So, about defenses aka. PHB2 defenses feats

[Runestar]

But this would mean the designers have resigned from their responsibilities?

If you don't "need" an option but you are allowed to take it anyway chances are you break the system.

I am thinking more that perhaps, they are trying to break away from creating a 1-size-fits-all template that applies equally to all gaming groups. Maybe some groups don't care for complicated tactics. They just want a straightforward beatdown encounter based off attrition. Release feats to plug these "perceived" gaps for parties that don't run according to their playtest assumptions (eg: play a leader, have at least these stats and powers by lvXX, main stats below 16 etc), then leave it to the individual DMs to work out if these feats will make the characters too powerful, or simply prevent them from sucking too much.

At least, that is the only reason I can think of beyond blatant power creep to sell more copies of PHB2. I can't believe that no one caught on to the issue of every PC having at least one defense that was virtually auto-hit by monsters of that lv (so I assume it was expected and deemed necessary).

 

[Elric]

Sorry for interrupting, but really I think this is a separate discussion, not really relevant to the issue at hand.

In fact, I think that "monsters are far from perfectly balanced" is something we all agree to. So I would like you to not allow yourselves to get side-tracked like this.

Your posts on the central issue, on how to increase non-attack defenses are far too interesting...!

Really? No one responds to those posts of mine

Though I didn't specify this at the time, I think that post is relevant as a counterexample to the idea that if epic level combats aren't too tough, FRW doesn't need to be fixed. Karinsdad used Doresain in his test fight, and he was 60% of the exp budget for the encounter. When you do that, you're not going to end up with a particularly challenging fight simply because his offense is so weak (grindy, yes; challenging, no). It's not hard to see why Doresain is so weak, as I pointed out, and that has nothing to do with FRW scaling.

By comparison, if you refuse to fix FRW scaling on the grounds that epic level encounters aren't that challenging (because many epic monsters are built like Doresain with damage output that is too low), then when you do use the Dragonborn Champion it will have its secondary Stun succeed 95% of the time against weak F defenses and 65-70% of the time against strong F defenses (on an equal-leveled opponent), turning an already strong ability even stronger than it would be if FRWs scaled appropriately.

As I've said multiple times, but no one has yet responded to,

We can pick some stronger tests of "the game's math doesn't work well" than "is the game too hard at high levels?" Suppose that FRW attacks were incredibly rare; then since AC scales well no amount of messing up FRW defenses would noticeably impact the game, yet the math could still break down.

Let's try the following hypothesis: "Attacks against FRW defenses becomes weaker over time compared to attacks against AC to compensate for the fact that FRW attackers scale better (and tend to be more likely to hit to start with)."

I'd definitely reject this hypothesis. There doesn't seem to be a weakening of FRW powers in general and the nastiest effects at higher levels all tend to target FRW (Bodak Reavers, Ghaele of Winter, Aboleth's Domination effects, etc.). Yet these monsters don't suffer much in their to-hit bonuses on these powers relative to monsters with much weaker attacks (compare the Death Hag to a Bodak Reaver, for example).

Lastly, the fact that we have the Epic X feats giving a +4 untyped bonus to these defenses is serious evidence in favor of the designers considering FRW scaling a problem.

 

[James McMurray]

I see what you're trying to accomplish. However, making dailies too attractive only weakens the 4E design where the "15 minute adventuring day" was (rather successfully) eliminated.

True. I didn't think much about the suggestion, just tossed it out as an alternative to the original idea which would have left non-weapon users out in the cold.

Great advice!

But... I still haven't understood why you're arguing against NAD fixes...?

Even if it because you feel it is beside the real issue and/or focusing on the wrong problem, why do you keep bringing up the issue in this thread?

Isn't that what this thread is about?

Or, more to the point: if we for the moment disregards those other points you bring up, do you feel it would hurt the game to fix Non-Attack Defenses?

Yes. The reason is that it's an attempt to fix one or more problems and fails at all of them.

If it's trying to fix the grind problem, it's a horrible fix. The only time it will change the duration of a fight is when the monster has an effect that completely debilitates the target, has a low enough attack bonus that +4 actually changes things, and the party has none of the many abilities which get rid of conditions.

If it's trying to fix the problem where monsters with powerful at-will conditions (such as stunning) make a fight boring, it fails because +4 to the defense is at best a 20% change, and sometimes will be less than that. If, as has been claimed, monsters hit on a 2 anyway, there's not that big of a difference between hitting on a 3-6 instead. If they actually hit on something worse than that, then the fights will be even swingier than they can already be, because whether or not the monster's bigger attacks hit comes down to luck.

