So, about defenses aka. PHB2 defenses feats

[Stalker0]

James, what is your current party makeup. I'm curious to know if you have a lack of strikers, which could be the cause of grind (not excusing that mind you, just want to know).

 

[Elric]

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.

It seems quite unlikely it was an accident, given that every other feat granting just static FRW bonuses has been a feat bonus (that I'm aware of).

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).

I agree that if the monster's attack bonus=your FRW, and you get hit on a 2+, but now Epic FRW means you get hit on a 4, the feat doesn't look that attractive. I disagree that going from 95% hit to 75% hit is less improvement for a feat compared to, say, going from 70% hit to 50% hit on a strong FRW. I think once you get past the "feat lowers getting hit chance by <20 percentage points" stage, it's more valuable to boost weak FRWs than strong ones. The reason is that if a DM tends to target your weak FRW more often than your strong ones, shoring those up is more valuable by comparison.

Even if these feats worked well as a fix at epic levels (which, like most posters on this thread, I don't think they do), you'd still have the problem that PH II has changed almost nothing before level 21. By level 20, a character will have lost 5 from his weak FRW and 3 from his strong FRWs. Giving characters a major power boost from these feats at epic is a problem as well.

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.

Agreed. Having to acquire a laundry list of static buff magic items for a high level character was an incredible chore in 3.x.

 

[DracoSuave]

I still think the math isn't as simple as you're making it out to be.

Yes, that monster can automaticly dominate you. Is this as pressing a problem when your leader can automaticly remove the condition from you as a minor action, or make it so that you suffer from it a turn at most as he buffs your saving throw to crazy levels?

This is the point I'm trying to make... you -claim- the math is off, but did you take Leaders into account with this math? At first level you might just have one power that raises defenses a little, but as you gain levels, you get more and more options to adjust those defenses in a more favorable duration. Utility powers become more and more available for more and more fights, not just for the Leader, but for -everyone-. It just seems natural to take a few encounter powers amongst the party to make those conditions less painful.

Maybe the math isn't designed around a single calculation, but around the fact that 50% to dominate a player is not the same level of threat to a level 30 character as it is to a level 1. Things might -need- to hit more often to compensate for the ever increasing ability to shrug them off without a struggle.

Hell for some 30th level characters with certain reputable destinies, a monster with an encounter power ranged attack with 100% chance to hit that said 'target player dies' isn't a threat.

 

[Bayuer]

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!

Insulting again? Bravo.
Describe me what impact on game have postitiong, tactics and powers? Well to be specific, what YOU think about this. And I can understand you didn't get my joke from previous post, but man. Do you think monsters are maindless?

They will have soldiers and brutes to support second lines (artilleries etc.) what makes things even worst for players. Players can interract with monster tactic. This is so obivious again! Gain Combat Adventage, cover etc. This is can be achived by anybody in fight. Powers don't have many impact on game (bonuses they give are rare and situational), and can't be used forever. Give me some facts or I will say your'e an idiot (you proved your logic isn't too good before with topic about: 6 on die - +10 monster adventage thing).

I still think the math isn't as simple as you're making it out to be.

Yes, that monster can automaticly dominate you. Is this as pressing a problem when your leader can automaticly remove the condition from you as a minor action, or make it so that you suffer from it a turn at most as he buffs your saving throw to crazy levels?

Well I don't think I need to include all things here. I'm trying to explain to James too and I hope some of you will understand that. Of course if you have leader in your teamt things will be simpler, so you can play on epic only with leader in party? When we are on first paragon levels, leader have almost the same options with powers that gives saves as later, but the effects aren't so nasty and common. What makes epic diffren than paragon are NADs that are hitten more offten, effects are more nasty and the leader don't have much more options to give saves. Yes leader will have more options, but they are compared to frequency of NADs attacks. Less on paragon, more on epic. This doesn't mean monsters attacking NADs need more easier to hit player, becouse they will be useles. They wont. They will be still threating, but the game will be more fair.

Maybe the math isn't designed around a single calculation, but around the fact that 50% to dominate a player is not the same level of threat to a level 30 character as it is to a level 1. Things might -need- to hit more often to compensate for the ever increasing ability to shrug them off without a struggle.

I fully understand you statement (and James). Hopefuly for him you give some clear ideas, so thx for that. If designers will want to achive such a think, they must have in mind that nasty effects will make the game less fun, becouse if you will be hitted by at-will dominatings/stunned attacks the player can't do nothing and will be boring or even angry. Even when we have powers granting saves, that don't make things so simple, that you can say it is epic feature. Sooner or later options will end and the player will sit and get more bored. And don't forget about powerfull damaging attacks like with naga above that hit NADs too. Attacks hitting NADs also do nice damage and offten places some effects on PCs. And the second thing. PHB2 feats. Why they here then? For powergamers? I could agree if this could produce NADs above average, not NADs on average level.

