AC 22, Fort 20, Ref 19, Will 22. Hit vs AC ~65%, Fort ~55%, Ref 70%, Wil ~55%
Half-Elf Fey Warlock: AC 17, Fort 20, Ref 18, Will 22. Hit vs AC 90%!, Fort ~65%, Ref ~75%, Will ~55%

Average AC: 22, other defenses all: 20 - interesting that, averages out to AC = Level +13, Other defenses = level +11. So by our average vs the monsters average, they have about a 60% chance of hitting, by design, assuming our group's defenses are about average.

Best case scenario, monsters have about a 50% chance to hit. Worst case, they have a 90%(warlock AC).

We also have no defenders, whom I'm assuming will be rocking the best defenses, but I'd imagine they'd still be no better than 40% on their best defense.

So, yes, when monsters of your level or higher attack, on average they will hit. Heck, even with monsters at level -2 (lowest they recommend parties face), they'll still hit most of the time.

In practice, it feels like we get hit most of the time, but not all the time. That may in-part be due to our DM's usually horrible rolling however. He's got two modes: "Average 5" and "Crit-a-round". Seems to be nothing in between.

 

[FireLance]

Characters who increase attributes in the same defense type (eg, STR/CON fighters, or CHA/WIS pallies) will get hit all the time on their other defenses.

So, is this the hidden Achilles heel of the Battlerager build?

Anyway, I believe a typical monster will have an attack bonus of level+3 against a non-AC defence. Over 30 levels, this will increase by about +29, while on the PC side, defences will increase by about +15 for level, +6 for neck slot enhancement bonuses, and +1 for the guaranteed ability score increases at 11th and 21st level. Feats could add up to +2 to all non-AC defences, although this ties up three feats, and the AV magic items could add up to +3 to all non-AC defences, although this requires the PC to have three specific items. However, even if a character does all this, he will still be about 2 points behind in each defense.

I guess this is where the discretionary ability score increases come in. A character who distributes his ability score increases to raise the higher of his Strength and Constitution by 4 points, and the higher of his Dexterity and Intelligence by 4 points, and the higher of his Wisdom and Charisma by 4 points will come out exactly even.

Of course, this usually breaks down in practice: a character will usually focus his discretionary ability score increases into two key ability scores, which leaves him ahead in two defences but behind in one, or ahead in one defence but behind in two if the ability scores he increases contribute to the same defence (examples mentioned above).

What makes this more pronounced for some classes (e.g. the fighter) is that their class defence bonus and their primary ability score contribute to the same defence, making them very strong in that defence, but weaker in the others.

It also implies that the defence enhancing feats and magic items are pretty much must haves, in order for PC defences to keep up with monster attacks.

But to go back to the original question, given that a typical 1st-level monster will have a +4 attack bonus against a non-AC defence, and given that it is rare for a 1st-level PC to have more than one non-AC defence of 15 or more (assuming he has even one in the first place), monster attacks that target a non-AC defence are more likely to hit than to miss.

 

[Stalker0]

The monster creation guidelines in the DMG suggest about level+3 to level+7 to hit vs defences. So, say it averages about level+5.

Our group is level 9, so monsters should have about a +14 vs AC, about +12 vs other defences.

Our group also rolled our stats rather than point buy, but I'll adjust those down.

Elven TWF Ranger: AC 25, Fort 21, Ref 23, Will 18. Hit vs AC ~50%, Fort ~60%, Ref ~50%, Will ~75%
Halfling Dagger Rogue: AC 22, Fort 19, Ref 21, Will 19. Hit vs AC ~65%, Fort ~70%, Ref ~60%, Will ~70%
Dragonborn Melee+Healing Cleric: AC 22, Fort 20, Ref 19, Will 22. Hit vs AC ~65%, Fort ~55%, Ref 70%, Wil ~55%
Half-Elf Fey Warlock: AC 17, Fort 20, Ref 18, Will 22. Hit vs AC 90%!, Fort ~65%, Ref ~75%, Will ~55%

So, best case scenario, monsters have about a 50% chance to hit. Worst case, they have a 90%(warlock AC).

I think that what my players are complaining about is that is that they are still getting hit 50% or more on their best defenses. I don't think they mind it if the feylock gets hit with a fort attack and doesn't have a good chance, but when its still a coin flip on his will defense that's when they start to wonder if something is going on.

 

[Justin D. Jacobson]

This phenomenon is, IMO, one of the best features of the new edition: It rewards strategy. Yes, in a vacuum, the PCs tend to get hit farily often. It encourages the players to maximize their strategic advantages by developing synerigies with their allies, utilizing features of the battlefield such as cover and terrain, and exploiting weaknesses in their enemies. One of the results is that combat was pretty difficult when we first started playing 4e but it has gotten progressively more even on the force of this phenomenon and, not coincidentally, richer and more entertaining at the same time. Compare to 3e, where combat invariably devolved into toe-to-toe dice-rolling.