Non-AC Defenses

[AbdulAlhazred]

I wouldn't see DCs ever changing based on character levels, no. The concept is that the higher level PCs just do things that are more difficult in general. The level 1 PCs might socialize with commoners and low level thugs etc. The higher level PCs are more likely to have to deal with sophisticated nobles and master thieves and such.

There are times when gaining information CAN require die rolls, its fine. The plot just has to be structured to allow for other ways to either get the information or go ahead without it. I suppose the DM could drop plot hooks based on die rolls too, but it just means enough of them will have to be available that the party will grab one and the DM has to be ready to roll with whatever comes up.

It all depends on game style. If its a linear type adventure then its pretty much pointless to roll for stuff like that.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I also noticed that WotC uses far fewer stat prereqs now: Primal power has only two such feats, and one of those is Hide Armor Expertise (which grants Con mod to AC instead of Dex/Int), and the prereq of just Con 15 is probably there to protect the player, rather than anything else. I don't think the game'll break by removing stat prereqs altogether, but if you're worried, you could raise prereqs by 1 point per tier, which should keep prereqs out of hands of those that haven't invested anything. There's just so many decent feats to choose from by now, that I don't think a few more options is going to be problematic.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the concept of stat prereqs. The way they have been used is frequently not so good. The real issue was always excessive feat synergy. Its great in theory to think that bonus type stacking would deal with that, but the sheer number of feats in the game means the designers no longer have a firm grip on what might combine with what else. Plus they basically blew that whole concept by simply releasing so many untyped bonus feats.

I'll agree though that it makes just as much sense in most cases to simply use other types of prereqs. The one issue with that is insisting on certain classes or certain other feats narrows the utility too much in many cases and also doesn't allow for future uses when new stuff comes out. Stat prereqs has the advantage of avoiding that.

 

[eamon]

No, they don't. From an absolute standpoint they are identical (+/-5%). From a relative standpoint, small additions to low defenses mean you're not affected a greater percentage of the time (+1 = +100% more misses) and small subtractions to high defenses mean you are affected a greater percentage of the time (-1 = +100% more hits). Vice versa if you flip the bit. So it's all a matter of perspective for what you're looking for. Which means absolute is the most useful for discussing effects.

The effect of a +1 on defenses vs. a status effect is only identical in an absolute sense when considered over the span of one round. However, D&D combat continues until one combatant loses. Effects such as daze hurt your chances of success by making you easier to hit (this is comparable to receiving damage) and by making you less effective (this is comparable to dealing less damage).

Imagine two combat scenarios, both being barely fairly balanced. In one scenario you are almost always hit, and in the other you are rarely hit. All else being equal, if in one combat you get hit every time, you will die earlier than in a combat in which you are rarely hit. Now, if your defenses change by one that has some absolutely identical effect in both high-hit and low-hit scenarios.

The same absolute effect will however occur fewer times in a combat where you are hit with high probability since that combat is shorter. Ergo, the +1 to defenses will matter more often in a long battle than a short one, and thus will matter more when you defenses are high than when your defenses are low.

Further, there are tactical reasons why a change in high defenses matter more. Many buff/healing powers can ameliorate an effect; but these are usable only a limited number of times. For instance, a halfling's second chance is worth more when the reroll has a high probability of missing. Many leaders can remove a save-ends effect, but can do so only once (or some limited number of times) - so these powers become a more effective stopgap when the base defense is already good.

Effects do muddy the waters: but I'm convinced that for (most) effects too, changes to low defenses matter less than changes to high defenses.

 

[keterys]

Further, there are tactical reasons why a change in high defenses matter more. Many buff/healing powers can ameliorate an effect; but these are usable only a limited number of times. For instance, a halfling's second chance is worth more when the reroll has a high probability of missing. Many leaders can remove a save-ends effect, but can do so only once (or some limited number of times) - so these powers become a more effective stopgap when the base defense is already good.

This is the singular point I can agree with - Second Chance is more effective when your defense is high.

