Epic 4e play: the system makes it too easy for PCs to hit, instead of too hard.

[keterys]

Over in the 4e rules forums there's an interesting thread where Truename's setup a combat simulator (currently still very early in implementation) where we had a year 1 (pre-PH2, expertise, etc) paragon dwarf fighter up to 100% survival rate (I think it lost 1 in 50,000 fights) against soldiers of levels 0 to 3 levels higher than it, five fights per day... even on fights where it needs a 16 to hit the soldier, it's still winning.

Clearly, there's some scary stuff to figure out.

 

[Snoweel]

I do agree that I basically always make encounters be n+3 nowadays (edit: and the PCs still hit very easily).

I'd say n+3 is a more-or-less standard fight at Epic level, especially given less fights per day (purely for story reasons IME).

And given your problem of PCs hitting too easily, the levels of the monsters in your fights is certainly more important than the level of the overall encounter.

 

[Holy Bovine]

I do agree that I basically always make encounters be n+3 nowadays (edit: and the PCs still hit very easily). That does go against the DMG stated encounter design recommendations though (good thing that they are only recommendations ), so what does that mean for the statement "the math works in this edition" or the community counter reaction in the first few months after launch "no it doesn't! PCs are at a disadvantage"?

I think it finally kicks to the curb the idea that the Expertise feats were a 'feat tax'.

 

[Snoweel]

I think it finally kicks to the curb the idea that the Expertise feats were a 'feat tax'.

I dunno man. People will believe what they want to believe.

 

[Runestar]

I think it simply shows that it is possible to optimise for extremely high to-hit ratings in 4e (to the extent that you miss only on a 1).

However, as demonstrated, this requires quite a specific setup (2 leaders, hitting with buff powers, actually having access to those powers, which means not being able to use other powers etc).

Next question is - Is this to be the norm? Do we assume at at epic lvs, parties are going to a virtual +4-6 to-hit floating around by virtue of misc buff abilities?

 

[Holy Bovine]

I dunno man. People will believe what they want to believe.

Too true. I guess I don't see it much in my own games as I customize most every monster that the PCs face. Some have lower defenses than normal, some higher, some do extra damage, some less. Variety is the spice of life. And the spice must flow...

 

[Nymrohd]

Well it is possible to always have a couple of effects that change hit chance if your party has so many leaders, right? We are talking about a cleric, a bard/rogue, a warlord/fighter and a paladin. Cleric is a leader, bard/rogue is a leader+striker with several debuff powers, warlord/fighter is 1/2 leader as well.
The question is, how is the dpr for this party. Using constantly powers with strong riders probably reduces damage done by a healthy amount (though I guess you could be using riders that increase damage as well). This could always be done anyway. I don't think most people had issues with chances to hit if their party used synergies.
Another question is, how come you are facing epic tier monsters and not being affected by their synergy effects? Epic tier mobs have good access to attack debuffs.

 

[Blackbrrd]

As Ravellion noted, not only do they not have big problems hitting, but they don't have big problems taking the monsters down either.

Most of the combats I run have several monster types with different stats. Each character goes for the one with low defences against his or her attacks. The only exception is the Fighter who tries to attack everything.

As a Melee character I often try to find attacks vs NAD's with the weapon keyword. The damage might be 1[W] lower, but that really doesn't matter at level 10+, the static modifiers will be high enough.

Having to cooperate to hit monsters is something I really like about 4e and makes combat more interesting. With expertise this part of the game becomes less important, something I don't like.

As it is now, I barely bother with Brutes, as their AC and attacks are so bad.

 

[keterys]

I think it finally kicks to the curb the idea that the Expertise feats were a 'feat tax'.

Sadly, the expertise feats are still bad design that all PCs will be assumed to have in any game that allows them at 15th+ level, regardless of whether this particular party with three leaders runs into problems or not. It's anecdotal, not representative of normal play, and if he opened up the expertise feats for his players to take, multiple of them would almost certainly take them. Even in a party designed to load up on hit bonuses and defense penalties already.

It would be just as silly to look at an example party with a shaman as its only leader, a fighter defender, and a dwarf barbarian instead of the halfling rogue as its striker. Suddenly one of the characters always needs double digits to hit, the shaman isn't providing attack bonuses or defense penalties, they're much more stacked against AC, etc. They might still be more than tough enough that the DM keeps having to up the level of the challenge, then wonders why the combats take forever to do though.

 

[Blackbrrd]

...
It would be just as silly to look at an example party with a shaman as its only leader, a fighter defender, and a dwarf barbarian instead of the halfling rogue as its striker. Suddenly one of the characters always needs double digits to hit, the shaman isn't providing attack bonuses or defense penalties, they're much more stacked against AC, etc. They might still be more than tough enough that the DM keeps having to up the level of the challenge, then wonders why the combats take forever to do though.

This sounds like a problem with the Shaman class. I have tried to make a "good" character with that class and I haven't really come up with anything I liked.

A Fighter actually has a really good to-hit (+1 to hit as a class ability), or ways around it.

I don't quite see why a Dwarf Barbarian should have problems hitting? (Ok, compared to the Rogue, you are right)