Non-AC Defenses

[KarinsDad]

Worse thing is, the game IS balanced for some cases.

So this "fix" has more potential of disaster than no fix at all.
For example if the chars that should take those feats/items don't take them, and those that shouldn't take those feats/items, take them.

As you already pointed out.

Actually, I only dislike the NAD feat and item fixes. +9 more to Will than possible with original core rules with two items and a feat is ludicrous.

The Expertise fix, I think, is fine, even good, because it does two things:

1) Keep "to hits" for PCs closer to monster defenses.

2) Speeds up high level combat which is fairly slow due to increasingly higher number of higher level monster hit points (which outstrip dpr increases by quite a bit). Upping 40% chances to hit to 55% chances to hit decreases the number of rounds by a minimum of over 25%, typically more. That changes a long drag out 20 round high level encounter to 15 rounds or fewer and decreases grind.

The only downside of the Expertise fix is that it's a "must take" feat, but many DMs houserule it in.

 

[keterys]

It's 'must take', but also certain classes have both Implement and Weapon attacks, and many characters have attacks that are neither Implement nor Weapon.

 

[sfedi]

Well, Expertise doesn't get the situation worse because, in contrast to NADs, all to-hits are screwed.

You know, whenever we talk about this, I remember one desginer saying: "4E maths is rock solid".

 

[KarinsDad]

You know, whenever we talk about this, I remember one desginer saying: "4E maths is rock solid".

Yeah, must be the advanced math. A max delta of 7 (or even 8 with a Changling or Gensai or Goblin) at level one between best and worst NAD and a max delta of 11 (more with feats and items) at level 28 in a D20 system is just plain bad math.

Mathematically, the deltas should never be more than about 6.

It's like the Tarrasque with a Fort of 49 and a Will of 32. The designer was smoking something really strong that day. A 17 delta is, quite frankly, unreasonable. Even before Expertise (or any other abilities), the 30th level Cleric's Will attacks hit on a 2. PC attacks should never hit on a 2 straight up without a lot of boosts. And, Fort attacks hit on a 19. WT???

I cannot comprehend how someone would consider this balanced and fun for all of the players.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes, karinsdad, a delta of 18 is a bit much. But on the other hand, on moster defenses it is not that bad when you consider it is the tarrasque which should not be fore moved by fort attacks...

The problem is caused by stat raises. This is what makes math so difficult.

On the other hand i don´t think it is that bad if the cleric invest so much in his will defense that he is nearly immune to such attacks. But i also think math would have been nicer if monsters would hit harder, but less reliable.

 

[KarinsDad]

The problem is caused by stat raises. This is what makes math so difficult.

That's one problem, but not the only one.

On the other hand i don´t think it is that bad if the cleric invest so much in his will defense that he is nearly immune to such attacks. But i also think math would have been nicer if monsters would hit harder, but less reliable.

I don't consider two items and two feats that much of an investment, especially when one of the items is pretty typical fare for a Cleric who does not bump up his armor from Chain to Scale.

The issue here is that one item is +2, one item is +3, one feat is +2 and one feat is +4.

The designers should have realized a long time ago that nearly all D20 boosts that happen every round should be +1, +2 at the most. They should almost never be +3 or +4 (or higher). It just adds up really high too quickly.

That's a major lesson that they should have learned from 3.5.

 

[Jhaelen]

A max delta of 7 (or even 8 with a Changling or Gensai or Goblin) at level one between best and worst NAD and a max delta of 11 (more with feats and items) at level 28 in a D20 system is just plain bad math.

Mathematically, the deltas should never be more than about 6.

Well, there _are_ powers that grant bonuses to defenses (and/or penalties to monster attacks) that are based on ability bonuses.

As UngeheuerLich mentioned the math is complicated by the stat increases but that's also where the solution to the problem of low defenses lies:
E.g. if you're starting with a +2 stat bonus at level 1 and you keep raising the same stat, you'll have a +6 stat bonus at level 28. In other words, it exactly closes the gap caused by not increasing a defense stat.

Typically, this will require a leader and cannot be done in every round in every combat, but the option is available for use when it matters.

I don't deny that there has been evidence that combat may be problematic at epic levels, but there has also been evidence that it doesn't have to be. There have been reports from players who didn't notice anything amiss (except for unrelated issues like badly designed monsters with highly reliable at-will area stun effects).

Therefore I conclude, that it cannot be proved one way or another.

The 'math' may suggest that there is a problem where in truth there is none, because it doesn't take everything into account. By the time a party is at level 28, they'll have accumulated lots of powers, items, paragon and epic abilities that taken as a whole may (or may not) work to close the apparent 'gap'. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Tuft]

Well, there _are_ powers that grant bonuses to defenses (and/or penalties to monster attacks) that are based on ability bonuses.

Could you please give me an example of such a power for the bard?

 

[Ryujin]

Not the Bard, but the Feylock can give a one round -(2+INT Bonus) penalty to all attacks that a creature makes. The power is Witchfire; only a 1st level encounter power. It's good enough that I hesitated swapping it out. For my character, at level 16, that would be a -8 to the creature's attack rolls until the end of my next turn.