Non-AC Defenses

[Starfox]

I have a Rogue and a Bard (homebrew Dex bard build) that have one persistent complaint; their Fortitude defense sucks beyond mortal comprehension. I banned the worst Feat-Tax feats, saying I'd hand these out free if needed, but their problem goes beyond this.

At level 15, both these worthies have a Fort defense of around 20. This means many of the critters they are fighting hit them on a roll of -2 or better (of course, a 1 is always a miss). In order for their Fort defense to be even marginally effective, they need a five point improvement, which is beyond what any of the feat tax feats gives.

Their reaction to Fortitude attacks is one of boredom; there is nothing they can do against them, so they see themselves as irrelevant against such attacks - especially controlling Fortitude area attacks, such as poison gas clouds.

I believe both these characters have a Con of 11 (they both had 18 for a prime stat), but that should not completely disqualify them from ANY chance to defend against Fortitude attacks.

So, is this a common phenomena? Is there some obvious rule I missed? Even with an 18 Con and the +2 to all defenses feat, they would still be hit by Fortitude attacks on 4+. Is this intended?

 

[Kzach]

Y'know, I haven't really looked that hard at characters beyond 11th or so level 'cause I very rarely ever get to play that high. But I've seen people mention that the math is off and it wasn't until reading this thread and checking for myself that I've seen just how bad it is. By mid paragon, characters who don't take the extra AC and NAD feats are at a severe disadvantage and even if they do take them, they're still behind the curve.

I've only had a cursory look through the monster builder and character builder for comparison so it's too early for me to be pissed off, but damn, if these numbers I'm seeing pan out and are accurate, then I have to say, that's pretty goddamn piss-poor.

 

[Tuft]

Here are the numbers for the bard in question:

Lvl 15 homebrew Cha/Dex bard variant

Cha is primary attribute, Dex secondary, Int tertiary (since I wanted to focus on arcane rituals) .

Str 11 (Start 10, +1 levels)
Con 11 (Start 10, +1 levels)
Dex 20 (Start 14, +2 race, +4 levels)
Int 14 (start 13, +1 levels)
Wis 9 (start 8, +1 levels)
Cha 24 (start 18, +2 race, +4 levels)

The defenses become:

Fort 20 (base 10, +7 levels, +0 attribute, +3 amulet)
Ref 26 (base 10, +7 levels, +5 attribute, +1 class, +3 amulet)
Will 28 (base 10, +7 levels, +7 attribute, +1 class, +3 amulet)

If my vague recollection is correct, a controller's to-hit is level+6.

That means that a level+1 controller hits me on:
Fort: -2+
Ref: 4+
Will: 6+

The fort defense might be from dumped attributes - but ref, my second-best defense, which is from my second-best attribute, which has been built on every chans I got, is hit on a 4+?

 

[CapnZapp]

Interesting - just wrote a reply on this exact issue in another thread.

Yes, it seems that it is real easy to find yourself in a situation where monsters regularly hit your worst NAD on a 2.

I am too handing out +1 to +3 at levels 5/15/25 not only to attacks but to NADs as well. Threads like this make me seriously consider not removing any of the NAD feats as I have removed the Expertise feats.

It also makes me more interested in a tweak run by KD and perhaps others: allowing stat increases to three stats instead of two. (This makes it possible to keep up all three NADs if you want to. In addition to making it easier on the MAD people)

 

[Tuft]

Interesting - just wrote a reply on this exact issue in another thread.

Yes, it seems that it is real easy to find yourself in a situation where monsters regularly hit your worst NAD on a 2.

I noted this post by you too:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4t...nster-level-monster-number-2.html#post4977987

Could it be that another reason that higher level monsters are non-threatening and boring that they cannot dish out more damage by hitting better, as the to-hit is already as good as capped at max?

 

[CapnZapp]

I would phrase it differently - I would say that too many monsters simply aren't threatening enough. Something is wrong when players aren't impressed with your damage output even if we assume you always hit with every attack. (Not to mention the feeling of powerlessness this imposes)

A monster that often misses but does whopping damage when it does hit simply comes across as more dangerous. Of course, this behaviour is exactly what 4E set out to remove from the game, because some people can't handle getting their character killed by a few unlucky rolls.

 

[Johnnii]

Here are the numbers for the bard in question:

If my vague recollection is correct, a controller's to-hit is level+6.

Nope. A Controllers to hit is L+4 (L+2 with burst/blast/area/etc attacks)
Which instead would be:

Fort: 0+ (2+ Area)
Ref: 6+ (8+ Area)
Will: 8+ (10+ Area)

 

[Runestar]

This seems to be the case. Your character will typically have 2 excellent defenses (the 2 governed by your 2 key stats) and 1 poor defense.

I am not sure if it was intentional or a design oversight though.

 

[D3nt3]

Usually your race and class are intended to boost some defenses and suck at others.

If you have +0 from attribute bonus and no bonuses from classes, your math will simply be 10+ half level and you will be easy target for such spells.

If monsters can hit a rogue's fortitude it will, because they know they will miss against its reflexes.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Maybe they overcompensated swinginess from 3.5 to 4e.

But its nothing which can´t be fixed in DMG and MM 3.

Maybe you could try something like a power attack. (-4 to hit, double damage) or double number of attacks, at -4. It is more or less like using two monsters with the same total xp. (lower hp, but you can´t negate half of the attacks by reducing one monster to 0 hp)

Or you could use following instead of doubling monster numbers:

Improvised elite: Double attacks, two saving throws, double hp. If the monster gets bloodied, normal number of attacks and saving throws)