Level scaling

[Kraydak]

So. 4e is proud of its math (and, conceptually, I agree that the flat advancement is an improvement). But what happens in practice?

From the DMG, it is clear that NPC attack/defenses are supposed to scale as 1*level. How about PC attack/defenses? They get:
0.5*level (base scaling)+0.2*level (+1 enhancement/5 levels) + 0.15*level (3 stat points in primary stats/10 levels)=0.85.
Armor scales better:
light armor scales the best (+2 masterwork/30 levels=+0.067) for 0.917 while heavy armor gives
0.5+0.2+0.2 (masterwork, not stat)=0.9*level.

Masterwork armor is problematic though in how uneven the bonuses are: you get a full *+4* to AC going from +3 heavy to +4 heavy (and, with the scaling, it will take you from sucking to on par). Further, in the above I assumed you get a primary stat to every defense. Clearly, you don't. Feats can help (1 AC point from an armor spec, 2 defense points from the paragon defense feats), but non-primary stat defenses are hopeless and the armor spec feats have brutal requirements.

0.85 =/= 1. Is this important? Well, by level 13/14 the party is 2 points worse compared to same level NPCs than they were at lvl 2 or so. By lvl 28 it's 4 full points. Even 2 points is big on a d20, and 4 points is huge. This applies to both offense and defense too. So if at levels 2-3 the party is facing off against lvl+2 foes, at lvl 13-14 they should be facing off against lvl foes and by lvl 28 they should be facing off against lvl 26 foes. In the recent podcast, PCs in the mid-teens are facing off against +3ish foes and having a very hard time hitting: +3 for level difference + 2 for differential scaling=NPCs have +5 to hit and AC. No wonder the podcast fight was boring.

In sum: 4e math, despite being supposedly fixed, still breaks over large level ranges. The theoretical level range of 4e is easily large enough for 4e's math to break. In the paragon tier, the increased number of per-encounter/dailies may make up for worse to-hits/defenses, but by the epic tier you have a choice of facing off against lower-level foes or whiffing continuously and falling into at-will grind-fests. As if the padded-sumo effect wasn't bad enough.

 

[Destil]

Feats, better powers and paragon path/epic destines abilities are supposed to make up the remaining difference. Though in most cases it's conditional...

 

[Regicide]

Did you add on the +1 to hit per 5 levels from magic weapon?

I don't know about the balance, although I'm sure by 30 you'll have such a broad selection of powers you can break something regardless, but looking at it the discontinuities in power at level 10 and 20 are huge and have to be taken into account by the GM.

 

[jeff0]

I worked through the same analysis yesterday and got similar results. Though I'll point out that Light and Heavy armor scales at the same rate (though at different times), assuming that the light armor user is raising Dex/Int at every opportunity.

Light improves by 2 (masterwork) + 4 (Int/Dex) + 6 (magic item) = +12.
Heavy improves by 6 (masterwork) + 6 (magic item) = +12.

I agree with Destil, in that other things make up for the small gaps between PC and monster advancement.

The other important thing to note, is that monster defenses don't go up by exactly 1/level. Or at least not for dragons (hopefully other monsters work similarly). As dragons age, most of their defenses increase by 1/level. Each type seems to have weak defenses, which advance slightly slower. Some also have strong defenses which advance a tad faster.

At higher levels, attacking the weakest defense becomes a lot more important, both for the PCs and the monsters.

 

[ki11erDM]

Feats, better powers and paragon path/epic destines abilities are supposed to make up the remaining difference. Though in most cases it's conditional...

Yea you can't level out that stuff when you calculate the math and those things will not be known until we all play level 1 to 30 in an organic way. I don't think it is going to be perfect... but it is definitely looking better.

 

[ki11erDM]

Oh and you are also missing the fact that, according to the DMG, a monsters attacks and defenses are based on its role as well as their level and abilities. And you are also missing the fact that most of the monsters in the MM don’t follow the rules in the DMG… which I have complained about a half dozen times on these boards. So your math can only reliably be used for DM made monsters that have not been modified by waving your hand over them a few times.

 

[Kraydak]

Feats, better powers and paragon path/epic destines abilities are supposed to make up the remaining difference. Though in most cases it's conditional...

They might be supposed to, but they simply don't. You have what? +1 AC from feat (armor spec), +1 AC from PP *if* you try for it (Pit Fighter/Warpriest). +2 to defenses. Nothing to hit. The deficit you are trying to make up at lvl 30? 3 points for AC (unless you are a light-armor, non dex/int pumper, in which case it jumps to 6)/4-5 points for pumped defenses/7-8 points for unpumped defenses/unpumped attacks.

