Invincible PC's

[ValhallaGH]

Monster success rates are where you want player success rates to be, for general enjoyment (60-70%). Most people feel successful, increasing the fun, when they succeed in that 60-70% range. If the PCs are actually succeeding about that amount then the game math is pretty good.
Defensively, success is being missed. Getting hit as much as 50% is okay as long as you can't suddenly go from decent (right around bloodied) to dead.

Hit points have a job, to survive when you do get hit. Their job isn't to soak every single monster attack roll. And they do nothing to compensate for the status effects that accompany most high-level attacks.


It's true that the d20 is a big variable, but that doesn't matter much when discussing the relative differences in defenses.
If the difference in defenses is +3 to +5, that is meaningful and noteworthy without being crippling. A foe that will hit your weak defense on a 7+ needs a 10 or 12 to hit your strong defenses. That's playable, and that is usually the difference in ability score bonuses.
If the difference in defenses is +10 or more then there is too much differentiation. This enters into the can't miss / can't hit range, and that gets to be no fun to run or play.

Limiting the range of potential bonuses while still having enough increase to eliminate potential threats is the goal of any sort of Defense analysis.
The enemies have Level + X to hit (about +3). So, a good defense for any given level should be around Level + 15. A weak defense should be around Level + 11.
Assuming an ability bonus differential of +4, the basic defense calculation should be about Level for either defense.
The system gives you 5/10 level + 2/10 level (magic). Characters automatically get 7 / 10 level to all defenses. It expects characters to use feats or specialty items to make up the difference ( 3 / 10 levels). So by the end of Heroic tier each PC should have found some way to add +3 to their off defenses. By the end of Paragon, this is up to a +6 total. By the end of Epic, it should be up to a +9 total. This use of feats and non-neck items should finally get PC defenses to the point they are supposed to be at.

Unfortunately, the feat bonuses are +0 Heroic, +3 Paragon, and +11 Epic, after spending a total of 11 feats (over half of total feats). Only +9 at Epic for a "mere" 8 feats (almost half of total feats). This uses up half your character customization options to soak up the design difference between enemy attack progressions and PC defense progressions.
Without these feats, your defenses will sit around 7/10 Level + 15 (good) or + 11 (weak). While the monsters of your level start able to hit this on a 11+ / 7+, they end able to hit this on a 2+ / -2+. Monsters of higher levels, or using good tactics to get higher bonuses, will have correspondingly better attack rates.
They go from reasonable to certainty, assuming no PC feats are spent on increasing those defenses.



That's as much a weakness as Superman's vulnerability to kryptonite. This, making assumed and necessary numbers part of the "optional" advancement, is a major design oddity. It's counter-intuitive and generally lessens the fun of high level play.
Is it a surprise that people are trying to fix it?

 

[Rothe_]

It's true that the d20 is a big variable, but that doesn't matter much when discussing the relative differences in defenses.
If the difference in defenses is +3 to +5, that is meaningful and noteworthy without being crippling. A foe that will hit your weak defense on a 7+ needs a 10 or 12 to hit your strong defenses. That's playable, and that is usually the difference in ability score bonuses.
If the difference in defenses is +10 or more then there is too much differentiation. This enters into the can't miss / can't hit range, and that gets to be no fun to run or play.

Actually the problem is that the d20 range is too small. The bonuses reach the extremes too fast when you go towards epic levels.

 

[CapnZapp]

Does nobody think that having a weak defense is perhaps a good thing, and maybe a deliberate decision?

Well, if a "weak" defense was getting hit on perhaps a 5 or a 7 (with no special focus on boosting it), then yes.

As it is, however, the game heavily favors the specialist over the generalist.

It is very easy to create a character whose "weak" defense is always hit (except on natural 1's).

Not only does this feel wonky ("why even roll?") but the game offers very little reward for diverting your focus away from your strengths to strengthen this "weak" defense in any appreciable way.

Even if you spend several feats on the "weak" defense, you're likely to end up with something monsters will still almost always hit, so why bother?

The only solid way of getting a better defense is to devote stat increases to either of the two base abilities. And that the game simply discourages - you need those stat increases for your primary attack stat and your secondary "rider" stat and/or AC defense.

