Defenses and To Hits for Your Party ~ Averages

[Destil]

I suppose that this has always been true of D&D, and RPGs in general, but something about 4th edition really drives this point home: hitting is everything.

This was pretty well known in 3E, as well. It's why power attack was changed in 3.5, for instance. It worked best via 3.0 rules when you have lots of attacks, but conceptually it was for the guy who made big reckless swings. Since hitting was everything the penalty to hit wasn't generally worth it for damage unless you generated a lot of attacks.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

That is an option, but it presents other issue.

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Can you elaborate? CriticalBastard's solution is not mine, and I'm not feeling motivated to search through 22 pages of debate to find relevant text.

Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. Granting ability score increase to all ABs kind of plays havoc with the assumptions of the skill system, etc.

The skill system math was kinda borked to begin with. I don't keep up with skill challenge errata, but last I knew they were still unsuccessfully trying to straddle to fence between assuming +half level and assuming +5+half level+stat boosts.

Whereas with my fix, there isn't much skill divergence unless players pick up a bunch of skill focuses and item bonuses. So I can set DCs at [whatever base DC I decide on] + half level + 2 per paragon/epic tier.

If you want pure opinion I think the root of the whole problem was ability score increases of ANY kind to start with. Doing away with them would have meant some other sort of adjustments to the attack math, but it would have actually improved the skill system by compressing the divergence at higher levels between primary and non-primary stats. This would also have made the whole Masterwork Armor hack unneeded. Various tweaks ensue, but IMHO at least the game works better and you can still keep the +1 at all tiers and maybe give ALL EDs a +2 to one stat. That way you're still getting a bit of improvement, but not creating 2 tiers of stats. Maybe it is somewhat 6 of one and half a dozen of the other, but I never really liked the whole stat inflation thing that much.

I agree, and I even wrote a blog post about the game being better without stat boosts.

 

[Aulirophile]

I am not honestly sure what you're confused about. CriticalBastard's solution is extremely straightforward, he lists the reasons and the solutions in his post.

I might add that for most characters free Paragon/Robust Defenses and one free epic NAD feat (to the their lowest NAD), and then banning epic NAD feats is a good solution.

 

[Evilhalfling]

Party Stats: 5@level 7
AC 23 (22-26)
Fort 18.5 (15-22)
Ref 18.5 (17-21)
Will 18.5 (16-20)
Attacks +10 NAD, +12AC
best skill +13 (12-17)

 

[Herschel]

And I simply can't understand any viewpoint that can insist it is useful for bringing lower accuracy characters 'in-line' with more optimized characters.. while ignoring the fact that optimized characters will take it as well, and the same difference between the two will remain. And, more importantly, other non-optimized characters won't take it, and the difference between them and optimized characters will only grow larger.

The issue seems to be you're viewing it through the myopic lens of only "optimized" characters. Many (most?) gamers don't play that way. If I'm hitting often why boost it more when I don't need it and I can take cool stuff for my character instead? Some times that will mean multiclassing and power swaps that may or may not be mechanically "optimized". For example, my Thaneborn Barbarian took a Warlord multiclass because the it fit the character concept I wanted. Mechanically he'd have been better off taking the Sorcerer one that would have fit his Paragon Path too but the Warlord one gave him the Diplomacy skill training he needed and a leaderly boost to his allies on action points (and initiative with his Helm of Battle, also a flavor choice to fit the character concept.) He still hits well, does his copious amounts of damage but isn't about being "optimized" for solely combat.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

The issue seems to be you're viewing it through the myopic lens of only "optimized" characters. Many (most?) gamers don't play that way. If I'm hitting often why boost it more when I don't need it and I can take cool stuff for my character instead? Some times that will mean multiclassing and power swaps that may or may not be mechanically "optimized". For example, my Thaneborn Barbarian took a Warlord multiclass because the it fit the character concept I wanted. Mechanically he'd have been better off taking the Sorcerer one that would have fit his Paragon Path too but the Warlord one gave him the Diplomacy skill training he needed and a leaderly boost to his allies on action points (and initiative with his Helm of Battle, also a flavor choice to fit the character concept.) He still hits well, does his copious amounts of damage but isn't about being "optimized" for solely combat.

This comment explains a lot more about where you are coming from than you have previously revealed -- and that's helpful.