Given that increasingly high defenses can result in you not being hit by a status effect at all, your argument about ameloriating effects only being available a limited time does not justify increasing higher defenses more. If anything, it suggests increasing lower unless all of your defenses are sufficiently low that you're going to get hit by that status effect multiple times (which is totally possible).

Effects do muddy the waters: but I'm convinced that for (most) effects too, changes to low defenses matter less than changes to high defenses.

I believe that you're correct in two very specific cases:
1) Your defenses would be hit on a number lower than a 2 if that were possible (extremely high level, or DM/module using monsters too high level)
2) You have a plethora of make an attacker reroll an attack powers

Which I suspect are not actually the reasons you're selling.

Let's take a theoretical 10 round combat against a solo in which every round it does a stun attack on two people.

The first is hit on a 3 (90% chance to be hit). The second is hit on a 11 (50% chance to be hit).

So, the first is being stunned 9 of 10 rounds at the moment. Which sucks, oh boy. The second is being stunned 5 of 10 rounds at the moment. Which still sucks, but is significantly less annoying.

If you gave both +4 to the defense in question, the first would no longer be stunned in 2 rounds. And the second would no longer be stunned in 2 rounds. Absolute effect, identical.

This would change their rounds of usable combat from 1 to 3 (+200% rounds) or 5 to 7 (+40%) respectively. Comparative effect, to the lower defense.

In terms of effectiveness, the first guy is now unstunned long enough to get to throw out his strongest encounter powers. The second guy gets to throw out two additional at-will powers. Comparative effect, to the lower defense.

I'm not entirely sure how you'd quantitate fun between the two - but I can say that I suspect being able to act two more times would probably remove a lot more of the frustration from the 1/10 guy than the 5/10 guy. Purely cause he'll have a lot more frustration built up. So comparative effect, to the lower defense.

So, simple example in which improving the lower defense was more useful. And there are lots of others. The warlock or ranger who gets dazed less so they can quarry more, which is hardly something they need to do every round. The fighter who gets immobilized less so he can get into melee then lock something down. These are things where being near autohit is potentially crippling and being able to avoid that for just a few rounds is a fantastic boon.

I don't actually advocate boosting lower over higher - I'm more disputing your claim that higher clearly over lower.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There is one thing i want to throw in:

Monster design has a big flaw:

there are no mnsters which are harder to hit and hitting worse or easier to hit and hiting better.
Without this strict rule, i assume there would be less balance debates. (I browsed through MM2 and nearly always def is 9 points higher than attack bonus) IMHO they are overusing the math. And to be on topic: make lower defenses count against many monsters.

 

[Chimera]

Read part of the first page the other day and part of this page (5) today.

All I can say is that if you are routinely throwing enemies at a 15th level party that have +22 attacks against non-AC defenses, then you're doing something wrong.

It's not the defenses that are the problem, it's the GM that thinks this is SOP.

Once in a while, solos, bosses? Yup.
Every combat? What the blankety-blank is wrong with you?

 

[KarinsDad]

All I can say is that if you are routinely throwing enemies at a 15th level party that have +22 attacks against non-AC defenses, then you're doing something wrong.

It's not the defenses that are the problem, it's the GM that thinks this is SOP.

Once in a while, solos, bosses? Yup.
Every combat? What the blankety-blank is wrong with you?

The problem isn't with +22 versus NADs at level 15 (although that's ridiculous). It's +17 with a recharge area attack with a same level monster.

Only 34% of Paragon level monsters in the Monster Manual have AC-only attacks. 66% of them have one or more attacks that target a NAD.

So, the DM can either not use monsters that target NADs, or he can use them.

The typical range of the worst NAD at level 15 is from 20 to 25 (10 starting stat +3 item through 13 starting stat +4 item +1 race +1 class).

The range for level 15 monsters is +16 through +20. So, the +16 hits on a 4 through 9. The +20 hits on a 2 through 5. The average +18 hits the average NAD 22 on a 4. Note: few PCs have bonuses to race and/or class in their worst NAD.