If it's trying to fix "the maths am bad" then it's a shot in the dark against an unknown target. "The math is bad" is notan actual problem. It's the effects of the math being bad that are or are not an issue, and while fixing the math might be the best solution, it might be that fixing the things the math enables is much better.

Because if you don't - and perhaps even agree it provide some benefit even if these benefits aren't as crucial as your own points - then perhaps you could allow the discussion to proceed?

It's a thread on a forum. Nothing I say can stop anyone from posting about what they want to post about.

I am sure you can see how attacks that hit on a 2 make some of us wince...?

I can see how the idea of it is scary, but it raises two questions:

1) Why is it scary? Is it just the idea of it, or are there actual negative effects of attacks hitting on a 2 that aren't themselves tied to another bad rule?

2) If hitting on a 2 makes you wince, what's so great about hitting on a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 instead; and charging the PCs 3 feats to get that minor benefit?

 

[James McMurray]

1) We did not just run numbers. I ran a high level test as well.

How many parties, levels, encounters, and trials per party vs. encounter combination did this test use?

High level play is extremely grindy. Anyone who has not run a high level game might not realize this. The maths here bear that out. The feats that WotC added to PHB II bear that out.

I don't think the feats WotC added have anything to do with Grindiness, but more to do with "we get hit too often, which can't be good. Fix it." Being hit left and right is not the cause of most long fights. It's not hitting often enough and/or hard enough that causes that. +2 - +6 for PC defenses doesn't change that except in very specific cases.

If the intent was to fix a general "epic fights grind" problem, wouldn't they have used a generic change to do so rather than one which only affects some combats.

I'll believe they're must-have feats if I happen to play an epic level campaign and the pcs are hit on a 2 in every encounter. Until then (or until someone else can provide some empirical data that supports your view) I'm unconvinced.

If I'm playing in an epic campaign and I get hit on a 2 in every encounter the last thing I'll be looking at is these feats. At best they make you get hit on an 8 (if you spend 4 epic feats and the need for a 2 is right on the dot). At worst they have zero effect.

I think you'd be better served looking for saving throw bonuses and other ways around the debilitating conditions that you're going to get hit with whether your defenses are 6 points higher or not.

 

[Bayuer]

But that's pure conjecture on your part! (and the ratio of combat to roleplaying in a game is completely irrelevant to this discussion)

Yeah. The style of play is irrelevant to discussion! At least someone undersood that.
And this is my point. When I played on paragon I was hitted on 3-4 on die, couse my barb REF was low. I was playing on epic and even well optimized chars were hitted offten. Man. Empirical data I didn't taken this from space. I did math after I saw epic monsters hit NADs too often and PHB2 feats came out. And why on earth you don't belive my math crunch? Make 25 level character, take some 25 artilery from MM and see it yourself. I'm not teacher to teach how to look if evidences are right or wrong. You didn't even do so little to make you opinion be supported. What are we talking here, about what mr. x feels about this topic or what are the facts?

I'll believe they're must-have feats if I happen to play an epic level campaign and the pcs are hit on a 2 in every encounter. Until then (or until someone else can provide some empirical data that supports your view) I'm unconvinced.

At first, thx for not answering again about some facts I did in previosu post. Maybe they was realy so strong, you couldn't answer. Anyway.
Epic FRW gives +4 to singe. Robust Defenses +2 to all. So from hitting on 2 on die, he can hit if he rolls 6 on die (from my math on 30 lvl monster have +10 adventage to hit player where +0 is where he need to roll 10 to hit, so with +6 from feats he have +4 adventage thus he needs to roll 6 on die to hit). Thats much more diffrence than autohit. Chances are still weak to avoid being hitted but look at other defs. Your highest will be hitted now on 10 on die (not 8, couse you have Roboust Defenses feat). Your middle DEF will be hitted on 7 on die, 11 if you take Epic feat). I didn't take this numbers from vacum. If we fight agains artilery (my stats are for Skirmihser), situatuon is much worse, becouse artillery has +2 to hit compared to skirmihers. Do the math yourself. This feats are needed.

If it's trying to fix "the maths am bad" then it's a shot in the dark against an unknown target. "The math is bad" is notan actual problem. It's the effects of the math being bad that are or are not an issue, and while fixing the math might be the best solution, it might be that fixing the things the math enables is much better.

So the math is broken or not? There are better ways to fix this. But we have PHB2 and this is the official fix. Fixing the PCs NADs is easier solution than, change every single monster power in MM. Even then we still have problems, becouse how make monster attacks compared to lowest NAD and highest NAD.

I can see how the idea of it is scary, but it raises two questions:
1) Why is it scary? Is it just the idea of it, or are there actual negative effects of attacks hitting on a 2 that aren't themselves tied to another bad rule?
2) If hitting on a 2 makes you wince, what's so great about hitting on a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 instead; and charging the PCs 3 feats to get that minor benefit?

