Invincible PC's

[Storminator]

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.

Unless it's stun, you could just suck up the status effects and cope...

PS

 

[Ryujin]

Unless it's stun, you could just suck up the status effects and cope...

PS

I try but as a striker who needs to spend a minor on getting my damage range where it should be even a daze is painful, and drags out combat. Dazing attacks seem to be a dime a dozen, based on the number of times that I've been under that condition. Really, I suppose, that's the only condition that gives me serious grief.

Immobilized/grabbed/restrained don't mean a lot to me because my character is a Feylock/Darklock that now has an at will teleport 3 in order to counter those specific effects. When I get the chance to pick up an additional item that will likely become a teleport 5.

 

[KarinsDad]

Unless it's stun, you could just suck up the status effects and cope...

Ongoing damage adds up.

The action economy loss with Daze adds up for non-ranged PCs unless they are in a position to charge.

Immobilize tends to be tougher on spell casters (or other ranged attackers) who cannot teleport. It limits them to either AoOs or non-ranged attacks if melee foes are next to them.

Slides and pushes can put PCs into flank or into hazardous terrrain.

Weaken can seriously drop the damage output of the PCs.

Fortunately, Stun is relatively rare.


Having this done over and over again round after round to your PC, quite frankly, sucks.

The bottom line is that it's just plain not fun. It's one thing to "suck it up" in a single encounter. It's another to do it every encounter where the weak NAD or NADs are targetted and almost always hit. That might only be one encounter in four, but it still sucks when it happens.

 

[Ryujin]

Ongoing damage adds up.

The action economy loss with Daze adds up for non-ranged PCs unless they are in a position to charge.

Immobilize tends to be tougher on spell casters (or other ranged attackers) who cannot teleport. It limits them to either AoOs or non-ranged attacks if melee foes are next to them.

Slides and pushes can put PCs into flank or into hazardous terrrain.

Weaken can seriously drop the damage output of the PCs.

Fortunately, Stun is relatively rare.


Having this done over and over again round after round to your PC, quite frankly, sucks.

The bottom line is that it's just plain not fun. It's one thing to "suck it up" in a single encounter. It's another to do it every encounter where the weak NAD or NADs are targetted and almost always hit. That might only be one encounter in four, but it still sucks when it happens.

Just having two encounters in a row that had FOR targeted daze effects was truly painful. I was all but useless in that entire session of play. I think that I got one full round of actions in when the DM rolled a 2 and 3 to hit me, from the two creatures that were attacking me.

I might agree with those who think that having two average numbers to be hit and one easy one wasn't all that bad, if it wasn't for the fact that the bad one doesn't scale equally with the OK ones. By Epic I would think that most PC's bad NAD has become an auto-hit (except on a natural 1).

 

[keterys]

Making some semi-reasonable assumptions, that a specific FRW is only targeted about one in five attacks (because there are four defenses, and treating AC as being targeted twice as often), then a +1 to your lowest FRW results in being hit 1% more often (in total, not relative).

While certainly not worthless, I could see the sentiment as being not worthy of any sacrifice (ie, from points in another stat, which was the discussion).

I also thought that the +1 per tier to FRWs proposal was to catch up all of the FRWs in the same manner as expertise, _not_ to also compensate for the +3 to +4 difference between lowest and highest FRW that happens naturally due to ability score increases. To do that, you'd need to give out +1 per tier to the top two and +2 per tier to the bottom, and the example +1 to your lowest would only be 1/6th of the solution for that single FRW and 1/12th of the solution for all of them.

Again, not worthless, but understandably considered fairly insignificant.

 

[Ryujin]

Making some semi-reasonable assumptions, that a specific FRW is only targeted about one in five attacks (because there are four defenses, and treating AC as being targeted twice as often), then a +1 to your lowest FRW results in being hit 1% more often (in total, not relative).

While certainly not worthless, I could see the sentiment as being not worthy of any sacrifice (ie, from points in another stat, which was the discussion).

That can be very dependant upon the role of the character in question. A defender might see 3/4 of the attacks he deals with be against AC. As a ranged striker I don't think that I've been targeted via AC in the last 6 encounters. Lots of FOR, some REF, and a couple of WIL, but no AC. We just don't seem to be dealing with a lot of archers.

I also thought that the +1 per tier to FRWs proposal was to catch up all of the FRWs in the same manner as expertise, _not_ to also compensate for the +3 to +4 difference between lowest and highest FRW that happens naturally due to ability score increases. To do that, you'd need to give out +1 per tier to the top two and +2 per tier to the bottom, and the example +1 to your lowest would only be 1/6th of the solution for that single FRW and 1/12th of the solution for all of them.

Again, not worthless, but understandably considered fairly insignificant.

Having a NAD that's effectively zero is hardly insignificant when compared with as little as a 4.

 

[keterys]

Apparently I had replied into the wrong one of the two threads about FRWs being hit too easily.

So, I was responding to the concept of how much a +1 to the lowest FRW is worth. Or to ways to deal in general. Hope that helps. Feel free to ignore.

