Non-AC Defenses

[KarinsDad]

In terms of stat raises, I'd strongly be in favor of raising all stats rather than just three as a fix. Raising only three stats doesn't fix the entire problem (witness classes with aligned primary and secondary stats), and it does fix divergence of things like skills and init nor the requirement for extensive char-planning (which 4e was supposed to reduce). On the other hand, raising all stats hardly increases the problematic aspects of the fix; these being the possibility of imbalances made possible by avoiding feat prereq's (after all, even adding just one extra stat raise is probably enough to make 99% of all stat prereqs easily achieveable with planning). So, if you want a stat-based fix, I'd go whole hog and happily get rid of a bunch of problems related to stat modifier divergence by doing so, rather than just fix the weakest defense in some of the cases.

Raising all 6 stats does have a certain appeal, however, I think that opening up the smorgasbord of feats so that each PC can get most of the better non-class specific and non-race specific feats is a fairly large negative. There should be some feats that are only good for those that focus ability scores in those areas. And if a player spreads the extra bonus stat around to multiple stats for feat prerequisites, then he's not helping his lowest NAD. A trade off.


I consider the issue with the skills to not be problematic here, but it depends on how you view skills. I view the skill DCs as typically being about the same. I think most skill attempts should be relatively easy at higher levels, so the lack of the additional stat boost is ok.

For example, I go into an Inn at level 1 and use Streetwise to try to convince the bartender to give me information. The DC might be 20 for a given set of information. I go into an Inn at level 11 and use Streetwise to try to convince the bartender to give me information. The DC might still be 20 for the same set of information. The DC does not go up by 5 (in my game) because the PC is 10 levels higher. He is better at getting information than he used to be at level 1, so his chance of success should be greater.

The innkeeper should not suddenly be 10 levels higher.

I think that a lot of mundane uses of skills (climbing walls, jumping pits, talking to informants, hiding from town guards) should become easier as the PCs increase levels. They start becoming much better than others at these things to the point that at high Epic level, the innkeeper spills his guts to the PCs because these guys are practically known demigods (or if they are incognito, then because they easily sweet talk the info out of him because they have been doing this for so long and are so skilled at it).


Explicit skill challenges where the DM wants to hand out XP are different. There, the PCs that have focused on those skills should shine, the PCs that have not should look for unusual ways to use the skills where they have focused. I am ok with the PCs who have focused on certain skills gaining an ability score edge over PCs that do not. The Rogue's Stealth increases by 9 from levels 1 to 14 (without items or additional feats), the Wizard's Stealth only increases by 7 from levels 1 to 14. That's ok. The level 14 Wizard is still pretty darn steathly in mundane settings like town, he's just not that stealthy against a Beholder.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Absolute is if status effects matter. If it is just about dropping someone in a 1 vs 1 duel and comparing DPR, relative increases are more important.

(hit on 19 or 20 chance for 100 damage is better than hitting for 101 damage only on a 20; where hitting on a 2-20 for 1 damage is much worse than hitting for 2 damage on 3-20)

If you want to get a status effect on your enemy (which can have an impact for many rounds), or to get a massive damage spike in (status effect dying), every 5% chance counts.

And since such status effects are frustrating if you are hit all the time, IMHO something can be done.

@Karins dad: maybe you should also consider increase the recharge chances for some status effect powers, because they will fail more often after boosting defenses.

And yes, barkeepers stay at level 1 in the small village... and the towns barkeeper in the most noble inn, where informations relevant for paragon chars could be available will be level 11.

 

[KarinsDad]

@Karins dad: maybe you should also consider increase the recharge chances for some status effect powers, because they will fail more often after boosting defenses.

I thought about it, but I don't see the need. Sure, they will fail slightly more often, but I also think that the NAD issue is a mistake by WotC. The monsters are supposed to fail slightly more often than core.

WotC screwed up. The lowest NAD should not be hit on a -2 at high Epic level. The house rules pull that back up to a 5 and that is a reasonable number. Hitting 80% against that weak NAD against one or two PCs instead of hitting 95% doesn't mean that the recharge 5 or 6 should increase by 16% to a recharge 4 to 6 against all PCs. IMO.

The weak NAD is still getting hit a lot at 80%. Even if the Leader throws in another +2, it's still 70%.

And yes, barkeepers stay at level 1 in the small village... and the towns barkeeper in the most noble inn, where informations relevant for paragon chars could be available will be level 11.

Yeah, I don't usually run it that way (shy of an explicit skill challenge).

Barkeepers respond to money, regardless where they are located. I don't believe that the chance to succeed should be the same. And, I believe that the information acquired can still be useful and relevant, even at Paragon level.

I agree with you for an explicit DM set up skill challenge. When the skill is used like an encounter for XP, then yes, the DCs should be appropriately high.

But one of the advantages of being heroes should be that mundane use of skills becomes easier.


To put it another way, there was a TSR questionaire that DMs were supposed to hand out to their players several decades ago that asked the question "How heroic do you want your PC to be?". One of the answers was:

"In real life, I can trip over a garbage can. I don't want my Dwarf doing that."

or some such. That's how I view mundane skill use.

