Non-AC Defenses

[AbdulAlhazred]

Having needed to roll a 20s on saves vs death in 3e... the math was totally off. It really, really, really was. It's not worth trying to bring it up in any kind of defense and you'll only hurt your case. People play all editions of dnd, and palladium, and champions, and all kinds of stuff.

People even play Monopoly.

Well, it isn't totally irrelevant. It kind of supports the contention that having situations where you can't succeed or can't fail aren't necessarily major impediments to the actual play of the game.

It may also point up something else though. There is a different attitude towards 4e defenses than previous-E saves. It actually DID kind of feel different. For one thing saves were never a guaranteed thing that you got against every spell/effect/whatever. I always felt like when I got a save it was sort of a perk. Like, "wow, I actually get to try to avoid some of this damage/horrible fate/whatever, that's nice!" Its not especially rational and not in essence different from someone having to hit you in the NADs in 4e, but it still FELT different. In 4e when the DM says "the monster hit you" its like "Oh oh" and when it hits you 6 times in a row it does start to evoke a negative reaction. I think saves were just psychologically different and so needing a 20 to make a save was less of a "problem".

And lets face it, there were a LOT less saves required (at least before 3e, I'm not really qualified to comment on 3.x) back in the day. MOST monsters simply did HP damage, a lot of saves were for damage reduction, and a lot of stuff simply didn't even grant a save at all. I don't seem to recall very many whole nights of gaming where my character in 2e had to make more than a handful of saves and loads of times it would be <2 in a session. I don't have an actual breakdown on the ratio of monsters that impose conditions in 4e and attack NADs but its a pretty significant number and you can expect it to happen to your character pretty close to every encounter. Sometimes a LOT.

For instance I ran an encounter the other night vs my 7th level player's with 2 phase spiders, a blade spider, a Neldrazu, and a bloodweb spider swarm (there were some traps too). Its a pretty reasonably themed encounter, terrain was good, it played out OK, but man were the PCs making saves left and right. None of the conditions for failure were too dire (phase spider knocked out the wizard on round 1 and she failed 3 saves in a row was as bad as it got). That's maybe on the high side even for 4e, but it does illustrate how prevalent conditions are. Admittedly these were all attacks vs AC, so its not quite germane to the NAD discussion, but does illustrate the importance of not getting hit in general.

 

[eamon]

It may also point up something else though. There is a different attitude towards 4e defenses than previous-E saves. It actually DID kind of feel different. For one thing saves were never a guaranteed thing that you got against every spell/effect/whatever. I always felt like when I got a save it was sort of a perk. Like, "wow, I actually get to try to avoid some of this damage/horrible fate/whatever, that's nice!" Its not especially rational and not in essence different from someone having to hit you in the NADs in 4e, but it still FELT different. In 4e when the DM says "the monster hit you" its like "Oh oh" and when it hits you 6 times in a row it does start to evoke a negative reaction. I think saves were just psychologically different and so needing a 20 to make a save was less of a "problem".

Even basic spells like magic missile back then didn't have a save. Most damage spells did half damage on a save. 4e's just different like that; only rare powers (namely dailies) tend to have any miss:half damage effect, and alway-hitting stuff is exceedingly rare. Also, 3e was set up (or evolved into, however you want to look at it) a kind of cat and mouse game: saves were nice and all, but you couldn't rely on them, so instead you'd have a million and one other ways of circumventing effects. You'd avoid being targetted in the first place with low-level things like mirror image, you'd have some reaction power that teleported you away, you'd have an item that granted blanket immunity to a whole class of effects, or you'd ensure that at least the rest of the party could continue without you.

Many 3e save-or-dies weren't really death's anyway, more like save-or-lose. Quite often, if the rest of the party could still win, you could be rescued: e.g. Dominate person was 1 day/level, and insta-lose, but as long as the party succeeded in killing the controller, you could be rescued at their leisure after combat.

Basically, the consequence of a save was quite different, and not at all comparable in a straightforward manner to 4e NADs. 4e doesn't have the same immunity/specialization aspect, and combats are much longer. It's not expected for effects to simply take you out of combat.

