How 4th edition PCs scale - the actual numbers

[mkill]

If you have ever wondered how the 4th edition bonuses add up in the end, I have created this spreadsheet for you:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AhB04SnTO6iYdEdLUmVBaEtuTU8ybVMxWDVPVmg3c2c&hl=en

EDIT: Published as webpage now:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?...DVPVmg3c2c&authkey=CO-rnO4I&hl=en&output=html

I hope this shines light on a few issues.

I had to do a few assumptions:
* PCs will have access to a full set of +1 items at 3rd level, and the next plus each 5 levels after.
* Feats are taken as soon as they are available (I put the first Expertise feat at level 5, as few players would take it at first level, though)
* I did not include special bonuses like attack bonus from class or PP, non-neck-slot NAD bonuses, leader bonuses etc.

Things that I noticed:

* The expertise feats, questionable as they are, were a necessary fix. The same goes for masterwork armor and the +2 ability bonus for epic destinies. Both are necessary patches to keep scaling up, both are awful.
* Heavy armor users are screwed at epic levels. Even with masterwork, you come up 2 or 3 points short (especially right before you get +6 armor)
* NAD scaling is as borked as you'd expect it.

Discuss!

 

[MerricB]

Unfortunately, I don't have permission to access the spreadsheet.

Cheers!

 

[mkill]

Unfortunately, I don't have permission to access the spreadsheet.

Ok, I think I fixed that now. Please try again!
(Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with Google Docs)

 

[fba827]

while i'm unable to view the spreadsheet (permission error or something, might be my end, who knows).. nice work on the effort to lay it out like that.

one thing to keep in mind (and it is something you openly mentioned) - leader bonuses and such. the spreadsheet does look at it in a vacuum. but with other party members, you get flanking or other tactical benefits (like cover or concealment through terrain or powers), as well as bonuses to hit or defenses from leader-classed ally powers. True, such things are situational to the DM, the encounter, and even the party composition, but I've found that it does make a noticeable enough difference to where you don't need to feel like you have to take stuff like expertise feats, etc.

all that said though, nice work on putting something together to look at the ins and outs...

 

[MerricB]

Got it now. Interesting. What am I looking for again?

Cheers!

 

[mkill]

Over here I can access the file now when I am not logged in with my google account. Mhh. It should work...

As for leader bonuses, these are heavily situational. Not every group has a leader, and not every leader is specialized on handing out bonuses to attack and defense, and even then you don't always get the bonus. As I understand it, the system is supposed to even out that you have a 50%-60% chance to hit a monster of the same level across all 30 levels. The question is whether a standard, well-built character achieves that.

What am I looking for again?

Monsters scale at +1 to attacks and defenses at each level. The question is whether PCs with their mixture of half-level bonus, ability score increase, magic items and feats scale at the same speed or not.

It's also interesting for DMs, because they have to know at which level they should hand out what kind of items, and how tough monsters should be.

 

[eamon]

As for leader bonuses, these are heavily situational. Not every group has a leader, and not every leader is specialized on handing out bonuses to attack and defense, and even then you don't always get the bonus. As I understand it, the system is supposed to even out that you have a 50%-60% chance to hit a monster of the same level across all 30 levels. The question is whether a standard, well-built character achieves that.

Or, you know, what happens when the leader gets stunned or dominated...

For that matter, monster powers get nastier too.

 

[Ugghe]

Do you have a source for the "desired" 50-60%?
I find with my group they tend to lean closer to the 80% most of the time with my common monsters(their level) and that's without CA or Magic Weapon(best at-will in the game?)

Also, I don't think PCs being underpowered is much of a concern. Most popular blogs speaking to paragon / Epic gameplay agree that it is difficult to challenge PCs. WoTC seems to agree as MM3 hasa step up in damage esspecially at the epic levels.

 

[DracoSuave]

More importantly, it IS missing some important numbers that actually DO matter.

It's comparing the bonuses that you get to your level... but it's not actually comparing the expected hit rates against monsters of various levels, which is -far- more useful information.

In otherwords, it lacks mathematical rigor.

Here is the same spreadsheet for the attack and AC adds, and as you can see, it never dips below .50% to hit against a monster of equal level... and while heavy armor has a single spike -above- 65%, all in all, it actually comes out more favorably.

It proves two things.

1- Any theorycraft around 50% to hit is incorrect and needs to be scrapped based on failure to reflect what the math comes close to doing
2- There isn't a lot of variance for AC defenses for PCs, nor is there for attacks for Players.

NADS are a different story, but with NADs you're supposed to have an achilles heel.

 

[Jhaelen]

As for leader bonuses, these are heavily situational. Not every group has a leader, and not every leader is specialized on handing out bonuses to attack and defense, and even then you don't always get the bonus. As I understand it, the system is supposed to even out that you have a 50%-60% chance to hit a monster of the same level across all 30 levels. The question is whether a standard, well-built character achieves that.

And that's exactly the thing I've been criticizing from the very beginning whenever this issue comes up. You cannot expect to look at a single (averaged) pc against a single (averaged) monster on an empty, featureless plain dishing it out using only their basic attacks to serve as a meaningful basis for making accurate statements about a real encounter.

It doesn't make sense to use averaged assumptions about everything and then dismiss leader bonuses becaue there could be cases of parties without any leaders. That's exactly like dismissing weapon bonuses because there could be parties that choose not to use any kind of weapons. An average party is expected to include at least one leader, period.

I also disagree with the notion that the system is supposed to even out across all levels with a 50%-60% chance to hit a monster (especially when looking at the forementioned averaged single pc vs. a single monster).
When I made a similar (but slightly more elaborate) comparison using a sample party across levels 1-30 I came to the conclusion that the Expertise feats are _not_ required to keep the average attack chance constant. It's only when you start to ignore things like dailys, item powers, etc. that this appears to be the case, i.e. a too simple model.

Although, I have to admit that I was slightly disappointed to see that the July update proves that the designers seem to feel that monster damage should increase exactly as linear as attacks and defenses, i.e. +1 per level. This suggests, that at least one side of the equation is indeed intended to be constant across all levels.