Non-AC Defenses

[keterys]

Am I really in the minority for thinking that the math isn't broken for both to hit and FRW?

That point of view was much more common before PH2, when WotC published feats that are completely horrible if the math isn't broken. Still mildly horrible if it is, but at least far more understandable, and potentially fixing said math for some people.

 

[Blackbrrd]

In the game I am playing, that has gotten to level 8 and the players are fighting up to level 12 monsters we haven't noticed any big problems with to-hit chance.

Hitting the AC of a Soldier (NPC) or a Defender (PC) isn't easy. You normally need a roll of 10 or more to hit them. To avoid this situation you let people attacking NAD's take care of Soldier/Defenders and let for Rangers, Barbarians, etc take care of the Skirmisher/Controller/etc.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Yeah, I cannot buy into this fallacy. Falling unconscious is pretty severe. Being stunned every 2 or 3 rounds from a recharge power is pretty severe. A 5% chance of success in 4E compared to a 30+% chance of success in 3.5 in the mid-teen levels illustrates a lack of good design.

And getting hit with a NAD 95% of the time is just lame compared to getting hit on AC 50% of the time (and riders exist on vs. AC powers as well, 4E NADs are closer to 4E AC attacks than they are 3.5 saves).


I also think you are ignoring the fun factor. The 20% success chance at level 13 in 3.5 that I illustrated WITHOUT any feats, items, or prestige classes has got to be more fun than the 5% success chance at level 13 in 4E that I illustrated WITH items.

Sorry, but repeatedly getting hit on a 2 is NOT fun. There isn't even a YMMV on this one from my perspective. People who claim otherwise are arguing just to argue IMO. There WILL be players (a lot of players) who get extremely frustrated at this in a game and frustation is NOT fun. When frustration is built into the math, the math is flawed.

 

[keterys]

In the game I am playing, that has gotten to level 8 and the players are fighting up to level 12 monsters we haven't noticed any big problems with to-hit chance.

This is not surprising, since this is a problem that doesn't exhibit in any reliably human perceivable sense until high levels.

 

[Ryujin]

This is not surprising, since this is a problem that doesn't exhibit in any reliably human perceivable sense until high levels.

Especially so if you haven't created an optimized character. The shift in hit chances tends to promote what used to be referred to as "munchkinism."

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Nope, you are far from being the only one. Personally I'm a little bit on the fence. I think there's not quite enough evidence that I've got about epic/high paragon to say if there's no problem or a small problem. If it was a huge problem it would've been fixed in development. There may however be enough of an issue that it bugs certain groups of players enough to convince them to fix it. Then WotC came out with their feats which obviously DO try to adjust things somewhat and that created a whole secondary set of questions to debate, like do we need them at all, should they just be free, or what?

Remember too, the sample of people you're looking at are the ones that mostly are bothered by it and want to tinker with things. 95% of all 4e players haven't ever played above heroic and/or just aren't that cognizant of the whole thing. Most of those people don't ever post here.

This also explains the fact that the 4e design team hasn't said much about it. They're looking at the whole range of all players of 4e and not the 5% that post. From their perspective this is never going to be a serious issue. They put out a couple of feats to mollify the people it did bother and I seriously doubt they'll ever address the issue again in any way.

 

[Jhaelen]

A 5% chance of success in 4E compared to a 30+% chance of success in 3.5 in the mid-teen levels illustrates a lack of good design.
[...]
And getting hit with a NAD 95% of the time is just lame compared to getting hit on AC 50% of the time.
[...]
Sorry, but repeatedly getting hit on a 2 is NOT fun.

I might agree if that was actually the case. What about aura effects? They hit automatically, every time. How fun is that?

And: Where are you pulling those numbers from? Picking a single monster shows nil.
But I'm already getting incredibly tired because that's what the old debate was all about and it's been repeated a bazillion times, already.

I remain unconvinced until I've had real playtesting experience with real encounters with a real group of pcs.

'Doing the math' will never be able to show you what the playing experience will be like. If it could, then why isn't there a program, already, that covers every aspect of 4E combat? (see the thread about applying the Monte-Carlo method to simulate 4E combat)

Picking examples won't prove anything. Ignoring items, powers, terrain, and tactics definitely won't.

 

[keterys]

Many auras do autohit. And they shouldn't, for instance, stun.

Any attempt to think that it's okay for stun attacks, which most frequently target FRW, should ever basically autohit someone, in any way, will not see a ton of traction from me.

Ditto pseudo-death like effects like a Bodak's death gaze, Orcus' touch, Beholder's eye ray, petrification, etc.

So if you're trying to argue that because there is autodamage in the game (which is totally fine) it's okay for FRWs to be autohit. Yeah. No.

 

[Jhaelen]

So if you're trying to argue that because there is autodamage in the game (which is totally fine) it's okay for FRWs to be autohit. Yeah. No.

See? That actually supports my argument.

What is the source of things being 'unfun'? Is it really the 'math problem' of (non-AC) defenses not 'properly' scaling?

I don't think so.

If a source can be pinpointed at all, it's more likely the conditions themselves. The 'stun' condition is anathema to fun no matter how a pc happens to get affected by it.

In other words: Fixing the 'math problem' won't help. Fixing the 'stun' condition might. As I mentioned previously, 4e, is imho, currently lacking in ways to remove/prevent specific conditions (such as 'stunned'). THAT's something I'd like to see more of.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Use lower level monsters and less optimized characters and fun will come back.

Stunned and save ends: just allow a save even, when the condition would end on the monsters end of turn naturally.

As i see it RAW does support this reading as many powers say: half damage no ongoing damage...
As long as there is not stated: half damage, stunned until end of turn (no save) there is no reason you should get no save. Also it is quite sensible to read it that way, otherwise you can´t get rid of conditions which end on a monsters next turn with automatic saves etc. In the spirit of the rules, allow a save even if the power misses.