• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

How 4th edition PCs scale - the actual numbers

Yes, PCs have many ways to change the odds in their favor, but so have the monsters. They can also stun or immobilize, provide combat advantage etc.

Stunning does not change the underlying chance for a PC to hit. Neither does immobilizing. Neither does forcing the PC to provide combat advantage. There are monsters who give PCs penalties to hit, but they are few and far between.

I think you're 100% correct about simpler/cleaner game design. I just don't happen to want absolutely simple game design; a bit of complexity makes it more interesting for me. I need enough complexity so that I don't wind up wondering why we're adding modifiers at all. After all, if they always just cancel out...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yes, PCs have many ways to change the odds in their favor, but so have the monsters. They can also stun or immobilize, provide combat advantage etc.

It is therefore much cleaner game design if basic scaling is kept balanced, and additional effects from tactics and powers are balanced against other tactical bonuses. (Whether the game achieved that is a different question).

The problem is, PCs are complex. Monsters are simple.

So in order to balance those two against each other, you either need level 30 PCs who only have 3 or 4 powers, or level 30 monsters who have 8 Utility Powers, 4 Daily Powers, 4 Encounters Powers, 3 At-Will Powers, plus countless feats, items, etc.

Alternatively, you can instead have both monsters and PCs scale evenly, declare that all feats, items and powers can never influences bonuses to hit and damage.

Ok, all of those clearly seem flawed solutions - or at least, ones that would provide a very different game than I am looking for in D&D.

That doesn't mean you can't find a compromise, and get the numbers closer while still allowing player options to influence them. But in 4E, monsters and PCs are designed differently, with different goals in each combat and different resources and options to throw against each other. This lets us have PCs who can fight in multiple battles, vs enemies that will only show up in one. This lets us have easy to run monsters to help the DM, while giving players room to expand their character both in design and in tactics on the field.

Analyzing the math alone without recognizing these differences can easily give one the wrong impression.
 

While the analysis is nice in and of itself, what is really necessary is for a DM to get to know his party.

You can build a level 4 encounter in many different ways. It might contain a level 6 soldier, some level 3 brutes or what have you, rather than simply being a straight '5 x level 4 monsters' encounter.

If you have a heavily optimised party, you can use more level + 2 or 3 encounters - for example. Not to mention the simplest case of have terrain that means your charge n slaughter barbarian has to throw rocks because he's got no way of crossing a ravine.

The core point people always, ALWAYS miss is that the RAW is the starting point, not the end point (even though this sentiment is stated often in RAW over every edition). If the math appears broken to your group you have to accept the possibility that the problem isn't the math, but your encounters, your group or some combination thereof.

As the OP states, his data is an average with various baseline assumptions. And thats what the rules are as well.

However, WotC can't release a rules fix for 'your players are :):):):):):) minmaxers' or 'your DM can't balance an encounter for the life of him'. So they do what they can. As has been lamented elsewhere, its obvious they pay attention to the optimisation boards and once they see something being horribly absued, they nerf it. Of course, your players might never have done anything like that and so it makes little sense to you, but its the rules lawyers who refuse to play 'fair' who cause the ruckus of needing bonus to compensate for x, y or z.

Or something like that! ;)
 


@Dracosuave: Thanks, it works now!

Yeah, this level of theorycraft gets you basically nowhere. It confirms what we already know, which is that the numbers scale fairly proportionally for levels 1-30.

It's one thing to have the designers claim that the game scales fairly proportionally, and another to sit down and check the numbers :)

It happened several times that I mentioned to people that the game is balanced around a 50%-60% to hit chance (w/o leader bonuses etc.), but I got blank stares and disbelief several times. There are enough DMs out there who are not aware of the basic monster math as per DMG 184 and how PC numbers are supposed to relate to it.

So this thread isn't aimed at charoppers who can calculate the DPR of a 5th-level half-orc barbarian in their head, but at the rest of us.
 

