So, about defenses aka. PHB2 defenses feats

[Bayuer]

Now, don't get insulting, please. I'm not saying your 'math crunch' is wrong, I'm saying it's not properly modeling the reality of the game and thus lead to incorrect conclusions on your part.

If taken my post as insulting I apolagize. It was not my intention.

Does this look problematic to you, so far?

Yeas indeed! This warlord power we are talking about (that gives +4 to all defs is 29 daily so we don't have it now!). Secondly this is solo artilery so ithings get more complicated. Normal monsters team will have first line (soldiers, brutes) and second line (arilery), but that is not important. Let's crunch your example.

Fro my calculatins (math crunch) he will have 40AC, highest DEF at 36 (actualy 35 in build and it's Fortitude) one middle and one lowest (or second meddile couse some clases fawor that). So the middle at 33 (here is 31) and the lowest at 29. We assume he didn't take any defenses feats, so his Will be actualy 29 (as my lowest defense). So his defenses should be AC40, FOR36, REF33 and WILL29 (but let's make it 31). Naga to hit vs. NADs should be 28 +2 from artilery and it is realy +30 in Naga entry, so the math is ok here. The AC is fine by RAW so we don't need to calcute this. Even if some one need to do so, this Naga is Artilery so it's to AC hit chance is lower than other monsters (it should be +30 on average), Nagas is +29.

I agree in this fight mark will do much. But in fights were are more monsters hitting NADs and first and second line this will be not much factor, couse defender will can't mark artilery so easily and often he will not even try to do so.

Even if this will be a fight at 29 level and warlord will use his power (Stand Invincible) that gives +4 to all defenses, you must still rember that this is a daily power! And can apply to only one fight, but it will be porobably saved for the final battle. If you don't have warlord I don saw any other power whose looks like this on other PHB leaders and paladin class. So it is very, vetry situational.

Let's crunch this numbers.
minor (ranged)+30 vs. Refleks - 2d6 +11 and 10 ongoing fire damage (save ends)
minor (ranged) +30 vs. Fortitude - 3d6 + 11 and the target is pushed 2 squares.
standard (recharge 5,6) (close blast 5) +30 vs. Fotitued - 5k6 +11 dmg and slowes (save ends)
standard - five bite attacks
standard - +29 vs. AC - 4d6 +9 dmg

Naga hits FOR of this fighter at 6 on die (his highest, most optimised defense!) So that is 70% ot time (monster has +4 adventage).
His REF will be hitted at 3 on die (his middle defense). So that 85% accuracy (monster have +7 adventage).
Well this monster don't attack Will but it will be hitted on 2 od die (monster have +9 adventage).

Let's take form simplifiaction that other will have the same stats (they will vary in with DEF but that is not much important).
All attack will be at -2 becous of fighter mark.
So FOR will be hitted on 8. REF on 5 and Will on 3.
Much better, but not as impresing as it should be.

This is 5 players party (all melee fighting). So there will be 5 OA when Naga will make his minor attacks. But this is pure fantasy. In real party there will be 3 (max. for just melee characters) and becouse of Nagas attacks not everyone will be adjacent to she. Even so she will probably shift (giving free attack to fighter) so there will be only 1-2 OA. Anywya that's not important. You have all numbers there. Damage is huge. Hitting is easy. If she uses his close blast 5 attack, even fighter with his strong FOR will be hitted on 6 on die. His highest DEF!

You make a very specific example here. Nagas AC is 41. Fighter attack at this level (without any feats will be +26 by average (26 in stat - +8, +5 magic, 12 level, 3 profinency; 1 fighter, 1 kensai, 2 combat adventage), so +32 with very, very to hit optimised chacater and with CA. On average it will be +29/+30 with CA and +27/28 withou it.
+32 vs. 41AC - 9 on die to hit (55% chance; +1 player adventage).
+30 vs. 41AC - 11 on die to hit (45% chance; -1 player disadventage)
+28 vs. 41AC - 13 on die to hit (35% chance; -3 player disadventage)
So we will take average to hit that is +28. 35% chance to land a hit. Becous CA is situational! On 1 level you chance to hit is at +1 adventage (+3 with Combat Aventage!).