These are same level monsters out of the MM. And, it's ~2/3rds of the monsters (at Paragon level) out of the MM.

Is the DM just supposed to throw out these monsters and not use them?

For the 15 15th level monsters, there are:

2 no NAD attacks
1 +17 encounter area effect
1 +17 recharge area effect
1 +16 encounter area effect
1 +18 at will single target, minor
1 +19 at will single target plus
  +19 encounter area effect plus
  +19 recharge area effect
1 +20 immediate reaction at will single target no damage plus
  +20 recharge area effect plus
  +20 encounter area effect
1 +18 at will single target plus
  +18 encounter single target no damage plus
  +18 recharge area effect
2 +18 recharge single target
1 +20 recharge single target
1 +20 at will single target no damage, minor
1 +19 encounter area effect no damage
1 +16 at will single target plus
  +20 two times per encounter single target plus
  +20 recharge single target

Only 13% of these monsters do not target NADs. Should the DM not use most of the other 87% of them?

And, these are same level monsters. What about higher level monsters? Should the DM never use higher level monsters that target NADs?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There is one thing i want to throw in:

Monster design has a big flaw:

there are no mnsters which are harder to hit and hitting worse or easier to hit and hiting better.
Without this strict rule, i assume there would be less balance debates. (I browsed through MM2 and nearly always def is 9 points higher than attack bonus) IMHO they are overusing the math. And to be on topic: make lower defenses count against many monsters.

I can identify with this sentiment. In old D&D there was no particular relationship between offense, defense, hit dice, etc. This did give you a wider array of tactical possibilities (which the rudimentary combat system promptly made mostly irrelevant, but that's another story). Giants for instance had lots of hit dice and did high damage but generally had relatively poor defenses.

Of course the problem was it was pretty hard to gauge the threat level of individual monsters and any given monster or combination of monsters could be all over the map. Even fairly low level parties could take on a hill giant. It was risky, but if you could stay out of club range killing it was actually pretty trivial. Now put the same monster in the midst of even a few fairly low level archers and all of a sudden it could be a huge threat. Not to say some of the same considerations don't apply in 4e, but with all monster attributes in lockstep with each other you never get the chance to face something that's easy to hit but has loads of hit points or vice versa.

Its kind of a trade off, but I do miss that aspect of old style monsters sometimes. I guess one answer is to simply ignore the monster design guidelines at times, but it would be nice if that was an acknowledged option that some official monsters employed.

 

[KarinsDad]

Of course the problem was it was pretty hard to gauge the threat level of individual monsters and any given monster or combination of monsters could be all over the map. Even fairly low level parties could take on a hill giant. It was risky, but if you could stay out of club range killing it was actually pretty trivial.

Agreed.

We once had a 3E encounter with zombies outdoors. Since the zombies only got a single action, they moved. The PCs used their move to back up and stay basically the same distance away and then fired ranged attacks. The zombies were stupid, so they kept on approaching. The damage reduction turned it into a longer encounter, but there was no danger.

The same encounter in a smaller room would have been a lot more challenging.

 

[Jhaelen]

From a player's perspective, that seems like an unnecessary limitation of options. Why do this?

1. Because that's what's the PHB suggests.
2. Because it protects careless players from creating unbalanced characters.

This is also completely unreasonable. The low NAD's are not due to player decisions but due to an imbalance in the base game.

Well, that's YOUR opinion

the vast majority of characters have no real options to avoid being trivially easy to hit for the vast majority of NAD-targetting monsters

Do you have any proof?

If the sample characters I created and the actual character my players created are any indication, it's a small minority that doesn't have any real options to keep their lowest defense high enough to make a difference.

The only one of my sample characters that had a problem with a low NAD, was the artful dodger halfling thief. It may just have been coincidence, but this character also happened to have the best chance to hit.

In fact, the character's to hit chance was so good (around 90% until mid paragon tier), it would probably have been better if I had spent more resources on trying to up his low defense instead of always going for options that increased his attacks.