It isn't "conditional" it's "under no conditions".

 

[Zsig]

From the DMG, it is clear that NPC attack/defenses are supposed to scale as 1*level. How about PC attack/defenses?

Just remember though that this rule only applies if you want to mod the monters up or down 5 levels. If you go beyond that you'll screw the math. And that's why they tell you to start with another creature.

Before going on with this discussion, try leveling up a level 1 kobold to level 30 and see how it compares to another monster of lvl 30.

 

[Victim]

Just remember though that this rule only applies if you want to mod the monters up or down 5 levels. If you go beyond that you'll screw the math. And that's why they tell you to start with another creature.

Before going on with this discussion, try leveling up a level 1 kobold to level 30 and see how it compares to another monster of lvl 30.

The lack of high epic monsters that aren't solos are elites makes that comparison more difficult. Plus there's monster roles.

We could compare level 2 Kobold Dragonshield to the 28 Efreet - both normal monsters, both soldiers.

Kobold @ level 2:

HP 36.
AC 18, F 14, R 13, W 13
Trap Sense +2, Resist 5 (one type based on dragon), speed 5

Sword attack: +7, 1d6+3 and marked
Dragonshield Tactics
Shifty
Mob Attack

Kobold @ level 28 (+26 levels)

HP: 244
AC 44, F 40, R 39, W 39
Sword Attack: +33, 1d6+16
everything else is the same

Efreet karadjin level 28
HP 260
AC 44, F 45, R 42, W 42
Immune to fire, speed 6, fly 8 (hover)

Scimitar attack: reach 2, +27 v AC, 2d10+9 dmg (6d10+29 crit), +1d10 fire, and ongoing fire damage stuff

Fiery Vendetta: (IR, foe within reach attacks ally, at will): scimitar attack

Elemental Command (minor, at will) allied elemental creature within 10 shifts

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Leveling up a monster using the formula doesn't produce a monster that's too strong. It produces one that's too weak! The kobold has weaker defenses, weaker mobility, worse resistances. The Efreet's sort of marking like ability seems much better. The Efreet hits harder - its vanilla damage is about the same, but has a high crit type ability, bonus fire damage immediately, and ongoing fire 15+immo with another ongoing fire 15 as an after effect. The kobold is more accurate though, but his attack still seems weaker considering the huge difference in damage.

Monsters are supposed to get MORE than the basic +level to their big stats in special abilities, bigger weapons, etc.

It isn't "conditional" it's "under no conditions".

Not really, since groups are supposed to be picking up power bonuses to various stats during the encounter from each other's special abilities. For instance, a 16th level Battle Captain is passing out his INT mod as a power bonus to attacks on an ally as a minor action while healing them.

 

[Rith the Wanderer]

Leveling up a monster using the formula doesn't produce a monster that's too strong. It produces one that's too weak! The kobold has weaker defenses, weaker mobility, worse resistances. The Efreet's sort of marking like ability seems much better. The Efreet hits harder - its vanilla damage is about the same, but has a high crit type ability, bonus fire damage immediately, and ongoing fire 15+immo with another ongoing fire 15 as an after effect. The kobold is more accurate though, but his attack still seems weaker considering the huge difference in damage.

Monsters are supposed to get MORE than the basic +level to their big stats in special abilities, bigger weapons, etc.

Well I wouldn't go that far, of course his abilities are going to suck, there isn't really anything thats upping his abilities in the level up process. Notice that their ACs are the same, the efreet has higher defenses, and the kobolds to hit is much higher. Those are really all this thread is about. The fact that the kobold's to hit bonus is so much higher (6 is a lot!) makes me feel better about the enemies hitting the PC's too much. The defenses means that PC's may be hitting the enemy less as they level up.

However I think a better thing to do is just to stat up the important things on a high level character and compare them to high level monsters in the MM. For level 30 I got the following without any conditional bonuses:

+29 or +31/32 to hit (second is with a proficiency bonus of +2/+3)
AC: 45 for heavy ; 43 for light assuming an attack stat in Dex or Int
Good Defense: 39
Medium Defense: 37
Crap Defense: 32

Now this is without any feats, racial abilities, or anything else besides, half level, stat, and magic items. Going through the 30th level monsters (all two of em) is fairly promising that the math is not in fact broken(considering the fact that they're both solos). Scaling down a couple levels yields similar results. Don't take my word for it though, go check it out, if you find anything thats extremely different from low level play, post it.