So the Naga provokes Combat Challange, shifts away (sword and shield fighter will do when hit an 30dmg on average? 40? Naga have 1200HP - she will not even feel that hit).
And now even there still 2 PC next to here and she provokes OA (another 40 dmg from hit making it now 120; this gives naga 10 round of living, but only if all attack will hit she, and that will not be so easy becous of average 35%/40% hit chance. Now she easily hits players for 20 dmg in firs minor, 18 + 10 ongoind on second and make AC atack. Offten she will make shes devastating FOR attack close blast 5 hitting on 6 or less on die, and doing 28dmg to each enemy + slow or use bitting attacks. The dmg given, taken is not important here. The fact how easily Naga can hit enemies is very, very broken and this is my statement from the beginning. maybe this Naga will be not much threat to PCs, solos have tendency to not make this well. But making it's hitting so easily is an answer to that.

Let's look at another artilery example. 24 lvl artillery - Greater Flameskull.
We will make it 25 lvl so shes to hit vs. NADs will should be +30, it's actualy +28 (as an average to hit vs. NAD at this level), maybe designers didn't ad +2 for artillery I don't know.
The highest DEF of PC - 36, middle - 33, lowest - 29.
+28 vs. 36 - hit on 8 on die (+2 monster adventage)
+28 vs. 33 - hit on 5 on die (+5 monster adventage)
+28 vs. 29 - hit on 2 on die (+9 monster adventage)
This attack makes 2d8+10 dmg (19 dmg on average) and makes target dazed until start of skull next turn, so nobody can help you with this effect.
But this are easy monsters. Look at those who dominated/stunn/weaken and have powers like Bodak, Wraith, Orcus etc.

Now give some backup at first line, scull, and some other monster with nasty effects and here we go again. Hitting NADs is too easy to monsters at epic withou feats. Hittingem then too, but I didn't have time to make more examples. So yea, it looks problematic to me, but in the way you were trying to show. Sorry. Defense feats are must-have or must-have for people who know what are consequences of not taking them.

Originally Posted by James McMurray View Post
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.

Ha! That's _exactly_ what my players in my 3E campaign are telling me when I ask them why they never take a feat to increase their saving throws!

Probably they don't know how much impact this was having in long term. Maybe it looks weak but when you have to face one fight. If character will be hitted one time, this will not have any effects. But when hitted 100 times, it will means that 10 of this attack will be a miss, 90 still a hit.

 

[Elric]

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.

One might think WotC would fix problems through errata rather than feats, but they did create the Expertise feats which are, compared to Pre-PH II options, more overpowered than the FRW boosting feats. As I have said repeatedly, the untyped bonus on Epic FRW, like the untyped bonus on the Expertise feats, screams "math fix."

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.

You seem to have two perspectives in this thread that are hard to reconcile; first, if FRWs scaled more appropriately but the PH II FRW boosting feats didn't exist, the game would be too easy, and secondly, that it's not even clear the PHII FRW boosting feats are worth taking.

I agree with you that taking Epic [weakest FRW] alone isn't as appealing as it might be because you're so far behind by default that the first +2 bonus might be wasted much of the time because you're still only missed on a natural 1. However, due to Robust Defenses, a character spends 1 feat for +2 to each FRW, at which point even your weak FRW feat should generally be high enough that a +4 further bonus won't be wasted. For your stronger two defenses, any pluses to FRW should matter from the start. Is a +4 bonus to a FRW that will almost always matter against a relevant attack roll still too small to be taken?

Suppose that a level 30 character post-PH II spent 4 feats on Robust Defenses and Epic FRW, compared to a pre-PH II character who spent 3 feats on Great Fort/Lightning Ref/Iron Will, but benefited from a very generous house rule (+1 to FRW at levels 5/15/25, plus boosting 3 stats at 4/8 levels). Compared to the monsters over 29 levels, the post-PH II character is ahead 2 points in his two strong FRWs and behind 1 point in his weak FRW. The house rule/PH feat character is ahead 1 in all his FRWs. That means on average the characters are the same on FRW defense, and the post-PH II one has spent 1 more feat.

