Non-AC Defenses

[Infiniti2000]

You're not accounting for run-time bonuses like powers and concealment/cover. Not that it overcomes the issue, but be careful not to overcompensate to the point where the monsters are always missing.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Also, I have less sympathy for someone who starts with an 18 beginning stat, which IMO is the beginning concept of a one-trick pony. One trick ponies are notoriously bad at 2/3 defenses, and should in fact remain that way.

 

[KarinsDad]

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+?

Let's correct the math first. The n+1 controller is at +4, so:

Fort: 0+
Ref: 6+
Will: 8+


At level one, the Bard had a Fort of 10 and a same level (i.e. level one) controller would have hit him on an 5. So, the Bard started out getting hit 80% of the time.

So, even adjusting the math, the DM should ensure that the Bard still gets hit reasonably often because the Bard was designed that way.

Having said this, my solution is to give +1 to 3 ability scores instead of 2 and to give +1 to NADs on levels 5, 15, and 25.

For your Bard, this would up his Str or Con (assuming he adds one to one of those, I would strongly suggest it) to 14.

So, his 20 would go to 24 at level 15.

Fort: 4+
Ref: 8+
Will: 10+

This is still easy to hit. And, it's from an n+1 creature.

Also note that by level 15, a +4 amulet should either be acquired or on the horizon.

The DM should adjust either the math or the encounters slightly to fix this for his players.

The player can help too though. Stay away from creatures that do Fort attacks. Hit me once, shame on you. Hit me twice, shame on me. Let the Fighter engage the Fort attacking foes.

 

[Kzach]

This is better than the bard's above, but considering a level 16 monster has around +20 attack bonus, they still have 50% or better chance of hitting any of these values.

50% is about where it should be.

It's when they monsters are hitting 80-100% of the time that there's a problem.

 

[sfedi]

My houserule to solve this is:

- +1 to FRW at levels 5, 15 and 25
- Increase 3 instead of 2 stats at level 4,8,14,18,24,28
(and get rid of certain feats and items)

 

[Starfox]

50% is about where it should be.

Should it be 50% against a Defenders best defense? This is an honest question; what is a resonable rate of success for average monsters? So far, I've assumed that the target number of most d20 rolls should be between 5 and 15. But now at level 16, I find that both monsters and heroes hit a lot better than that.

 

[Tuft]

Also, I have less sympathy for someone who starts with an 18 beginning stat, which IMO is the beginning concept of a one-trick pony. One trick ponies are notoriously bad at 2/3 defenses, and should in fact remain that way.

If I had used the standard array, my STR and CON would have been 11 and 12 (or vice versa), which would have given me 1 (one) more in Fort defense. I fail to see how that would make much of a difference...

 

[eamon]

Also, I have less sympathy for someone who starts with an 18 beginning stat, which IMO is the beginning concept of a one-trick pony. One trick ponies are notoriously bad at 2/3 defenses, and should in fact remain that way.

Lopsided stat arrays work best in 4e. If you compare them with "balanced" arrays, you'll notice that there's hardly any difference to NAD's, whereas the difference to to-hit + damage is significant.

Not to mention the fact that some builds have primary+secondary stats that boost the same NAD - these guys are screwed no matter what, and will have low NADs.

I suspect that the advantages of "one-trick ponies" are an intentional design aspect to encourage role distinction: trying to be good at everything risks stepping on other party-members turf and thus disrupting intra-party balance. By constrast, currently it's attractive to have a bunch of "one-trick-ponies" in a party - but unique ones that benefit from working together.

You seem to dislike the notion of point-buying an 18. Why?

 

[eamon]

My houserule to solve this is:

- +1 to FRW at levels 5, 15 and 25
- Increase 3 instead of 2 stats at level 4,8,14,18,24,28
(and get rid of certain feats and items)

I'm kinda reluctant to mess with the stat boosts, but I see how this would help. Perhaps a feat which allows you to use your second-highest stat for a defense could serve a similar function without affecting prereqs and whatnot? One downside to such a feat is it comes across as contrived and complex, though.

Raising three stats doesn't fix builds which have a primary and secondary that raise the same NAD. Right now, this doesn't much matter: since all PC's NADs are generally terrible anyhow, the DM needs to tread lightly here, and having two very weak NADs vs one weak and one very weak NAD doesn't much matter then. But if NADs become relevent, this could turn out to be a drawback.

Why actually not just raise all stats at levels 4/8? This would have another nice side effect it reducing the skill discrepency slightly. Right now, skills quickly diverge and PC's quickly fall into either the dominating category or the hopeless category. Raising all stats would somewhat diminish that, and it'd may make more balanced characters a little more rewarding. It'd reduce NAD variability, of course, as well. (You'd still need the 5/15/25 boost, though).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Should it be 50% against a Defenders best defense? This is an honest question; what is a resonable rate of success for average monsters? So far, I've assumed that the target number of most d20 rolls should be between 5 and 15. But now at level 16, I find that both monsters and heroes hit a lot better than that.

Wasn't a psychologically satisfying success rate 70 %? So from the PCs site monsters should have a 30 % chance to hit you on your highest defense? But then from the DM side, you might want a 70 % chance to hit? Maybe only on the PC's lowest defense?

Of course, this has to take into account typical modifiers (combat advantage).