By choosing to forego one or more feats (Expertise for sure, I don't think you have commented on Weapon Focus or the defensive feats that boost numbers in a similar manner), you accept that you will do less damage and impose fewer debuffs on the enemy.

So the question is, what is the consequence of your decision? That really depends on what feats you take instead and on what your DM and the others in your party do.

1. The feats you take instead grant skill benefits that help you avoid combat encounters through stealth and scouting to avoid enemies; thievery, dugeoneering or arcana to bypass traps and pass quickly through unguarded areas; or diplomacy, bluff, etc. to talk your way out of trouble.

2. The feats you take instead compensate for the occasional misses by helping you make more attacks (Agile Opportunist), attack sooner (Improved Initiative), attack more important or appropriate targets (any feat that helps you move safely where others cannot).

3. You live with lower damage and your fellow party members pick up the slack by switching their feat selections to do more damage.

4. You live with lower damage and your DM compensates by giving you easier challenges or by using creatures with lower defenses or HP.

5. You live with lower damage, monsters last longer and inflict more damage on you and your party, and you suffer from grind and an occasional character death or TPK.

I would really be curious to know which one of these categories fits you.

 

[Herschel]

Not really any of the above but closest to #1. It all depends on how you want to build and the game one plays. The party leader role is filled by a dwarf shaman. There was no Charisma-strong social leader for RP. My character isn't "gimped" because I didn't focus on pure optimization for combat, he does very well. The issue is Char-Op types who believe there's only one way to build a working character. The party also has a halfling avenger, dragonborn fighter, human tome wizard and now a gnome sorcerer. It works well and none of the characters are "optimized" but we work well together and combats generally go quickly and efficiently when we stay focused. We just have found it's more fun to play than crunch numbers. None of us have dreams of being an accountant.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Not really any of the above but closest to #1.

Well, it has to either be one of them or a combination of them. The options I described above boil down to:

1. adapt your character to avoid combats,
2. adapt your character to attack more often or more strategically,
3. adapt the party,
4. adapt the encounter, or
5. fail to adapt and accept the consequences.

 

[fba827]

The issue seems to be you're viewing it through the myopic lens of only "optimized" characters. Many (most?) gamers don't play that way. If I'm hitting often why boost it more when I don't need it and I can take cool stuff for my character instead? Some times that will mean multiclassing and power swaps that may or may not be mechanically "optimized". For example, my Thaneborn Barbarian took a Warlord multiclass because the it fit the character concept I wanted. Mechanically he'd have been better off taking the Sorcerer one that would have fit his Paragon Path too but the Warlord one gave him the Diplomacy skill training he needed and a leaderly boost to his allies on action points (and initiative with his Helm of Battle, also a flavor choice to fit the character concept.) He still hits well, does his copious amounts of damage but isn't about being "optimized" for solely combat.

I, too, fall into this methodology. If I feel my character is "hitting enough" /defense/skill/etc then I feel perfectly fine not investing the feats to increase accuracy/defense/etc. And anything I do miss, I don't really give it second thought because I am content with whatever I chose instead of the increased accuracy. Conversely, if I were playing a combat-oriented tactical encounter game with no real story to speak of, sure, then the value of some other feat options would be lessened for me and accuracy would be more important to what i want to do for that game scenario.


It's a matter of cost-benefit and preference. Is the cost of the feat and opportunity cost of that other feat not taking worth the benefit of increased accuracy? Some will say yes some will say no depending on the circumstance and what the modifier currently is without it.


Having said that, in the groups I've played with, I see some players who place a high value on accuracy (or defense, or some skill, etc) and therefore take every feat choice to maximize that -- it is their prerogative and nothing wrong with that either (they chose to give up some other option for the accuracy).


It does seem odd, however, when you have both of those types at the same table. You'll have one PC who only needs a 2 or higher to hit while another needs a 12 (that's an extreme example, but i've seen it happen more extreme than that than that). same could be said for defenses or a specific skill check like stealth, etc.

so, really, i think it comes down to preferences and cost-benefit choices. Yes, there may be a 'target' ideal somewhere in there that the designers imagined. But if it works -for you- then it works (period).

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I am not honestly sure what you're confused about. CriticalBastard's solution is extremely straightforward, he lists the reasons and the solutions in his post.

I'm not confused about CriticalBastard's solution; I'm confused as to why you posted a link to it after saying that my solution presents "other issues". I was presuming that CB's thread was your way of showing me those other issues, but now I'm thoroughly confused.