Take out the 4/8 third attribute bonus and the pre-PH II character ends up having spent 1 fewer feat, but with 3 points lower total FRW. So removing the PH II FRW feats and giving characters a +3 bonus to FRW doesn't leave the character who takes the Great Fort line of feats any stronger, really.

It might be the case that if you gave out +3 to FRWs and banned Robust Defenses/Epic FRW, characters would stop taking the remaining FRW boosters, and their character power would be higher than this comparison indicates. I don't see that as a bad thing, though; it means that characters don't have to expend a significant number of feats to get FRW that scales more appropriately.

Check out Adventurer's Vault.

AV has a lot of overpowered items that help trivialize the game (some of which are slowly being errata'd), but if you compare it to the PH it seems clear this was due to a lack of playtesting/bad design rather than a conscious desire to make items much more powerful than they had been in the PH. I wouldn't count the Opal Ring of Remembrance, for example, as an indication that (some) characters hit enough at high levels on their own.

 

[Bayuer]

What are you jabbering about? I'm talking about what number the monster needs to roll on a die. I'm pointing out the quite obvious fact that adding 4 to a defense does not always mean adding 4 to the number needed on the die.

Firstly, when moster have +10 adventage this means that he will no even have to make roll to see if hit can hit. But he can roll 1 with is automiss, so monster hits on 2 on die. Anyone who knows the basic rules knows that monster need 2 on die, even if his bonus to hit is huge. And I was using authit and roll 2 on die as synonym! Man. Then again, this is so obvious, and I wrote about this two times already: +6 to singe DEF from feats at epic - monster can hit you on 6! (NOT ON 8). Do you see it now? (+10 monster adventage -6 from feats = +4 adventage = 6 on die to hit!) I already did what you saying. Do I have to tell you everything? You can't figure it out from numbers? If you will not be such a "this math crunch is not including everything and I will ignore it" guy, you will look at math crunch and see that +10 monster adventage is the best as it can on 30 lvl. There can be +11 but this mean you base state connected to you lowest DEF was 10 at 1 level. Well if it is artilery it could be +13 (but this is almost not possible). And that's it! I use terms "adventage", "disadventage" to make it easier to see what huge diffrences are in the math! So, please. Don't troll here.

Another part of your post is so insulting that I don't want to make it go further and I will not go on fight with you (I know I probably should, becouse I'm nervous and don't tolerate such a behavior, but I just don't want to throw away this nice thread to trash, and make it civil war, becous of you ignorance. I was trying to not be to rude to you. My writing in english isn't good, as I posted above, so what is your probolem. Facts are to owerhelming? You must have the last word? Take a break, seriously.

Is +4 to defenses a possible fix? sure. But it's nowhere near the best one. It attempts to fix one problem (grind due to conditions) by attacking another (defenses).

Make up your mind. We from beginnig saying about this! This is the worst solution they can give to us. And what, suddenly it is a solution? Man.

It opens the game up to powergamers making untouchable PCs, doesn't help characters whose defenses are much lower than the attack bonus, and takes away from the largest source of fun threat at epic levels: damage.

O man. What untouchable characters are talking about? I see how you ignor my post now. Here, I will refres your memories:

Not taking this feats will end autohit when monster will target your weakest NAD, right? [EDIT: 2 on die (95%), happy?]
The game should be fair as possible. Now you can make you highest DEF (EDIT: When you take Robust Defesnes and Epic FRW feat) 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! (...) Now your 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.

Yeah I understand that in fact this is battle, you suddenly forgot about this. Sure, why not.

So you're assuming that the monster and PC stand next to each other, alone, and swing?

They can stand, dance, looking at vacum, reading our post etc.
Players and monster have options. Have tactic, powers, both sides can have Combat Adventage etc. And even then that will not change anything, couse the RAW math will be the same. As I said before, there are some variations in numbers but they don't have much impact on this numbers. Just think about it.

