Level scaling

[On Puget Sound]

You're leaving out party synergy, which advances with higher-level powers. Buffs, debuffs and conditions inflicted by other party members will almost always boost your attacks and defenses beyond what's figured in this thread. Most parties will have much more synergy than most NPC groups, since as they work and level together they will choose complementary powers and discover tricks for using them together. Occasionally a GM will build a truly synergistic group of foes, and those encounters will be memorable and tough.

 

[Kraydak]

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.

Yup.
Look at the dragon: to hit you need a 16 to hit vs AC, forget about fort. At best, you are looking at needing a 13 (Will). Remember, Solos only get +2 to 3 defenses.
What was I predicting? 0.15*lvl lag. At lvl 30, this is 4.5. From a rough starting point of 50% (you hit slightly better than that at low levels, against even opponents). I nailed it.
How about the dragon's attacks? He needs an 8 (6) to hit vs AC, 4 vs good defenses, misses on a 1 versus non-good defenses. For AC, I predicted a 0.1*lvl=3 shortcoming. Solos get no bonuses to hit. I nailed it. Same with the other defenses (only a larger shortfall).

In conclusion: I nailed it. Against a level even foe, accounting for the +2 to 3 defenses, the party is at a net -7 to 8 relative needed to-hit numbers, and is missing continuously.

Do feats help? Not really. The +2 to F/R/W might get you out of "miss on 1" status. Armor Spec still leaves you very badly off. There isn't much (anything) for to-hits.

Now, at low levels, parties frequently find themselves facing opponents of higher level (very, very frequently). The Dragon, however, is powerful enough *already* that any modifications to his level have a huge effect because he is near the edge effects of needing 20s to hit him. A lvl+2 solo is doable for a lvl 1 party. Here however, the melee types are going to be needing *18*s to hit an advanced to lvl 32 dragon, dropping melee offense by *40%*.

One of the advantages of keeping to-hits near 50% is that you are not overly sensitive to small bonuses. In 4e's Epic tier, the attempt to stay near 50% has failed, and modifying monster levels becomes very, very dangerous.

 

[Jhaelen]

In sum: 4e math, despite being supposedly fixed, still breaks over large level ranges.

Agreed.

The theoretical level range of 4e is easily large enough for 4e's math to break.

Disagreed.

The pcs start off stronger than monsters. That's why they can typically beat encounters of up to their level+4. After thirty levels things might be more difficult (though I doubt it), but it will just mean their starting advantage will have been used up.

Players will also typically use better tactics resulting in circumstantial bonuses. AND a standard party will have at least one Leader. Clerics and Warlords will easily even the odds against monsters. Monster leader effects are typically minor (amounting to a +2 bonus) by comparison.

It's extremely rare for monsters to be able to use their healing surges. They typically cannot use second wind. That's a major disadvantage that has to be balanced out somehow.

 

[Branduil]

Yup.
Look at the dragon: to hit you need a 16 to hit vs AC, forget about fort. At best, you are looking at needing a 13 (Will). Remember, Solos only get +2 to 3 defenses.
What was I predicting? 0.15*lvl lag. At lvl 30, this is 4.5. From a rough starting point of 50% (you hit slightly better than that at low levels, against even opponents). I nailed it.
How about the dragon's attacks? He needs an 8 (6) to hit vs AC, 4 vs good defenses, misses on a 1 versus non-good defenses. For AC, I predicted a 0.1*lvl=3 shortcoming. Solos get no bonuses to hit. I nailed it. Same with the other defenses (only a larger shortfall).

In conclusion: I nailed it. Against a level even foe, accounting for the +2 to 3 defenses, the party is at a net -7 to 8 relative needed to-hit numbers, and is missing continuously.

Do feats help? Not really. The +2 to F/R/W might get you out of "miss on 1" status. Armor Spec still leaves you very badly off. There isn't much (anything) for to-hits.

Now, at low levels, parties frequently find themselves facing opponents of higher level (very, very frequently). The Dragon, however, is powerful enough *already* that any modifications to his level have a huge effect because he is near the edge effects of needing 20s to hit him. A lvl+2 solo is doable for a lvl 1 party. Here however, the melee types are going to be needing *18*s to hit an advanced to lvl 32 dragon, dropping melee offense by *40%*.

One of the advantages of keeping to-hits near 50% is that you are not overly sensitive to small bonuses. In 4e's Epic tier, the attempt to stay near 50% has failed, and modifying monster levels becomes very, very dangerous.

Dragons are supposed to be deadly. And frankly, if your PCs aren't at least trying to flank the dragon for combat advantage they deserve to die.