Frankly, if every nad-targeting monster power always hit the game would remain playable. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, however; it'd mean you need to start the typically 3e convention of very solid tactical preparation prebattle - since any fight vs. opponents that impose crippling conditions would then be instantly lethal.

 

[keterys]

When I played 3e, we had a DM for one (of many) campaigns who would make very challenging threats - like an enemy NPC who'd circle of death our 9th level PCs and I'd need a 20 to succeed on the save.

So as fast as I could, I responded to his tactical challenge and I began obtaining immunities. By the end of the campaign, I was personally immune to crits, stun, paralysis, and an energy... and I was handing out to the entire party immunity to death, mind effects, and 2-5 energies. I also want to say that I had crazy AC and touch AC somehow. One of the other guys had immunity to poison and fear for the party. I also had some Elminster spell that would create metal spheres that would absorb spells I didn't like, a weapon that would reflect dispels targeted on me, and I think I had something that would block mordenkainen's disjunction somehow. I could still fail saves, but they were no longer relevant because the game was entirely different.

But, I mean, we still played. Even if I do think it was completely broken. It was still fun to get together and roll some dice.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

When I played 3e, we had a DM for one (of many) campaigns who would make very challenging threats - like an enemy NPC who'd circle of death our 9th level PCs and I'd need a 20 to succeed on the save.

So as fast as I could, I responded to his tactical challenge and I began obtaining immunities. By the end of the campaign, I was personally immune to crits, stun, paralysis, and an energy... and I was handing out to the entire party immunity to death, mind effects, and 2-5 energies. I also want to say that I had crazy AC and touch AC somehow. One of the other guys had immunity to poison and fear for the party. I also had some Elminster spell that would create metal spheres that would absorb spells I didn't like, a weapon that would reflect dispels targeted on me, and I think I had something that would block mordenkainen's disjunction somehow. I could still fail saves, but they were no longer relevant because the game was entirely different.

But, I mean, we still played. Even if I do think it was completely broken. It was still fun to get together and roll some dice.

Yeah, like I said, I didn't play 3.Xe basically at all, so my comparison is more to the "classic" days of OD&D/1e/2e where saves were fairly uncommon. Most monsters didn't wield spells or "SLAs" and those which did usually had one or two such abilities. As stated above, a lot of it was "save for half damage" or something like that. When you DID make a save it was pretty important, but I just don't recall it being something that happened constantly like 4e hitting you in the NADs. It just gave a different feel. The thing that WAS significantly different though was that level wasn't generally a factor. If you had a 14 to save vs Poison it didn't really matter what poisoned you, the save was 14 (there were "extra nasty" things that hit you with a penalty, but it wasn't scaling by level in any sense).

 

[keterys]

Umm, yes, pre-3e saves are a very different beast from 3e saves. DCs scaled, you could have massive differences between characters in the same party (like someone needs a 2, another needs a 20)

The main thing older D&D saves did was make 'save or suck' conditions apply much more frequently at lower levels than they did at higher. I was a lot more worried about raw damage on my high level 2e character than I was about saves vs death. After all, only 1 in 20 chance to fail those. But at low level - oh god, it's a carrion crawler. Oh god, it's a rot grub. Oh god it's a damn kobold with type E poison

 

[KarinsDad]

There's something I still don't get about these discussions:
In 3E, the equivalent of non-AC defenses were the saving throws. Why didn't anyone think it was a problem that many classes only had a single (or even two) strong saving throw(s)?

The standard reply, I guess, would be: 'because everyone knows, that 3E math was totally off!' Which makes me wonder how we could play with this system for ten years (and still are).

You are forgetting that 3.5 had an additional correction factor pre-feats and pre-items that 4E does not have: Prestige Classes.

Main Class, level 7, +5 good save, +2 bad save 1, +2 bad save 2
Prestige Class level 8, +2 good save, +2 bad save 1, +0 bad save 2

Bad Save 1 could be bumped up. In one level, they went from 5/2/2 (without stats) to 7/4/2. A couple of more Prestige Classes and all three could be decent. A couple of magic items and weak stats could be boosted. There were Wishes and magical books that could permanently boost stats even more.