And I consider most information acquired by most townsfolk to be relatively mundane skill use. There are always exceptions and there are always NPCs that have hidden agendas, but for the most part, an innkeeper is there to make money and not tick off guys with massive swords strapped across their backs.

 

[Elric]

The entire premise is flawed under the assumption that all you cared about is damage.

Almost invariably status effects are the things I'm far more worried about. At which point going from a 2 to 7 instead of a 10 to a 15 is still all good

The suggested house rule seems fine though.

The premise of nothing but damage is fine. It's the implicit assumption "when you raise your high FRW defense you can ignore attacks on your low defense" that's flawed.

If a defense is very low relative to the attacker's attack bonus, a plus to that defense won't give you the same benefit. For many characters/opponents, you won't get the full benefit of a FRW-boosting feat because the monster would have hit you on a 1 if not for the auto-miss rule, pre-feat (e.g., "it hits on a -1 or better"), so some of the benefit of a bonus (e.g., that from a feat) will be lost. I'll set that possibility aside.

If you have two enemies, one of whom needs an 18 to hit you, and the other of whom needs a 2 to hit you, and they do equal damage, the average damage you take if both attack you once is the same whether you get a +2 bonus to the defense where you're hit on an 18 or the defense where you're hit on a 2. Just because you chose to take a +2 to your stronger defense doesn't mean you can ignore the attacks on your weak defense!

Edit: I find it pretty funny that I almost never disagree with either you or eamon, and here I'm disagreeing with both of you for different reasons in the same post

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Ok, i am still interested how it works out. Although i don´t believe the math is wrong per se. Only that they miscalculated what is fun.

I play 3.5 in the follwing way:

10 is easy, 15 is hard and 20 is expert difficulty. Take ten and take 20 preferred. (DM´s best friend may be applied to DC and check result)

reason behind it:
10: average person should be always able to do it when no unfavorable circumstances occur (+2 DC) or when under pressure (no take 10 allowed)
(Commoner)

15: 4 ranks, 13 in relevant stat
(Lvl 1 expert)

20: 5 ranks, skill focus, 15 stat or synergy bonus or dual skill bonus feat
(Lvl 2 expert)

these are my npcs

in 4e i rather see it that way:

A barkeeper in a noble in needs to be discrete and really good in what he is doing, getting paid a lot more than a barkeeper in a village

so beeing good at what he is doing means high level in is class which is barkeeper.

so trained in insight, level bonus +5, 15 relevant stat which results in a 22 (should be about the target number of a hard lvl 11 challenge.

he is no fighting character so he has neither armor, nor good stats and runs around with AC 15... and 1 hp.

you could as well make him level 1 and give him skill focus and better stats and give him real hp. doesn´t really matter... because i don´t want to think about NPC´s as much as i had to in 3.x (which i stopped doing once i ralized it is wasted time)

 

[keterys]

If a defense is very low relative to the attacker's attack bonus, a plus to that defense won't give you the same benefit. For many characters/opponents, you won't get the full benefit of a FRW-boosting feat because the monster would have hit you on a 1 if not for the auto-miss rule

Yeah, the extremes suck. I think it echoes why the 'many of same level' was more popular than 'make them higher level' in the recent poll. I actually very rarely encounter the case where a monster needs either a 1 or 20, so the math remains more stable in those cases. It may be that other people's games dip into those more frequently.

I did get attacked with a +8 Fort attack on my Level 12 Fort 28 barbarian in a module recently (21 Ref is his low, fwiw). And I believe the last encounter of a wotc module includes a +17 vs. FRW against level 10 adventurers.

Edit: I find it pretty funny that I almost never disagree with either you or eamon, and here I'm disagreeing with both of you for different reasons in the same post

It's an interesting discussion like that.

 

[Elric]

Using stat raises is comparatively easy; just raise all stats on levels 4/8 and (in combination with the general 5/15/25 raise) players will lose only 1 point vs. the monsters over their career, which looks OK to me.
...
I'm also not too thrilled about the way feat-prerequisites really punish people that don't pre-plan their character 20 levels in advance. Getting rid of those stat prerequisites is probably a good thing - unless it breaks game balance (I can't, off the top of my head, think of any examples thereof, however).

It also ameliorates the need for "fixer" feats like heavy armor for Str/Wis Rangers (still attractive, but no longer absolutely required) or like the primal con-to-AC feat (also still attractive for a non-Dex/Int build, but again, not absolutely required).

That's a bunch of nice side effects, IMNSHO .

There was a good discussion of having three discretional stat raises in this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...ves-feat-tax-solution-hit-f-r-w-defenses.html. Compared to the default, besides the increase in weak FRW defenses, raising all six stats would mean that many characters gain additional surges and initiative from Con/Dex increases.

Some scaling benefits like Barbarian Agility could be problematic; my suggestion was to remove the scaling from "Barbarian Agility" as compensation. There are a few feats that might lead to problems; a Tactical Warlord/Battle Captain who gets 19 Cha at little cost and can take Supreme Inspiration (from mp) is one example.