That can be very dependant upon the role of the character in question. A defender might see 3/4 of the attacks he deals with be against AC. As a ranged striker I don't think that I've been targeted via AC in the last 6 encounters. Lots of FOR, some REF, and a couple of WIL, but no AC. We just don't seem to be dealing with a lot of archers.

Of course it can. And if the ranged characters get threatened by melee monsters and have to deal with OAs, the amount they deal with AC will climb sharply. And some ranged characters even invite OAs, etc.

But, there is a reason I said 'semi-reasonable'. As an average for dealing with a group it's a reasonable approximation.

Having a NAD that's effectively zero is hardly insignificant when compared with as little as a 4.

Well, the comparison in question would be going from a 0 to a 1. Which would be _truly_ insignificant, though I rather imagine in this case that's overblown and it's more likely going from a 3 to a 4 or a 6 to a 7.

Much like in another thread where a DM said that the +3 from expertise wasn't meaningful because attacks always missed by 5, the human mind easily turns 'hit 75% of the time' into 'hit 95% of the time'.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think one of the things that 4e tends to do is exaggerate the differences in EVERYTHING. In a sense its good because otherwise things tend to not stand out and the game is "larger than life" so the guy with the monumental WILL should stand out a LOT from the guy with the weak WILL.

Of course there is the question of whether or not this variation ends up being viable in a game where you have to play through 100's of encounters vs a movie where its one or two scenes that make the point.

And then finally the question of whether or not "hard to hit" should be 10 or 15 and easy should be 5 or 10 to be the most fun for the players. Hard to say.

Overall I fall into the camp that feels like both the base numerical progression is too large over 30 levels and ability score increases just shouldn't exist.

I'd like to point out though that there are a good number of item based options for increasing defenses, like Masterwork NAD bonus armors, etc. Obviously everyone has a neck slot item, but how many characters are using magic shields? How many have head slot defense boosting items?

I get the feeling that a lot of these 4e difficulties exist because the players focus on hitting harder and doing more damage and the DM simply responds with bigger and badder monsters that have higher defenses. Pretty soon everyone thinks they have to have a totally boosted primary attack stat and everything else falls by the wayside. I've consciously been taking my game in the opposite direction and using a lot more weaker monsters. It means the PCs can spread out their stats more, that helps their defenses, etc. Now when a tough monster comes along, its memorably tough and not just the 4th level + 5 beast they fought that day.

 

[Turtlejay]

Ongoing damage adds up.

The action economy loss with Daze adds up for non-ranged PCs unless they are in a position to charge.

Immobilize tends to be tougher on spell casters (or other ranged attackers) who cannot teleport. It limits them to either AoOs or non-ranged attacks if melee foes are next to them.

Slides and pushes can put PCs into flank or into hazardous terrrain.

Weaken can seriously drop the damage output of the PCs.

Fortunately, Stun is relatively rare.


Having this done over and over again round after round to your PC, quite frankly, sucks.

The bottom line is that it's just plain not fun. It's one thing to "suck it up" in a single encounter. It's another to do it every encounter where the weak NAD or NADs are targetted and almost always hit. That might only be one encounter in four, but it still sucks when it happens.

Leaders buff, debuff, and heal to allow PC's with their sub-par defenses to survive encounters. If the party is never in danger, then the Leader is never needed. Party members being hit is what makes the Leader effective, just like enemies being hit is what makes the striker effective. What good are bonuses to save, healing surge triggers, and buffs to defenses if the math is normalized already? The default assumption is that every party will have each role covered in some manner. The *math* may be off, but that might be because the Leader should be included as a variable in those equations:

1st level Fort Defense = 10+(Str or Con)+(Class bonus)+(Leader effect)

Not because he actually gives you a concrete, measurable bonus to Fort, but because through retroactive means (healing, status effect recovery, tactical positioning, etc) he minimizes the effect that an attack on Fort has.

My worry with houserule 'fixes' is that they can snowball into houserule 'disasters'.

Jay

 

[Ryujin]

Apparently I had replied into the wrong one of the two threads about FRWs being hit too easily.

So, I was responding to the concept of how much a +1 to the lowest FRW is worth. Or to ways to deal in general. Hope that helps. Feel free to ignore.



Of course it can. And if the ranged characters get threatened by melee monsters and have to deal with OAs, the amount they deal with AC will climb sharply. And some ranged characters even invite OAs, etc.

But, there is a reason I said 'semi-reasonable'. As an average for dealing with a group it's a reasonable approximation.

Well, the comparison in question would be going from a 0 to a 1. Which would be _truly_ insignificant, though I rather imagine in this case that's overblown and it's more likely going from a 3 to a 4 or a 6 to a 7.

Much like in another thread where a DM said that the +3 from expertise wasn't meaningful because attacks always missed by 5, the human mind easily turns 'hit 75% of the time' into 'hit 95% of the time'.

Sorry, but I'm having trouble reconciling this post with your comments in the other thread, in which you say that going from a 4 to a 7 is significant. Perhaps I'm just not seeing your point? The issue, as I see it, is that several points of the weak defence are effectively 'lost' through the levels, creating a situation where the weakest defence is essentially automatically hit.