 

[James McMurray]

One might think WotC would fix problems through errata rather than feats, but they did create the Expertise feats which are, compared to Pre-PH II options, more overpowered than the FRW boosting feats. As I have said repeatedly, the untyped bonus on Epic FRW, like the untyped bonus on the Expertise feats, screams "math fix."

Even if it is, that doesn't make it the best option, merely the one they chose.

You seem to have two perspectives in this thread that are hard to reconcile; first, if FRWs scaled more appropriately but the PH II FRW boosting feats didn't exist, the game would be too easy,

Because monsters don't do enough damage when they're hitting 9 times out of 10. Make it 5 out of 10 with no other changes and the little threat we've got disappears.

and secondly, that it's not even clear the PHII FRW boosting feats are worth taking.

If, as as been said in this thread, you're going to get hit on a 2 by attacks with debilitating conditions, those feats aren't worth it. You'll still get hit on an 8 at best, and still get slapped with the conditions (most of which grant CA, meaning you're now being hit easier).

Is a +4 bonus to a FRW that will almost always matter against a relevant attack roll still too small to be taken?

If it means you're still getting hit on a 3 - 6? Definitely. At least IMO. I'd rather shore the weakness up other ways and use the feats for offence, giving my enemies fewer chances to hit me.

Suppose that a level 30 character post-PH II spent 4 feats on Robust Defenses and Epic FRW, compared to a pre-PH II character who spent 3 feats on Great Fort/Lightning Ref/Iron Will, but benefited from a very generous house rule (+1 to FRW at levels 5/15/25, plus boosting 3 stats at 4/8 levels). Compared to the monsters over 29 levels, the post-PH II character is ahead 2 points in his two strong FRWs and behind 1 point in his weak FRW. The house rule/PH feat character is ahead 1 in all his FRWs. That means on average the characters are the same on FRW defense, and the post-PH II one has spent 1 more feat.

Take out the 4/8 third attribute bonus and the pre-PH II character ends up having spent 1 fewer feat, but with 3 points lower total FRW. So removing the PH II FRW feats and giving characters a +3 bonus to FRW doesn't leave the character who takes the Great Fort line of feats any stronger, really.

It might be the case that if you gave out +3 to FRWs and banned Robust Defenses/Epic FRW, characters would stop taking the remaining FRW boosters, and their character power would be higher than this comparison indicates. I don't see that as a bad thing, though; it means that characters don't have to expend a significant number of feats to get FRW that scales more appropriately.

All very true, but there's another forum for house rules.

AV has a lot of overpowered items that help trivialize the game (some of which are slowly being errata'd), but if you compare it to the PH it seems clear this was due to a lack of playtesting/bad design rather than a conscious desire to make items much more powerful than they had been in the PH. I wouldn't count the Opal Ring of Remembrance, for example, as an indication that (some) characters hit enough at high levels on their own.

It was a direct reply to the quoted statement that items which grant defense bonuses are single use and short duration, not an attempt to use AV to prove anything about the game's math.

 

[James McMurray]

Firstly, when moster have +10 adventage this means that he will no even have to make roll to see if hit can hit. But he can roll 1 with is automiss, so monster hits on 2 on die. Anyone who knows the basic rules knows that monster need 2 on die, even if his bonus to hit is huge. And I was using authit and roll 2 on die as synonym! Man. Then again, this is so obvious, and I wrote about this two times already: +6 to singe DEF from feats at epic - monster can hit you on 6! (NOT ON 8). Do you see it now? (+10 monster adventage -6 from feats = +4 adventage = 6 on die to hit!) I already did what you saying. Do I have to tell you everything? You can't figure it out from numbers? If you will not be such a "this math crunch is not including everything and I will ignore it" guy, you will look at math crunch and see that +10 monster adventage is the best as it can on 30 lvl. There can be +11 but this mean you base state connected to you lowest DEF was 10 at 1 level. Well if it is artilery it could be +13 (but this is almost not possible). And that's it! I use terms "adventage", "disadventage" to make it easier to see what huge diffrences are in the math! So, please. Don't troll here.