 

[KarinsDad]

A barkeeper in a noble in needs to be discrete and really good in what he is doing, getting paid a lot more than a barkeeper in a village

so beeing good at what he is doing means high level in is class which is barkeeper.

so trained in insight, level bonus +5, 15 relevant stat which results in a 22 (should be about the target number of a hard lvl 11 challenge.

Well according to the rules, Streetwise to gain information has set DCs, regardless of whether it is a village or town or city. Higher level PCs will be better than lower level PCs with Streetwise. Streetwise is like Jump. PCs get better at it as they level up. They get better at knowing who to talk with, how to convince NPCs to spill the beans, etc.


If the PCs are using Insight vs. the Innkeeper's Bluff to gain information, one has to wonder why an innkeeper is trying to bluff.

If the information is information that an innkeeper would hand out regardless (no matter how helpful or critical it is to the PCs), why is the DM asking for skill rolls?

I really don't understand the concept of rolling dice to gain roleplaying information like this unless there are explicit reasons the Innkeeper wants to keep the information out of the players hands. In that case, sure, it might be considered a skill challenge or might require opposed rolls.


Just because the PCs need the information does not mean that it should require a roll to get it either. The criticality of the information should not typically affect whether an NPC is willing to part with the information or not. Other factors should influence that (such as whether the NPC is friend or foe or even total stranger, the NPC's motivations, etc.). The criticality of the information might affect whether an NPC wants to negotiate the information's worth or not though.


But the concept that PCs are now Paragon level, hence, all skill rolls should have Paragon difficulty is not what should happen. That should mostly just occur for skill challenges where PCs acquire XP from it. Sometimes, it might occur just because what the players are trying to use the skill for is extremely difficult. But, that should not be the status quo. IMO.

PCs get better at stuff and this should be reflected in the game system. Throwing level appropriate rolls at them constantly does not reflect this.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Agreed. My example was not the best one.

Lets have a different example:

If paragon level PC´s decide to attack kobolds who threaten a village. It will be easy. It was difficult when they were level 1, now its a cakewalk.

If they want to sweettalk the guard of winterhaven now. It will be easy, since he is more or less a commoner. (bluff vs insight or dibplomacy vs insight hence my example of insight before)

I would actually encourage using low DC´s here. If you are untrained and uncharismatic, you have still a chance to fail but your chances are good to be let in.

If you however decide to sweettalk your way into the queens bedroom... i guess this will be harder. I could imagine an elite (paragon) guard having his duty here.

Never ever should the world scale to the adventurers level. The adventures should decide on their own, who they deal with and with what challenges. The only thing i could imagine is the guard who has been sweettalked by PCs to raise in level (1 -> 2) because he has learned from his mistake.

With the addition of minons i can imagine NPC´s of level 1-10 running around villages. All minions with 1 hp.

 

[eamon]

There was a good discussion of having three discretional stat raises in this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...ves-feat-tax-solution-hit-f-r-w-defenses.html. Compared to the default, besides the increase in weak FRW defenses, raising all six stats would mean that many characters gain additional surges and initiative from Con/Dex increases.

Some scaling benefits like Barbarian Agility could be problematic; my suggestion was to remove the scaling from "Barbarian Agility" as compensation. There are a few feats that might lead to problems; a Tactical Warlord/Battle Captain who gets 19 Cha at little cost and can take Supreme Inspiration (from mp) is one example.

I remember that discussion, and back then I was a little less enthusiastic about the stat-raise fix because of the way it messes up prereqs and class balance. But the situation has changed a little, and I look at prerequisites differently as well.

The barbarian is a great example - barbarian agility previously seemed overpowered when combined with full stat raises. However, meanwhile, wizards has release a feat (in primal power) that allows primal characters to use their Con mod instead - a huge boost. In fact, now, raising all stats may even shift that particular feat from the absolutely-must-have set to the very-nice-to-have set.

So, classes whose primary or secondary stat align with AC or init or Con still have a large advantage in terms of AC, Init or hitpoints+surges, but that advantage no longer grows as much as levels progress. I think that's fine. Bonuses to d20 rolls inherently scale with level, since the underlying effect gets stronger. It doesn't make sense to scale the bonus with level as well - so it doesn't make sense to make stat mods diverge.

As for stat prerequisites, the way I see it now, those were mostly a mistake. They either make little difference, or they make a difference, and in both cases they're not good. If they make no difference, just scrap them, and when they make a difference, it's worse, and contributes to the chasm of effectiveness between a power-gamed character and a more naturally built character. An optimizer can usually easily figure out which prereqs to get when. A pc built on the spur of the moment can't, and will either miss it by a point or two, or decide "hey, let's invest one of my 4/8 stat-raise points here", and that's worse, since now they're playing a stat array that's typically lower than 22-point buy, and they'll start falling further behind on to-hit, damage, and secondary effects.

That doesn't mean you can't award characters for focus - you can, but you should do so via prerequisites that represent actual focus (i.e., do you have this feat chain, or at least this number of "arcane" feats, or this race, or this skill, or whatever). Stat prerequisites more often than not seem arbitrary: some builds manage em easily, others don't have a chance (e.g. weapon mastery feats). There's no rhyme or reason to it, but you better watch out which build you pick, since these feats matter.

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.