 

[ravenight]

In conclusion: I nailed it. Against a level even foe, accounting for the +2 to 3 defenses, the party is at a net -7 to 8 relative needed to-hit numbers, and is missing continuously.

Do feats help? Not really. The +2 to F/R/W might get you out of "miss on 1" status. Armor Spec still leaves you very badly off. There isn't much (anything) for to-hits.

There are a ton of powers that give party members to-hit bonuses and even a few that give them to yourself. Combat advantage and buffs are how you fight higher level monsters, which you can easily work to your advantage because of improved mobility and powerful PP and ED features.

There aren't a ton of ways to improve defenses, but if you look at the monsters (like that efreet vs. the scaled-up kobold), you'll see that they toned down its to-hit to the point where it easily falls in the right range (it gets worse vs. AC and pumped defenses, slightly better vs. unpumped defenses).

The upshot is that your claims based on comparing stats of monsters against the minimum solo PC are meaningless. If you play some level 28 battles out and find that they are too difficult for PCs, then there's something to talk. Without that, you have no idea.

 

[krakenstar]

I think the OP has something. Mathematically speaking, without taking into account of powers and synergy of party members, you will have a harder time as levels progress upwards.

It means that party optimization is very important in 4E as you reach higher levels. It will be more important for characters to pick powers that makes the party more effective, as suppose to making themselves more effective. They might even have to pick powers that have synergy to powers of other members - to work as a wolfpack sort of speak.

If you don't pick the right synergy powers for your PARTY, and don't work together to SWIFTLY change the odds of the battle fight off the bat, you'll have a damn hard time.

I think that horrid 15th level paragon fight podcast from wizards is a great example of the mess a party can quickly get into. I recall the warlock rolling decent rolls (low teens) and was dismayed that her attack missed. They were everywhere, each person trying to tackle their own "kill" 3E style. If they all just surrounded the mind flayer round one and just focused 100% of their damage on it after the rogue DROPPED the flayer round one. Think about how much damage their action point invoked attacks would have done on an easy target instead of missing on a 50%+ chance.

A well crafted party is greater than the sum of their parts.

 

[Rith the Wanderer]

Yup.
Look at the dragon: to hit you need a 16 to hit vs AC, forget about fort. At best, you are looking at needing a 13 (Will). Remember, Solos only get +2 to 3 defenses.
What was I predicting? 0.15*lvl lag. At lvl 30, this is 4.5. From a rough starting point of 50% (you hit slightly better than that at low levels, against even opponents). I nailed it.
How about the dragon's attacks? He needs an 8 (6) to hit vs AC, 4 vs good defenses, misses on a 1 versus non-good defenses. For AC, I predicted a 0.1*lvl=3 shortcoming. Solos get no bonuses to hit. I nailed it. Same with the other defenses (only a larger shortfall).

In conclusion: I nailed it. Against a level even foe, accounting for the +2 to 3 defenses, the party is at a net -7 to 8 relative needed to-hit numbers, and is missing continuously.

Do feats help? Not really. The +2 to F/R/W might get you out of "miss on 1" status. Armor Spec still leaves you very badly off. There isn't much (anything) for to-hits.

Now, at low levels, parties frequently find themselves facing opponents of higher level (very, very frequently). The Dragon, however, is powerful enough *already* that any modifications to his level have a huge effect because he is near the edge effects of needing 20s to hit him. A lvl+2 solo is doable for a lvl 1 party. Here however, the melee types are going to be needing *18*s to hit an advanced to lvl 32 dragon, dropping melee offense by *40%*.

One of the advantages of keeping to-hits near 50% is that you are not overly sensitive to small bonuses. In 4e's Epic tier, the attempt to stay near 50% has failed, and modifying monster levels becomes very, very dangerous.

Did you look at the Tarrasque? the melee guys need an 11 to hit AC, you're not touching his fortitude(this is nothing new for brutes, fortitude is impossible to hit on them for casters, even at low levels) and you need to roll a 9 to hit reflex, and a 3 to hit will. He will be hitting AC on an 11, and with his fortitude and reflex abilities (one being recharge, the other provoking OA's) he has to roll between a 5 and 7, depending on defenses of the one being attacked. So...yeah, on the dragon, hes difficult to hit, but if you look at any other dragon it is just as bad at any tier. If you look at the tarrasque hes right in the 50% range for AC and easier on the easy two saves. Try scaling down a little (and realize that there are absolutely no situational modifiers being applied to this math, which at high levels will be much more common than at low levels). Scaling down to 29 or 28 means that the PCs lose one to hit and one to each defense, the enemies(by the DMG formula) are losing at least that much, so really the PCs are going to be better off than they are at 30.