1)When you will be autodominad/stunned etc. the game is less fun to you. You are completly eliminated from game and can't do nothing to make this stop. It's like 3E save or die ability, but your save is always failed.
2)6 on die gives 30% chance of not being hitted, what gives you some hope. It's always better than autohit and makes the game more fair, more fun, more balanced. And it can be flawed now as "I'm clumsy and don't have god Reflex" better than "I'm clumsy just don't hit my REF couse I will have nothing to do on session". And one last thing, this feats aren't suppose to be feats. This is very bad fix, and should be incorporated to rules not as an option to PCs. Many of them will not even bother to see how the math works and what impact on game will have to not take this feats. That should never be an issue with well balanced game. Player whos not understand the math or don't want to get to numbers will sooner or later understand that this feats will make his character much better. Feat tax is always bad and that's way I make this thread.

 

[James McMurray]

Epic FRW gives +4 to singe. Robust Defenses +2 to all. So from hitting on 2 on die, he can hit if he rolls 6 on die

Not always. If he would normally hit on a 1, but doesn't because a 1 is an automiss, then adding 4 means he will hit you on a 5 or better. If the difference is larger, adding 4 could mean he still hits you on a 2.

There are better ways to fix this. But we have PHB2 and this is the official fix.

If you assume that +4 to defenses for the cost of a feat is a fix. I don't.

1)When you will be autodominad/stunned etc. the game is less fun to you. You are completly eliminated from game and can't do nothing to make this stop. It's like 3E save or die ability, but your save is always failed.

So the problem is tied to other problematic rules, and not necessarily an issue with attacks hitting frequently? If domination and stun worked differently, would hitting on a 2 still be as scary?

2)6 on die gives 30% chance of not being hitted, what gives you some hope. It's always better than autohit and makes the game more fair, more fun, more balanced.

It's not always a 6 on the die, and you're still mostly assured of getting hit. Is that small glimmer of hope worth an epic feat?

 

[Bayuer]

Not always. If he would normally hit on a 1, but doesn't because a 1 is an automiss, then adding 4 means he will hit you on a 5 or better. If the difference is larger, adding 4 could mean he still hits you on a 2.

I'm starting to think that you don't understand what are we talking here, and math cruch I made shows to us. This is what I wrote in previous post: (from my math on 30 lvl monster have +10 adventage to hit player (lowest NAD) where +0 is where he need to roll 10 to hit (this NAD), so with +6 from feats (to lowest NAD) he have (monster) +4 adventage thus he needs to roll 6 on die to hit (PCs lowest NAD)). You make your assumptions when i gave you the pure math...

If you assume that +4 to defenses for the cost of a feat is a fix. I don't.

You agree the epic level is bad. So if you don't agree it it's becouse of bad math (of PCs NADs and PCs hitting chance vs. monsters) so what is it?

So the problem is tied to other problematic rules, and not necessarily an issue with attacks hitting frequently? If domination and stun worked differently, would hitting on a 2 still be as scary?

No this rules are fine as they are. The problem is that they are comes to offten into play, so they fail to meet they purpose. Every effect that comes to offten into play makes your player frustrated/boring/name it by yourself. I don't see anytihing wrong being stunned by monster attack, I see that it's wrong when I'm always have this effect on my character when the monster hit me. Even if I have +9 vs. stunn effects I still lose the round, and the next round here we go again.

[qute]
It's not always a 6 on the die, and you're still mostly assured of getting hit. Is that small glimmer of hope worth an epic feat?[/quote]
If we talk about the lowest NAD, and take 2 feats it will be still 6... Look to the math, man. Prove me that I crunch numbers wrong and we can talk. Now you think that my math is worthles with makes my little angry, becouse you even not look at it, when you make your conlcusions:/

I will explain it as clear as I can, and my english skills will let me.
30 % is big diffrence than autohi, right?
Not taking this feats will end autohit when monster will target your weakest NAD, right?
You middle NAD, will be hitted 75% of time withou feats! (5 on die)
Your best NAD will be hitted 60% of time (8 on die) without feats! [I'm talking about late epic plays]
The effects monsters place on PCs can be very hindering or just eat players actions. If monster can hit player so easly (and do damgae by the same time!) why we even have NADs? Couldn't monster just have more powerful auras etc? Answer: Designers think that luck factor is nice for game (I think that to). But when you compare to power of effects monsters can place on PCs on higher levels, and how easy this can be accomplished, you at least must wonder. Isn't there something wrong?
On epic players got many powers and options. They can survive more easily, but it doesn't mean that monsters should hit you more offten. They power is better dmg, better HP and better effects used more often. And this is just fine! They don't need easy hitting to be challanging. This is just ilusion of they power. That just make the game not good. Having no even 5% chance of avoiding monster attack on epic level where you ultra hero... Doesn't sound like ultra hero. Yeah. This i Balor! He need to kick you as! Thats a 5 years old kid explenation wit a lot of ignorance of facts.

