high level attack bonuses?

[UrsusTas]

Not complaining here I just feel like I have missed something and wondering if there is a glaring oversight that people can point it out to me

While making a wizard I glanced forward a few high level monsters to see what types of defense scores they have to check that I would have an expected 50% chance to hit them if I was of an equivalent level .. so I had in my mind what types of items/feats I may need to work towards to be effective.. take a look at MM page 11 the Atropal (28) for example .. basically defenses are at 42 with a weaker reflex at 37.

So in a perfect world my 28 wizard (who started with an int of 20 .. unlikely) and bringing it upto 28 with stat bonus's along the way would have the following 'INT vs' attack:

+ Int (8) + Orb (6) + 1/2 level (14) = + 28

so hitting the one weakness of the monster (reflex) needs a 9+ on the roll but hitting the other defenses needs a 14+ .. there are other monsters of that level with say 45 scores so hitting those would be unlikely needing a 17+

I would have a few reflex spells but after those are burned would I effectively be wasting my time trying against the monster's will/fort .. what about the monsters with even higher defenses.

Am I missing an obvious source of bonuses?

I can see that certain races give a +1 when bloodied (or when your opponent is) and Tiefling in particular can get Hellfire Blood for an additional +1 attack (and damage) with fire/fear .. using their racial they can get an impressive +3, once per encounter if their target is bloodied if it's a fire spell.

Humans can get +3 when using an action point if they have Action Surge feat.

I also realise that many abilities can debuff the enemies (say give them -2 defenses) and enhance allies (say give them +2 attack) but I felt that they would improve the 50% chance to hit ideal to more like a 75% chance to hit.

I keep expecting to find items with stat bonuses or similar

Defenses would be something like +2(feat) +5(stat) +14(1/2 level) +6(neck item) .. factoring in racial bonuses and the fact that everyone will likely end up with a stat above 20 the average base defenses will likely be around +28ish (assuming you buy all the feats).

Looking again at teh Atropal it has a +27vsRef close burst ability ...

The game is less about Monster vs Many Players and more about Many monsters vs Many players .. I realize that players can work together to debuff and buff but the monsters can as well?

Wizards seem to be more about vs many than the tougher boss, with other classes (in particular melee attacks) getting bonuses to hit via feats and several of their abilities .. is it primarily a wizard only problem?

Just a bit confused about the balance between player characters and monsters .. min/maxing seems to give a poor chance to hit .. and I don't particularly want to min/max so I would expect my bonuses to be a bit below the 'perfect world' senario above .. any words of wisdom?

While I have asked this question from a player perspective I more want to understand it from a DM perspective if that makes sense

 

[phil500]

50 percent is about right for most enemies, through most of the game. wizards need to have at least an at will vs. reflex and one vs. fort/ac.

but there will be things that let you buff one roll, like the battle mage paragon which gives +4 on the roll after using an action point.

some things mess up the math totally though, if you have an inspiring warlord he has an at will "furious smash" which can give you a +7 or 8 on your attack roll.

 

[erik_the_guy]

I see your point. One thing to consider is monster type. Wizards are better against swarms of weaker monsters. Most of the level 28 monsters are elite or solo etc, so wizards don't do well against them.
I know wizards are great for armored targets (who usually have high AC, low saves), so maybe some monsters are very good against them.

I see a decent number of wizard spells that are do damage on a miss, and I know some of the wizard spells can be very effective if they do hit, which is a decent trade off for the low hit chance. When it comes to fighting minions though, the wizard is tops.

I think magic implements add their enhancement bonus to attacks, or did you already include that?

 

[hong]

The idea seems to be that you'll always have about 50% chance of hitting, at all levels, against enemies of the same level.

Not entirely sure I like this myself. I prefer that the more powerful you are, the less chance you should have of whiffing your attacks. Maybe if/when I run a game, I'll just use more big groups of lower-level monsters, rather than always having the same number of level-appropriate monsters.

 

[UrsusTas]

I think magic implements add their enhancement bonus to attacks, or did you already include that?

Good point's on the monster type, I haven't looked through hardly any of the monsters yet, just sampled a few ..