The cost of boosting your "weak" NAD simply is too great, especially when you consider the very piddling returns you'll get on that investment.

So if the baseline for a "weak" defense was, say 5-10 points higher than it is, then yes, I'd agree it would be a good thing to have a weak defense.

As it is, it feels as if there's something wrong with the game when your characters almost always end up with defenses that are lower than the attack bonuses of the monsters you're supposed to encounter.

 

[Johnnii]

One thing:

At the end of Heroic (this was before PHB2), my players complained that they always got hit in the NADs (and they did). And yet, they plowed through encounter after encounter with VERY few times that they "sweat".

I'm wondering, despite getting hit in the NADs constantly, is there a need to fix this "issue"? Aren't we DMs already having a hard time enough challenging the PCs (without the need to make every encounter Level+3 and beyond that) without these boosts to NADs and Hit bonus?

 

[keterys]

Oh, you might end up wanting to increase a bunch of damages as well. But working the game towards a happier medium is a good thing.

Fwiw, constantly throwing overleveled encounters is part of the problem, creating near autohit situations.

 

[Ryujin]

One thing:

At the end of Heroic (this was before PHB2), my players complained that they always got hit in the NADs (and they did). And yet, they plowed through encounter after encounter with VERY few times that they "sweat".

I'm wondering, despite getting hit in the NADs constantly, is there a need to fix this "issue"? Aren't we DMs already having a hard time enough challenging the PCs (without the need to make every encounter Level+3 and beyond that) without these boosts to NADs and Hit bonus?

Unfortunately it's a bit of a spiral. People make heavily specialized and optimized characters that hammer through encounters, so the encounters are made tougher. The tougher encounters require tighter specialization in order to be as successful, which in turn breeds even tougher encounters.

Someone like me, whose character is two down on hits as designed for role play, gets left in the lurch. My character's FOR is a modest 24, at level 16. That's with Great Fortitude tossed into the mix also. In most encounters I seem to get hit on 2-3. My higher NADS are WIL 28 and REF 29. I seem to get hit on those on 8-10. Those seem to be pretty good defence numbers. Conversely I frequently need 13+ in order to hit the opposition; 16+ for the tougher guys.

It makes for a bit of a disconnect. Shouldn't the higher NADs be HARD to hit?

You don't foster role play by punishing those who design characters that have more flavour, but *slightly* less specialization.

 

[Storminator]

Oh, you might end up wanting to increase a bunch of damages as well. But working the game towards a happier medium is a good thing.

Fwiw, constantly throwing overleveled encounters is part of the problem, creating near autohit situations.

Is lower hit chances but higher damage a happier medium? It would make combat more swingy, and on an unlucky day that means dead PCs.

My experience is closer to what Johnnii describes. I get hit in the Ref defense all the time. Frequently a 2 hits me (no class bonus, no stat bonus, no shield, no neck slot item... I think I have the minimum possible defense). Yet of all the times I've gone down, and all the times we've nearly tpked, no one ever said "if your reflex was higher this would be easier!"

PS

 

[Storminator]

It makes for a bit of a disconnect. Shouldn't the higher NADs be HARD to hit?

I think the high NAD should be average to hit, and the low NADs should be easy to hit, considering that damage is pretty low. It makes it more like a timer - can you win before everyone's hp gets worn thru?

PS

 

[Ryujin]

I think the high NAD should be average to hit, and the low NADs should be easy to hit, considering that damage is pretty low. It makes it more like a timer - can you win before everyone's hp gets worn thru?

PS

The problem with that, as I see it, is you need to spend significant effort and resources on countering status effects, rather than trying to just avoid being hit in the first place.

 

[eamon]

Actually the problem is that the d20 range is too small. The bonuses reach the extremes too fast when you go towards epic levels.

I don't want to derail the thread; but when it comes to defenses, the fundamental d20 mechanic favors the specialist over the generalist: raising a high defense helps more than raising a low defense (in terms of rounds-before-death). Strategy might mitigate that a bit; were it not that most creatures (even PC's, and certainly monsters) don't really have much choice on which defense they want to target.