The game should be fair as possible. Now you can make you highest DEF at -4 diadventage to monster (30 level monster will have to roll 14 on die to hit you). This is good feat option! Very good. Even -2 will be good! But you must spend 2 feats to gain this (Robust Defenses and Epic FRW). Now you middle DEF with those feats will make monster at -1 diadventage (11 on die to hit you), while you lowest will be at +4 adventage (6 on die to hit). Now this are numbers that looks good (like on 1 level of play). But you must spend 4 feats to maintain this! Wihout any DEF feats:
highest hitted on 8 on die; middle on 5 on die; lowest on 2 on die... You don't need to be Sherlock to state, there is something wrong here.

Even powers/items don't make it fair, couse they are situational, last for one round, and can't be used again in given encounter. So maybe you will now see what I'm talking here. I have my math + experience on epic. You will never change my mind about that topic if you want give my any real proofs, but just sofistic talking.

 

[Regicide]

Yeah. The style of play is irrelevant to discussion! At least someone undersood that.
And this is my point. When I played on paragon I was hitted on 3-4 on die, couse my barb REF was low. I was playing on epic and even well optimized chars were hitted offten. Man. Empirical data I didn't taken this from space.

Yes, Karinsdad is the only person I've seen say epic isn't easy and he keeps giving examples with PCs that seem like they don't have any feats and never get any benefit from powers. It's the powers that have bigger numbers tacked on them at higher levels, so it's no surprise that if you ignore them then the base numbers don't look right. It would be no different if you had level 25 characters running around with +0 weapons. Everything would look like it was off by 5.

At first, thx for not answering again about some facts I did in previosu post. Maybe they was realy so strong, you couldn't answer. Anyway.
Epic FRW gives +4 to singe. Robust Defenses +2 to all. So from hitting on 2 on die, he can hit if he rolls 6 on die (from my math on 30 lvl monster have +10 adventage to hit player where +0 is where he need to roll 10 to hit, so with +6 from feats he have +4 adventage thus he needs to roll 6 on die to hit). Thats much more diffrence than autohit. Chances are still weak to avoid being hitted but look at other defs. Your highest will be hitted now on 10 on die (not 8, couse you have Roboust Defenses feat). Your middle DEF will be hitted on 7 on die, 11 if you take Epic feat). I didn't take this numbers from vacum. If we fight agains artilery (my stats are for Skirmihser), situatuon is much worse, becouse artillery has +2 to hit compared to skirmihers. Do the math yourself. This feats are needed.

Going from anything but a 1 to a 6 to hit reduces DPS from 95% to 75%, thats a 21% drop in dps. (ignoring crits)
Going from a 14 to hit to a 20 to hit reduces DPS from 35% to 5%, thats an 86% drop in dps. (ignoring crits)

If characters weren't too easy to hit before the feats they will certainly be too hard to hit after. There is only an 18 pt window due to the d20, a 6 point swing in that range is a lot.

 

[KarinsDad]

How many parties, levels, encounters, and trials per party vs. encounter combination did this test use?

It was a single test.

You are obviously more experienced than I with Epic level play.

So the Epic level questions to you are:

1) Is high level play grindy?

2) How many average rounds do the standard encounters last? 10? 15? 20? more?

3) How many average hours does it take to play a standard encounter?

4) How about an n+3 encounter? How many average rounds does it take and how many average hours? Put another way, how many encounters could you easily fit in during an x hour session?

5) Will increasing the PC chances to hit make it less grindy?

6) Will increasing the PC chances to hit save resources that allow for more encounters per day?

7) Will increasing the PC nads make it less grindy?

8) Will increasing the PC nads save resources that allow for more encounters per day?

9) If increasing the PC to hit and nads makes encounters too easy, what is the best solution for making the encounters challenging without making them grindy again?


Although my sample set is small and was n+3, it was very illustrative. Getting hit on a 3 sucks. Hitting only on a 17 sucks.

Regardless of whether it was fun for your group, I KNOW that it will not be fun for mine because as DM, I roll all to hit and damage rolls in front of the players. They will know that they got hit on a 2.

 

[Bayuer]

Regardless of whether it was fun for your group, I KNOW that it will not be fun for mine because as DM, I roll all to hit and damage rolls in front of the players. They will know that they got hit on a 2.

I roll dice in front of players to. They are not happy when they see what's going on;/