My point is that I am going to end up building a less than optimal character .. sure you look at a wizard and say put a max int and whatever but after a character is initially built I go back and refine the idea/concept behind it .. try to make everything cohesive .. sometimes it's changing the idea but often as not it's changing the stats around or different abilities/feats. I would expect the 'average' character to be 50% .. if you min/max then probably you should be at 75% .. but the way I currently see it is the min max is 60% vs minions and 40% or less vs elites .. so my 'non-optimal' dude will be 35% vs minions and 15% vs elites .. and that worries me as a player and a dm.

I might only put a 16 or and 18 into int and invest my resources not into an uber orb/wand/staff but instead get a mid range orb and invest instead into other cool magical items .. but it seems to me that doing anything like this makes it pretty impossible to hit stuff

From a player perspective, I have an idea to play a wizard who is concerned about nature, so either an elf or eldarin, nature skill, perhaps innitiate of teh faith talent to the nature god or force of nature, etc .. try to allocate stats and choose powers effectively to suit whatever ideas I have (but in truth it's probably a bit of give and take since I don't know the powers .. each power you see becomes the new greatest idea until you flip the page ) ..

Anyway it was mostly I was wondering if I had missed something .. I am hoping after a few games i will get a feel for the balance and it will all sort it'self out.. i just cannot at the moment understand the 'vanilla' rules being balance in a 50% sorta ideal.

 

[Zsig]

There was a thread with statistics for the MM.

Maybe picking a single monster sample (as you did) might not do justice to what you're stating.

Lots of Statistics from the MM

Anyway, not that I think you're wrong, in fact, if what you're saying is truth, it kinda makes me worried...

 

[Roxlimn]

The Leaders should be helping you to overcome that bump. The AC vs. to-hit relationship is basically the same for Strikers.

 

[charlesatan]

The math is right. According to the DMG (p.184), the Defense of a Monster should be 40 at level 28. Using your calculations, you need a 12 or higher to hit the corresponding defense of a level 28 monster.

Mind you, you can get a higher chance if you started with an Int of 20 and put all your ability raises to Int (an Int of 28 gives you a +9 bonus BTW, not +8) or if you took the Demigod Epic Destiny (for an additional +2).

There's also a couple of powers that either add to attack rolls or lower the defenses of your opponents.

Also, analyzing the stats of monsters in the Monster's Manual, it's unlikely that you'll be able to hit every Defense of a monster outside of AC. A lot of monsters have high Fort for example while Will and Reflex tends to be a few points lower compared to their AC.

 

[theNater]

take a look at MM page 11 the Atropal (28) for example .. basically defenses are at 42 with a weaker reflex at 37.

So in a perfect world my 28 wizard (who started with an int of 20 .. unlikely) and bringing it upto 28 with stat bonus's along the way would have the following 'INT vs' attack:

+ Int (8) + Orb (6) + 1/2 level (14) = + 28

so hitting the one weakness of the monster (reflex) needs a 9+ on the roll but hitting the other defenses needs a 14+ .. there are other monsters of that level with say 45 scores so hitting those would be unlikely needing a 17+

Couple of things that make this less horrible.

The int of 20 at start becomes an int of 28 by level 28, which is +9, rather than +8.
The Atropal has a 42 AC, 42 fort, 37 ref, and 40 will.
With a +29 to hit, your character has a 50% chance to hit will(11+). Ref is a 65% chance to hit(8+), fort is a 40%(13+). Attacks that target AC are assumed to have a weapon proficiency bonus behind them, say it's +2 and you're at a 50% to hit AC. Targeting its weakness gives you better than 50%, targeting its strength gives you worse than 50%, and targeting its middling scores gives you exactly 50%. This seems quite reasonable to me.

Assuming the character starts with a 16 int, rather than a 20, he's got a 55% chance to hit reflex, a 40% chance to hit will and AC, and a 30% chance to hit fort. In this case, it is significantly more important to target the critter's weaknesses, rather than its strengths. But I think you're still in pretty good shape.

According to the DMG, when you make a monster into an elite, its defenses are increased. Given that the Atropal is an elite monster, I think your chance to hit is right where it should be.

My theory is that monster defenses are designed around the assumption that the PC's started with a 16 in their attack stat and increased it every time they got a chance. This is supported by the fact that the standard array tops out at 16 and is apparently intended to be viable for all race/class combinations, even those that do not provide bonuses to the attack stat.

 

[TarionzCousin]

The idea seems to be that you'll always have about 50% chance of hitting, at all levels, against enemies of the same level.

Is this the so-called "sweet spot"?