LOL

If you did actually say that, then we've been in partial agreement all along. No need to get feisty. However, you may want to practice your English if you're going to get mad at people for not being able to understand you.

Another part of your post is so insulting that I don't want to make it go further and I will not go on fight with you (I know I probably should, becouse I'm nervous and don't tolerate such a behavior, but I just don't want to throw away this nice thread to trash, and make it civil war, becous of you ignorance. I was trying to not be to rude to you. My writing in english isn't good, as I posted above, so what is your probolem. Facts are to owerhelming? You must have the last word? Take a break, seriously.

There's the jabber again. Please either say what you mean or don't bother. It's hard enough slogging through your posts as it is, but I'm trying to come to an understanding here, so I do it anyway.

Make up your mind. We from beginnig saying about this! This is the worst solution they can give to us. And what, suddenly it is a solution? Man.

I give up. I have no idea what you mean.

O man. What untouchable characters are talking about? I see how you ignor my post now. Here, I will refres your memories:

Homework assignment: make a build with the highest defenses you can.

For the rest, this is my train stop, I'll get to it later if I don't forget.

 

[Bayuer]

It was a direct reply to the quoted statement that items which grant defense bonuses are single use and short duration, not an attempt to use AV to prove anything about the game's math.

And? There are some items giving +2 do single DEFs. 4E designers were saying that there will bo other magic items that will give bonuses to NADs. And they break they word. Anyway if this is an option to fix math it's still very bad, cous you lost many interesting items just to make you NADs high.

~Is +4 to defenses a possible fix? sure. But it's nowhere near the best one. It attempts to fix one problem (grind due to conditions) by attacking another (defenses).
~Make up your mind. We from beginnig saying about this! This is the worst solution they can give to us. And what, suddenly it is a solution? Man.
~I give up. I have no idea what you mean.

I mean you claim that +4 is a fix! Even not the best one. It all what I'm trying to say here. The math/grind shoudln't be fixed by any feats and this is what we have now. The Wotc should give flat +1 to all attacks/defenses other than AC at paragon and another +1 on epic. Or +1 on 5lvl, 15lvl and 25lvl and now you will need to take only one feat at 21lvl to fix you worst NAD and this will be fair solution! Maybe not perfect but much better.


@About your homework. Look above. You can find it. It's in quoted part of my previous post! You can make you NADs being hitted on 14, 11 and 6. If you use items from AC add +2 to this and you will have 16, 13 and 8. And this is heavy optimisation. You will lost 4 feats (from 18) and 3 item slots (from 7 - not including armor, weapon and neck).

Look at Naga crunch above. You can easly see that hitting NAD is not just only about effect but effects and damage and sometimes just for damage.

 

[Elric]

Even if it is, that doesn't make it the best option, merely the one they chose.

I agree. My point is that "using feats to fix the game's math problems, if it has math problems, is a bad idea; so WotC wouldn't do it, which means that the existence of these feats doesn’t indicate that WotC believes there to be math problems" isn't a good argument in light of Expertise. In light of Expertise, the untyped bonuses on Epic FRW indicate another "math fix."

Because monsters don't do enough damage when they're hitting 9 times out of 10. Make it 5 out of 10 with no other changes and the little threat we've got disappears.

This is a major exaggeration. Characters lose 2 over 29 levels vs. AC and an average of 5 over 29 levels vs. FRW (some of which doesn't matter, as you point out, because the monster already hits on a 2 and then gains further still). So if it started at 9 out of 10 and FRW scaled as well as AC does, then it would be 7.5 out of 10 for the subset of attacks that target FRW.

If it means you're still getting hit on a 3 - 6? Definitely. At least IMO. I'd rather shore the weakness up other ways and use the feats for offence, giving my enemies fewer chances to hit me.

I was trying to rule out the case where if you take Epic FRW for your weak defense, it doesn't make as much of a difference because before taking it you would have been hit on a 1 but for the auto-miss rule (edit: I see the problem: I said "matter" when I meant "matter in full"). I do think that with Robust Defenses, your weakest FRW generally won’t be so weak that you’d typically get hit on a 1 but for the auto-miss rule (at which point boosting it via Epic FRW is worth almost the full +4 value). So, you'd agree that a +4 bonus, when it applies to your stronger FRWs, which were not being hit on a 2 prior to taking said Epic FRW feat, is too large?