Additionally, 3.5 had all or nothing protection magic. Sure, the 40th level Red Dragon had a Frightful Presence DC 38, but PCs had more or less immunity to Fear effects up by the time they ran into that level Red Dragon.

A Young Adult Red Dragon was CR 13 and had a DC 21 Frightful Presence. Level 13 PCs with NO assistance from ability scores or items or spells or prestige classes would be +4 with their worst save. Worst 3.5 saves would save 15% of the time straight up compared to worst NADs in 4E at level 13 (where even with boosts, PCs get hit 90% to 95% of the time).

You don't see how the 4E math is broken even more than the 3.5 math in this regard?


Compare this to 4E where outside of neck items (and PHB II), there are few feats and items that could help significantly.

But the significant issues for 4E are:

1) The best NAD (let alone the worst NAD) cannot be maintained in the original rules. Attacks increase 29, defenses increase 26.

2) The best NAD gets hit ~50% to ~60% of the time at first level by same level foes.

3) The worst NAD can be as much as 6 lower than the best NAD. So, it can be hit ~80% to ~90% of the time at first level by same level foes.


3.5 has nothing on 4E with regard to brokeness of NADs/Saves.

 

[eamon]

For the record, lest this be perceived as an edition war: there's lot's of other stuff 4e does well. On this specific aspect however, poor balance in previous editions doesn't let 4e off the hook. Firstly, there's reason to believe that saves in previous editions did actually scale in a more balanced fashion. Secondly, saves were surrounded by a different context which means an easy comparison isn't that accurate. Finally, thirdly, even if a previous edition screwed it up doesn't mean we can't achieve improvement this time round ;-).

In short, fixing the NAD scaling remains a good idea.

 

[Jhaelen]

You are forgetting that 3.5 had an additional correction factor pre-feats and pre-items that 4E does not have: Prestige Classes.

No, I'm not. It's something I explicitly pointed out in my first post in this thread:

There are players that prefer having the highest defenses possible for their characters, even at the expense of their offensive power. In 3E I've seen characters that switched classes at almost every level just to increase their saving throws.

Then there are players who frankly don't care. They'll argue that there's no point in trying to cover up your weaknesses and instead continue to boost whatever they're already very good at.

Additionally, 3.5 had all or nothing protection magic. Sure, the 40th level Red Dragon had a Frightful Presence DC 38, but PCs had more or less immunity to Fear effects up by the time they ran into that level Red Dragon.
[...]
You don't see how the 4E math is broken even more than the 3.5 math in this regard?

Nope. Unless I am mistaken, there are several ways to become immune to fear effects in 4E, as well. I'm thinking of paragon path abilities and (maybe) some items. I'd have to check my books to give concrete examples.

It's true, you'll eventually have to take a feat in 4e if you don't like your worst defense to fall behind even more. But as I mentioned before, it's not something every player will care about.

Frankly, if every nad-targeting monster power always hit the game would remain playable.

This! I think, 4E math isn't broken regarding NADs because they're expected to be hit more often. The effects generally aren't as severe as failing a save was back in 3E.

E.g., in 3E a mind flayer's (at-will) mind blast would stun you for, what?, 3-12 rounds? Now, you're either stunned (save ends) or (paradoxically) worse: until the monster's next turn.

Which leads me to something I think is missing in 4E: There are still very few ways to protect from or get rid of particular conditions. Most powers/items will grant extra saves or even automatically remove effects that a save can end, but there's too few ways to protect you if no save is involved.

Anyway, thanks to everyone pointing out the differences between 4E non-AC defenses and the saving throws in earlier editions!

Thinking back, I also agree that in 1e and 2e you needed to save a lot less often than in 3e. In 4e NADs will probably be targeted (at least at some point) every encounter. That's a pretty significant difference.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For the record, lest this be perceived as an edition war: there's lot's of other stuff 4e does well. On this specific aspect however, poor balance in previous editions doesn't let 4e off the hook. Firstly, there's reason to believe that saves in previous editions did actually scale in a more balanced fashion. Secondly, saves were surrounded by a different context which means an easy comparison isn't that accurate. Finally, thirdly, even if a previous edition screwed it up doesn't mean we can't achieve improvement this time round ;-).