 

[Kraydak]

Did you look at the Tarrasque? the melee guys need an 11 to hit AC, you're not touching his fortitude(this is nothing new for brutes, fortitude is impossible to hit on them for casters, even at low levels) and you need to roll a 9 to hit reflex, and a 3 to hit will. He will be hitting AC on an 11, and with his fortitude and reflex abilities (one being recharge, the other provoking OA's) he has to roll between a 5 and 7, depending on defenses of the one being attacked. So...yeah, on the dragon, hes difficult to hit, but if you look at any other dragon it is just as bad at any tier. If you look at the tarrasque hes right in the 50% range for AC and easier on the easy two saves. Try scaling down a little (and realize that there are absolutely no situational modifiers being applied to this math, which at high levels will be much more common than at low levels). Scaling down to 29 or 28 means that the PCs lose one to hit and one to each defense, the enemies(by the DMG formula) are losing at least that much, so really the PCs are going to be better off than they are at 30.

Tarrasque=Brute. Brutes are high hp, high damage/hit, low attack pinatas by design. Compared to lower level brutes, the Tarrasque is very hard to hit.

The funny thing about saying that feats/powers make up for it: they don't. It is that simple. A Warlord *can* give you some decent bonuses (the higher bonus given at high levels basically lets 1 party member make up the lost ground and get the same effective bonus he would have at lower levels, *if* the Warlord hits), but that (1) requires you having a Warlord who focused on giving to-hit bonuses and (2) suffers because the warlord generally needs to hit AND only helps one party-member. If your idea of "it works" is "if you have a Tactical Warlord, with Stir the Hornet's Nest, AND he hits, AND you have a ranged-oriented party, AND are fighting 1 encounter/day then it works", I confess to being unimpressed.

4e is *very* stingy with to-hit and armor bonuses. Most of the ones that exist are of the 1 round duration, on a hit variety. Of course, you aren't hitting much, so it doesn't really work very well. I was initially very sceptical about the +full extra stat to hit/defense powers, because they could be scaled way up. I was wrong. The scaling they get serves (almost exactly) to counter the PC stat shortfalls vs. NPCs, IF they key off a pumped stat. You don't get those powers on every attack, or even many attacks. But that is what you are looking at: those who claim that powers make up for the scaling are assuming that you are benefiting from the +extra (pumped) stat to attack/defenses, almost all the time. Good luck with that. Maybe a full party of Clerics and Warlords could pull that off for almost a full encounter, if they were willing to blow most of their dailies.

 

[AllisterH]

Tarrasque=Brute. Brutes are high hp, high damage/hit, low attack pinatas by design. Compared to lower level brutes, the Tarrasque is very hard to hit.

The funny thing about saying that feats/powers make up for it: they don't. It is that simple. A Warlord *can* give you some decent bonuses (the higher bonus given at high levels basically lets 1 party member make up the lost ground and get the same effective bonus he would have at lower levels, *if* the Warlord hits), but that (1) requires you having a Warlord who focused on giving to-hit bonuses and (2) suffers because the warlord generally needs to hit AND only helps one party-member. If your idea of "it works" is "if you have a Tactical Warlord, with Stir the Hornet's Nest, AND he hits, AND you have a ranged-oriented party, AND are fighting 1 encounter/day then it works", I confess to being unimpressed.

4e is *very* stingy with to-hit and armor bonuses. Most of the ones that exist are of the 1 round duration, on a hit variety. Of course, you aren't hitting much, so it doesn't really work very well. I was initially very sceptical about the +full extra stat to hit/defense powers, because they could be scaled way up. I was wrong. The scaling they get serves (almost exactly) to counter the PC stat shortfalls vs. NPCs, IF they key off a pumped stat. You don't get those powers on every attack, or even many attacks. But that is what you are looking at: those who claim that powers make up for the scaling are assuming that you are benefiting from the +extra (pumped) stat to attack/defenses, almost all the time. Good luck with that. Maybe a full party of Clerics and Warlords could pull that off for almost a full encounter, if they were willing to blow most of their dailies.

Er, isn't this the exact reason why Blade Cascade "Breaks". The fact that PCs CAN get high to-hit beanies.

 

[Norhg]

Er, isn't this the exact reason why Blade Cascade "Breaks". The fact that PCs CAN get high to-hit beanies.

I would say that the reason Blade Cascade breaks is the shoddy math behind it.
I suppose the +attack bonuses being available is a good argument in this discussion.

Calling it "the exact reason for blade cascade breaking" is pretty much nonsensical. Blade cascade is broken both when you have a low chance to hit (where it is by far the worst daily) and a high chance to hit (where it is by far the most damaging).