Ya. I have had a hard time reconciling "we need these extra +s" with "our 21st level party just wiped the floor with Orcus". What gives?

Orcus is a terribly designed solo, one of the worst in 4E and suffers numerous chronic flaws that make him the high level "slapper" of 4E.

1) He's a brute designed under the old maths. He has poor attacks and equally poor defenses. With attack penalties and bonuses, he's trivial to hit and will actually have a hard time attacking many well built defenders.

2) His powers suck. Yes he can drop a PC to zero HP. Big deal, this is epic tier when people aren't staying dead for very long anyway. In general though, he has no resistance against daze or stun, does not have anywhere near the actions a solo needs and he does miserable damage for his level.

3) Essentially, he boils down to a massive bag of easy to hit HP that is barely threatening.

While PCs are far harder to challenge with MM1/MM2 creatures because they haven't kept up in damage. They scratch PCs barely with each attack. It is telling that once you fix the damage expressions of even some of the worst MM1 creatures, they become significantly more threatening and actually contribute meaningfully to "team monster" in epic tier. When you consider the far better designed powers of MM3 creatures - and MM2 creatures as in many ways outside of damage there is nothing *wrong* with them at all - the effect is that combat is far more challenging.

Now if you remove the expertise feats and similar, making it harder for PCs to hit you suddenly swing things back the other way. In my experience, level 25 PCs losing that +3 to hit makes a massive difference in combats. Remember that monsters aren't plinking away at PCs for absolutely no damage anymore. Every hit can take a substantial amount of HP and dropping PCs is pretty common in an EL + 2 or EL + 3 encounter after level 25 or so. When you miss with an important power, you pay for it far more dearly in epic than you did previously. In some ways, the expertise feats I don't feel were required before and now they are.

When you're looking at a brute whose turn is right after yours and you miss him with that daze/stun power, your wizard is eating dirt next turn. That brute monster won't flail at you pathetically for 15ish damage now (I'm not even kidding, some epic MM1/MM2 brutes do *that* pathetic damage). He's going to thump the crap out of you for 40+ points of damage, if you're lucky. Combined with aura damage stacking, better powers and similar, that brute can annihilate you now where before it wasn't worth considering as a meaningful threat. Relying on PCs needing combat advantages and bonuses from leaders just to hit, would make epic tier swing well back towards being too hard.

Right now I think it's almost perfectly balanced. PCs can hit monsters, monsters can hit PCs and both sides are dealing good damage to one another. EL, EL +1 and EL +2 encounters are relevant, challenging and work far better than they ever did before at high paragon/epic. I think if we start doing things like throwing away expertise, we'll make it so that PCs are actually going to struggle at epic with many monsters. I give expertise out for free at level 5 and since MM3, I've been mauling my epic party in EL0 and EL+1 encounters. Sapping -3 to hit off their powers doesn't seem constructive at this point.

Personally, I think DnD is a more fun game when both sides are hitting one another and dealing damage. Instead of PCs flailing ineffectually at monsters and monsters scratching PCs for barely any damage for eight to ten rounds.
 

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
Just noticed something here when playing with this for how to address the issue in my own game: even "dump stat" NADs should get +1 from ability score at level 21. The +1 to all ability scores from Paragon and the +1 to them from Epic add up to a shift of 1 bonus.
 


Just noticed something here when playing with this for how to address the issue in my own game: even "dump stat" NADs should get +1 from ability score at level 21. The +1 to all ability scores from Paragon and the +1 to them from Epic add up to a shift of 1 bonus.

Good point. I updated the chart. I also changed the layout a bit to increase readability. Numbers that don't signify an increase are greyed out now. I also added a row for the difference between pc and monster.
 

Good point. I updated the chart. I also changed the layout a bit to increase readability. Numbers that don't signify an increase are greyed out now. I also added a row for the difference between pc and monster.
Ooh, that's pretty cool. Thanks!

If you're including all the math-fix feats, should Robust Defenses replace Paragon Defenses at Epic, changing that row to +2 at 21?
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top