In short, fixing the NAD scaling remains a good idea.

There is the nut of the question though, does it actually need to be fixed?

Personally I don't think there is a problem that PCs have weak points. Such is life. Every Achilles has his Heel. Sometimes it almost seems like people want to have 3 solid NADs and if they're all going to be close to the same number, heck just use AC for all defenses.

The question thus in my mind are two. Are the defenses overall too easy to hit, and what's the ideal spread between them?

On the second question I think differences of less than 4 points don't show up very prominently in play. They're THERE, but you don't really see the one character as being really strong in a given area vs another that is weak there until the difference gets bigger than 3 points.

 

[bbjore]

I've been reading this thread for a while now, and I've been wondering something. Am I really in the minority for thinking that the math isn't broken for both to hit and FRW? I understand that a character's bonuses to these traits don't scale the same way as monsters do, but I think that's the way it's supposed to go. Epic is epic, it's supposed to be harder. You could think of each tier as an increase in the difficulty of the game. It's fairly hard to make a completely ineffective character at the heroic tier. That tier is friendly towards beginners. But by the time you get to epic, I think the game assumes that you will have a certain level of optimization on the part of both your character and your party. I think that makes it fun. Yes, there is a certain discrepancy between a party's attacks and defenses vs. monster attack and defenses, but there are a host of options to overcome these. Epic tier should be D&D 4E hard mode.

It is true, that if one were to make a character, and completely ignore their low FRW, it would only increase by 22 over the course of 30 levels (+15 lvl, +6 item, +1 stat). If that defense started out crappy, & then got 8 points worse over time, the character will have a tough time with monster's targeting that defense. So yes, a defense that started out being hit on a 7 or higher is now hit all the time. But the player chose to completely ignore that defense, and the game is designed with the assumption, that you will spend some choices in your character's design shoring up their weaknesses. Over the course of leveling the above character ignored numerous potential ways to increase their weak defense including an additional +4 from abilities, +6 from feats, +3 from items, and numerous power bonuses which are readily available at 30th level from utilities or a leader's abilities. The ability to surpass the gap is already there. I guess that's why I don't understand why people are so certain there needs to be a fix, especially since that as the number of books increases, the methods for combating the discrepancy increases as well. I don't think a player should be able to spend all their choices increasing their offensive abilities without it negatively affecting their defensive abilities.

I know many people find the "feat tax" is annoying. I understand it, because I find it frustrating to have to reserve 1 feat slot for weapon expertise & either paragon or robust defenses when I make a character, but I do like that they're still options. I have made characters who chose a single Epic Defense feat instead of Robust Defenses because they didn't need it. I think that's the point of making such things feats. It still makes them optional, and while most people will take them, not everyone does, and I find that with so many feat slots, the requiring that a character spend 2-3 of them on keeping up with the discrepancy over the course of 30 levels to not be too much of a request. I think the game is still quite fun that way, and so far, after playing across multiple tiers and with multiple party configuration, it has been so far.

However, this is roleplaying, and its suppose fun. If the math difference interferes with your groups enjoyment of the game, do something to fix it. I have found that the following did increase enjoyment in some of our games.

1. Reducing the Expertise Feats' bonuses to a static +1, and giving everyone a free +1 to hit at 15th and 25th level. I did this mostly to allow characters to use secondary weapons effectively at 30th level.

2. Giving everyone a free feat at 15th and 25th level, but the feat had to be chosen from a list of non-offensive/combat related ones (think things like Agile Acrobat, Linguist, Skill Training....). This proved to be a simple way to overcome the feat tax, and give character's an excuse to choose less optimal feats that gave their PC a little bit more character.

Neither of these were necessary, and I don't use them in all my games, because I don't really think the math is broken at all, especially after the Player's Handbook II came out. But I believe rule #1 is let my players have fun, so that's what I do. Anyways, I know that was long but mostly I really was wondering if I really am in the minority in thinking the math is fine the way it is, and to suggest that perhaps two bonus feats for use shoring up a terrible FRW might be an easier fix than trying mess around with other, less compartmentalized aspects of a character like attributes.