All very true, but there's another forum for house rules.

I thought you were arguing that an HR fix for FRW would make the game too easy, even if that fix included getting rid of the PH II feats. I used this comparison to show that the game isn't necessarily getting any easier with a house rules fix than it is by including the PH II feats.

But I might have misunderstood; are you saying that the existence of a fix to FRW, either in the form of house rules or these PH II Feats, makes the game too easy, but it isn’t going to help your weakest FRW because it will be best to take these feats to help out your strong FRWs, as the weakest one is a lost cause?

It was a direct reply to the quoted statement that items which grant defense bonuses are single use and short duration, not an attempt to use AV to prove anything about the game's math.

Well, if you think of the PH items as a baseline, then the AV items that have constantly active abilities shouldn't be greatly superior to PH items (unless you think the PH items were significantly underpowered). For example, the Shadow Band in AV is a constant defensive buff item, and it's too powerful. The game's math should not be balanced around having items of that power level. I’m inclined to say that the plethora of AV items granting static (and often untyped!) FRW bonuses are also poor design (and may also be intended as math fixes).

 

[Bayuer]

I was wonder what NADs have any given classes. I was bulding characters at 25 lvl, when NADs HIT is at +28 on Average (+30 artillery):

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
level 25
Tiefling, Warlock
Eldritch Blast: Eldritch Blast Charisma
Eldritch Pact: Infernal Pact

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 10, Con 20, Dex 13, Int 20, Wis 12, Cha 25.

Starting Ability Scores
Str 8, Con 14, Dex 11, Int 15, Wis 10, Cha 16.


AC: 27 Fort: 32 Reflex: 33 Will: 35
HP: 152 Surges: 11 Surge Value: 38

TRAINED SKILLS

FEATS

POWERS

ITEMS
Piwafwi +5
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======

FOR 4 on die; Ref 5 on die; Will 8 on die.

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
level 25
Half-Orc, Rogue
Build: Brawny Rogue
Rogue Tactics: Brutal Scoundrel

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 24, Con 12, Dex 24, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 17.

Starting Ability Scores
Str 15, Con 10, Dex 16, Int 8, Wis 11, Cha 14.


AC: 29 Fort: 34 Reflex: 36 Will: 30
HP: 144 Surges: 7 Surge Value: 36

TRAINED SKILLS
Stealth, Thievery.

FEATS

POWERS

ITEMS
Piwafwi +5
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======

FOR 6 on die; REF 8 on die; Will 2 on die

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
level 25
Human, Warlord
Commanding Presence: Inspiring Presence

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 24, Con 10, Dex 14, Int 18, Wis 12, Cha 20.

Starting Ability Scores
Str 16, Con 8, Dex 11, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 16.


AC: 26 Fort: 36 Reflex: 32 Will: 34
HP: 142 Surges: 7 Surge Value: 35

TRAINED SKILLS

FEATS

POWERS

ITEMS
Abyssal Adornment +5
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======

FOR 8 on die; REF 4 on die; Will 6 on die.
//All builds are withou DEF feats. Add Robust Defenses and Epic FRW and you will have much more resonable numbers.//

If this will be our solo naga, all hits will be at +2 bonus.
At late epic (29/30 lvl) all this rolls will need to be about 2/3 lower!
As you can easily see, this isn't just raw math and statitcs hipothesysi.
Also if you will use higher level monsters this will have much impact of hit chance (for every level higher than the party, monster gains +1 to hit; n+3 monster will have +3 to hit). This makes game more and more broken. But if you take feats the threat from the same level monster will be balanced. If you want make the monster more challenging just give the party higher level monster and all will be as you want. As for now, the math is very bad without feats. I don't know what more proofs you people need. I made some many calculations I just feel exhausted.

