D&D 4E Is 4E doing it for you?

[Harlekin]

With quotes like this, I have to reiterate the monk phenomena in 3rd edition.

When 3e came out, there was a strong belief in the community (myself included) that the monk was obviously overpowered. I mean....look at all those abilities!! Yet with time, we all learned the painful truth that he was in fact a suboptimal class.

A lot of people have looked at 4th edition and concluded that you must have a 17/18 starting stat to be the least bit effective in the system. I think its too early to make such judgments. The game is still pretty new, and my guess is most people are trying out the 17/18 mainstays and have yet to experiment with more rounded builds.

Time will tell of course.


One thing I'm curious to see is how long the current point buy numbers hold out. As many polls have shown over the years, in 3rd edition a large percentage (not necessarily a majority) of groups that used pointbuy used a number higher than 25 point standard. Many used 28-32 points. I am interested to see if groups starting uping the points in 4e's buy as well.

Actually, if you think about it , it is pretty easy to assess the difference between having a +2 and a +3 in your primary (attack) attribute.

Assume (for simplicity) that a typical session in D&D will have 3 combats, lasting ~ 7 rounds each. Hence you will be making ~20 attack rolls. For each attack roll, the probability rolling the number that is a hit with the +3 bonus, but a miss with a +2 is 1/20.
Therefore a bonus of +1 is going to make the difference in 1 of those 20 attack rolls. So if you have a 14 in your primary attribute, you will on average miss once more per session than if you have a 16.

Of course you also deal one point of damage less per attack, but that is easier to equalize with feats and such.

 

[Harlekin]

Mallus,
I strongly believe 4E was designed that 90% of the player character design was done taking the mini/maxing into account for thier balance guide to the point that if you don't your odds of hitting actually go down as you increase in level. 4E is balanced so that someone can start a character w/ a 20 in a stat, put every increase they can into that stat with whatever allowable magic items at their disposal. If I tried building a fighter with a 15 str and only 5 of the stat improvements I'm behind 20% on my chance to hit and much more on my damage output prior to any magic items. This does affect how you want to design your character and it's career.

I'm not sure where you get to a difference of 20% in hit chance if you compare Str 15 to Str 20. Your bonus (across all levels) is +2.5 less than the Str 20 guy. That's about 12.5% hit chance, same as in 3.x. And the damage bonus is actually relatively minor, especially at higher levels. The damage difference is actually bigger in 3.5, where high Str can really push your damage through the roof.

 

[Spatula]

You'd have to elaborate, I haven't seen AV yet.

Apparently there are non-weapon/armor/neck items that provide passive untyped bonuses to your character's numbers in AV. I've seen mention of a belt that gives an untyped +2 bonus to your Fort defense.

 

[The Little Raven]

Apparently there are non-weapon/armor/neck items that provide passive untyped bonuses to your character's numbers in AV. I've seen mention of a belt that gives an untyped +2 bonus to your Fort defense.

Yes, there's a belt (Fortitude), boots (Reflex) and a head-piece (Will).

 

[Scribble]

But if the system isn't reorienting itself to take those bonuses into account, then you don't specifically "need" them right? They just make you a bit cooler? So it shouldn't be a problem?

Also a random bonus is kind of boring when other stuff lets you do fun things...

 

[mmu1]

I'm not sure where you get to a difference of 20% in hit chance if you compare Str 15 to Str 20. Your bonus (across all levels) is +2.5 less than the Str 20 guy. That's about 12.5% hit chance, same as in 3.x. And the damage bonus is actually relatively minor, especially at higher levels. The damage difference is actually bigger in 3.5, where high Str can really push your damage through the roof.

Sorry, but your math is off in both of your examples. Looking at a hypothetical case:

Fighter 1: 15 Strength, +7 to hit from level, strength and proficiency. Needs to roll an 11 or better to hit an average enemy of his level. 50% chance to hit.

Fighter 2: Same as Fighter 1, but with Str 20, so +10 to hit. Only needs to roll an 8 to hit the average enemy. 65% chance to hit.

65 is 30%[/i] more than 50. So a 30% higher chance to hit, which essentially means 30% more damage.

The exact difference will depend on enemy AC - the higher the AC, the bigger the advantage of the stronger character (when the 15 Str guy needs a 20 to hit, the 20 Str guy has a 300% advantage) but since enemy AC is pretty predictable in 4E, in reality it won't stray far from 30% in this match-up. And since to hit and AC scale at the same rate, it will stay pretty much constant across all levels.

Regardless, it's never as simple as 2.5 * 5% = 12.5%. That's simply saying that, with a +2.5 bonus, your roll on a d20 is going to be 12.5% higher, on average. That's not remotely the same thing as the chance to hit, or average damage output.

 

[Felon]

The point is that precision damage like Sneak Attack isn't backstabbing, and it suits the swashbuckling flavor fine.

Well, it's sneak-attacking, which includes--but by no means is limited to--stabbing a foe in the back. It does mean you're fighting in a pretty unsportsmanlike manner, attacking when the foe isn't on guard. That's what 3e's flat-footed and 4e's combat advantage conditions are about.

Of course, the flip side of that is, although fencing is considered a very sportsmanlike way to fight, it is pretty much about tricking your opponent, feinting until his guard slips you can stab him where it hurts. It's a sportsmanlike sneak attack.

Mallus,
As for class implementation 4E fighter now is purely a tank (first and foremost) nothing beyond that. I could take a 3.5 fighter make dex & con my main stats (guys is to be rather durable & agile) takes weapon finesse to make use of his dex, combat reflexes and combat expertise and I have a swashbuckler who is as durable as I want due to the fighter hp and agile & accurate and my str stat for this build is moot. Does this character become less effective? Only in regards to damage output, not accuracy or the ability to survive.

I think you can make a light blade fighter in 4e pretty easily. It's certainly even less rewarding than ever to invest in heavy armor if you have a decent Dex or Int. Just pick the light-blade powers and feats. You don't even have to sweat that pesky cross-class-skill bugaboo. Just train Arcobatics and you're done. Indeed, the very type of swashbuckler you're envisioning, who brashly challenges people to their face rather than fighting dirty, sounds very much like a defender.

 

[Darkthorne]

Harlekin,
My 20% (per single hit?) that I came up with is a start of 15 with 5 stat improvements becomes 20, while the guy that starts at 20 and uses all 8 improvements becomes 28. Whoever is better at damage calculations for an encounter please feel free to figure this out or to correct the frequency in which I would be dealing out damage per encounter please feel free (not something I've figured out how to do yet)
Thanks

 

[ExploderWizard]

I find exactly the opposite. The only thing I remember about my character that used random rolling was that he sucked relative to the other characters and wasn't much fun. All my PB characters were reasonably unique, within the limits of the type of characters I play.

Put another way, the rolled character, all I remember are the rolls. The PB character I remember the personality.

My point exactly. The game you rolled stats for was probably a typical -get good stats or suck, type of game. Everyone was better than you at everything central to the play of the game and it was no fun.

 

[Stalker0]

Actually, if you think about it , it is pretty easy to assess the difference between having a +2 and a +3 in your primary (attack) attribute.

Of course, but on the other hand you have to take into account all that you gain from putting points in other stats. Better social stats? A better reflex defense? Ability to gain some of those feats that require high secondary stats?

Of course having a high strength as a fighter will give you better attacks and damage. The real question is, can the strengths gained by putting points in other stats equate the weakness gained with losing points in strength? That is a question you can't solve completely with math, because its partly how much worth those values have to the player.