Epic Level Math Test: Fight 1 (Iconics vs the Efreet!)

[Stalker0]

For a while now, there have been concerns about 4e’s high level math. Based on some first look analysis, it appears that PCs do not keep pace with monsters in terms of attack bonuses, damage, and defenses. In other words, epic level PCs hit less often, and are hit more often, then their lower level counterparts.

I and several others have offered that the counter to this issue may lie in the power system. PC powers provide a wealth of conditional bonuses. Epic level characters have access to frequent and powerful abilities, and that good use of these powers may make up, perhaps even succeed the deficiencies that the first level analysis highlighted.

However, the reason no one has done this analysis before…its really difficult!

A few months ago I said I was going to give it a shot, and this is my first attempt.
A few months ago I started building an iconic Epic Level Party. One of each role:

Sword/Board Fighter – Defender
Laser Cleric – Leader
Orb Wizard – Controller
Brutal Scoundrel Rogue – Striker
After getting some initial feedback, I finalized the first set of iconics as a 24th level party. You can find them attached below. I will note that I used only the core books and the adventurer's vault, except for a few epic destinies and cleric feats, as I just felt I didn't have enough options with the core book alone.



The plan will be to run them through some epic encounters. We will watch as each party member uses their powers, and look at the numbers to determine if the powers are causing substantial differences that the first level analysis wasn’t accounting for. As we go, we may also try to evaluate some other factors’ of 4e combat.

For the first battle, I wanted to keep things as absolutely simple as possible. I knew that for my first analysis I would make mistakes. It’s hard enough running one epic level character, but running 4 and a group of monsters is very challenging. This encounter would allow me to get some experience running the iconics, having them work together like a team, and just get a handle on all of their powers. I wanted terrain to be a very minor factor, I knew my hands would be full just getting a handle of how the powers interact, let alone terrain.

I also didn’t want flying monsters in my first encounter, again with our goal of simple as possible. However, as I browsed the monster manual I quickly realized that wasn’t in the cards. Flying monsters seem to be a big staple of epic level. If I’m going to run epic level encounters, I would just have to get used to flying.

So with the explanation out of the way, let’s get to the fight. I have attached the fight report, as there's some much formatting its going to take me a while to post it reguarly. So check out the document, and post your feedback. I both interested in people's thoughts about the results as well as thoughts about my presenation, and perhaps the next fight.

I will say that I have gained huge respect for people who post their games week in week out. Writing all this out and running the combat took me hours and hours of work. I won't be doing another one for a while most likely.

 

[Grimstaff]

"AH, DAMN YOU ELVEN REROLL!"

Very nice write-up, thanks for posting that.

With regards to length of combat, I think round six should have been the end; Efreeti are intelligent creatures and I doubt the sole survivor would have continued fighting, but rather attempted to flee or bargain his way out of the situation. (I know, not the whole point of the math exercise, but grind over rounds 7-9 *was* mentioned, so...)

I'd be interested to see more combat examples like this!

 

[Shroomy]

You roll too many 1s, so there's no way I'm going to let you join my party! Hmmm, since your cleric couldn't hit anything, there goes the primary source of your situational bonuses in favor of your PCs.

Now that you've run the scenario and are familiar with the PCs and their tactics, have you thought of running the encounter again?

 

[Tharian]

I'm kinda curious why you chose to go with a party of 4 instead of the now-standard party of 5 for this group.

 

[Kzach]

Can someone post all the attack bonuses, NADS and AC from the PC's and monsters?

I hate shaping

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I'm at work, but tagging this to see the results once I get home.

I also wonder like the prior poster why you chose 4 instead of 5 PCs?

Thanks for showing your work.

 

[Chris Knapp]

I also wonder like the prior poster why you chose 4 instead of 5 PCs?

Ditto. Throw in a warlord who hands out attack bonuses like candy and see what happens.

Also, no one used any action points?

 

[Akaiku]

Not every fight has action points, people often save them. Also, if it's an iconic team, it'd make more sense to add an elf ranger.

Also, IME, no group has more than one leader, and that person is often goaded into it, but, once again, that's just IME.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

Actually, the fifth "iconic" would have to be a striker... more parties have two or more strikers than those that have two or more leaders, in my experience.

A Sorcerer or a Barbarian would round up the party nicely


edit: I have just finished reading the round-by-round doc... And that D20 should have gone into the "-off bag" after the second 1

 

[Stalker0]

The reason I didn't add a 5th iconic is the same reason you guys are debating what that one would be. After the 4 bases are covered, then the debate becomes what is the iconic role for the 5th guy.

I figured no matter what role I chose people would debate it, so I simply decided to go with one of each role, and then monsters suited to that party. Further its fewer people to keep track of, which helps me.

As to teh question about whether I would run this again, my answer right now is definately no. The fight was quite timeconsuming to run and write up, so if/when I do it again, it will be a more advanced fight to see how the party does when I start adding the full fury of action points and dailies.