Huh? Do you mean "if you're still getting hit on a 7+?" I was explicitly ruling out the case where if you take Epic FRW for your weak defense, it doesn't make a difference because you still get hit on a 2. I do think that with Robust Defenses, your weakest FRW generally won’t be so weak that you’d typically get hit on a 1 but for the auto-miss rule (at which point boosting it via Epic FRW is worth something). Let me try an even simpler question, though: is a +4 bonus too large for a feat when it applies to your stronger FRWs, which were not being hit on a 2 prior to taking said Epic FRW feat?

James is forgetting that situation when you take Epic FRW feat and have almost no benefit from this feat is only on late epic (29/30 lvl). But at this point you probably taken this feat anywa and also Robust Defense. Anyway, having so low DEF will not happen offten. Much probably you will have to middle DEFs, with are just 2/3 point better, so that's don't change much (from +10 monster advenatego to single DEF, we have two DEFs with +7 monster adventage - 3 on die to hit us).

 

[James McMurray]

They can stand, dance, looking at vacum, reading our post etc.
Players and monster have options. Have tactic, powers, both sides can have Combat Adventage etc. And even then that will not change anything, couse the RAW math will be the same. As I said before, there are some variations in numbers but they don't have much impact on this numbers. Just think about it.

Ah, ok then. If tactics, powers, and positioning don't matter in your D&D you're either a troll, an idiot, or so far from my D&D that there's no wonder we aren't understanding each other. In any case, there's no point in going further, and no point in us trying to talk further. bye!

 

[James McMurray]

I agree. My point is that "using feats to fix the game's math problems, if it has math problems, is a bad idea; so WotC wouldn't do it, which means that the existence of these feats doesn’t indicate that WotC believes there to be math problems" isn't a good argument in light of Expertise. In light of Expertise, the untyped bonuses on Epic FRW indicate another "math fix."

They could be. I love to speculate on others' motives, but tend to avoid assuming I know what they were. It could just have been someone wanting to extend the paragon feats and forgetting (or purposefully omitting) the type. It could have been a crappy math fix. It could have been something slated for PHB 1 but cut in favor of more "fun" options.

I was trying to rule out the case where if you take Epic FRW for your weak defense, it doesn't make as much of a difference because before taking it you would have been hit on a 1 but for the auto-miss rule (edit: I see the problem: I said "matter" when I meant "matter in full"). I do think that with Robust Defenses, your weakest FRW generally won’t be so weak that you’d typically get hit on a 1 but for the auto-miss rule (at which point boosting it via Epic FRW is worth almost the full +4 value). So, you'd agree that a +4 bonus, when it applies to your stronger FRWs, which were not being hit on a 2 prior to taking said Epic FRW feat, is too large?

It's too large for a general rule. It could be fine (or even needed) for some characters.

I thought you were arguing that an HR fix for FRW would make the game too easy, even if that fix included getting rid of the PH II feats. I used this comparison to show that the game isn't necessarily getting any easier with a house rules fix than it is by including the PH II feats.

But I might have misunderstood; are you saying that the existence of a fix to FRW, either in the form of house rules or these PH II Feats, makes the game too easy, but it isn’t going to help your weakest FRW because it will be best to take these feats to help out your strong FRWs, as the weakest one is a lost cause?

I'm saying it depends on the house rule. These feats aren't enough, because if you're already getting hit on a two or better the difference is minor. Even if the feats do work, and fix the problem perfectlym they apply a surcharge to every epic character. That's a bad thing (as I think most here have agreed).

Well, if you think of the PH items as a baseline, then the AV items that have constantly active abilities shouldn't be greatly superior to PH items (unless you think the PH items were significantly underpowered). For example, the Shadow Band in AV is a constant defensive buff item, and it's too powerful. The game's math should not be balanced around having items of that power level. I’m inclined to say that the plethora of AV items granting static (and often untyped!) FRW bonuses are also poor design (and may also be intended as math fixes).

I don't like the AV items with constant defense buffs. They're often unnecessary at the level they're given, not flavorful enough to make them fun, smack too much of the 3.x bonus items that everyone had to have, and violate a promise made by WotC.