Draco look at Naga, or sample characters I made on 25 lvl. Without feats thing aren't too good. On 30 lvl this is a completly disaster. Your heroes should get much stronger, not easier target to monsters. Well, maybe this is the reason why monsters bother to attack epic characters

So if you're right and this is realy feature of epic play (with I realy don't belive, and I'm sure thet this is just another bad math planning from WotC) you must always have leader in your party. That's not good too. In 5 players party maybe someone will play leader, but in my party where we for the most the time plays with only 3 players it's realy hard.

 

[James McMurray]

James, what is your current party makeup. I'm curious to know if you have a lack of strikers, which could be the cause of grind (not excusing that mind you, just want to know).

We haven't played in a while, and the party went through several incarnations, but they were always careful to stay balanced. IIRC, versions were:

- fighter (with near striker damage output), cleric, artificer, warlock, wizard

- fighter (same one), warlord, artificer, warlock, wizard

- swordmage, barbarian, warlord, artificer, wizard

There was never a time when a role didn't have at least one representative in the group. And the players of the fighter turned barbarian and warlock turned wizard both power gamed their characters more than I power gamed the encounters. The cleric/warlord and wizard/swordmage were about on par in terms of power gaming, and the artificer's player did the best he could with the weak playtest class he chose.

 

[James McMurray]

It seems quite unlikely it was an accident, given that every other feat granting just static FRW bonuses has been a feat bonus (that I'm aware of).

It's a possibility, but unless the designer comes forward and explains his reasoning there's little point to speculation.

I agree that if the monster's attack bonus=your FRW, and you get hit on a 2+, but now Epic FRW means you get hit on a 4, the feat doesn't look that attractive. I disagree that going from 95% hit to 75% hit is less improvement for a feat compared to, say, going from 70% hit to 50% hit on a strong FRW. I think once you get past the "feat lowers getting hit chance by <20 percentage points" stage, it's more valuable to boost weak FRWs than strong ones. The reason is that if a DM tends to target your weak FRW more often than your strong ones, shoring those up is more valuable by comparison.

Maybe it's just personal preference. I'd rather not spend an epic feat to go from "I'll get hit just about every time" to "I'll get hit almost every time." Especially when there are so many proactive choices available.

 

[KarinsDad]

I still think the math isn't as simple as you're making it out to be.

Yes, that monster can automaticly dominate you. Is this as pressing a problem when your leader can automaticly remove the condition from you as a minor action, or make it so that you suffer from it a turn at most as he buffs your saving throw to crazy levels?

Can the Leader do this every round?

Isn't it possible with multiple monsters that the Leader is needed for something else?

What if the group does not have a Leader?

What if the Leader is the first PC dominated?

Look at my signature below. It has nothing to do with Readied Actions.

It has to do with people claiming that in game solutions are the solution to mechanical problems. The in game solutions rarely work because not all situations are the same, nor are all party makeups the same.

This is the point I'm trying to make... you -claim- the math is off, but did you take Leaders into account with this math? At first level you might just have one power that raises defenses a little, but as you gain levels, you get more and more options to adjust those defenses in a more favorable duration. Utility powers become more and more available for more and more fights, not just for the Leader, but for -everyone-. It just seems natural to take a few encounter powers amongst the party to make those conditions less painful.

We are willing to discuss here. Since it is your claim that Leaders get all of these wonderful powers that adjust defenses, go do the homework to make up a list of these powers and write up what a typical leader might have in buff, debuff, and healing powers.

Then, we can sit down and see how many times a leader could actually get rid of conditions in a 20 round Epic encounter. Is it 1 round? 5 rounds? How many rounds and times a leader can actually buff. Can he give a bonus of +2? +5?

If you want to add some math to your POV to counter the known math flaws, you have to do some work instead of just making the claim without anything to back it up.

One final point. The math is off. That's a fact. What is in dispute is whether the synergy bonuses, powers, and other game mechanics at Epic level make up for the math problems.

Hell for some 30th level characters with certain reputable destinies, a monster with an encounter power ranged attack with 100% chance to hit that said 'target player dies' isn't a threat.

Until the power recharges and the PC gets hit with it a second time.

So far, you are making claims that the math is fine without any real backup. Saying that the defender can automatically fix something is flawed in that the defender might not be able to fix it.

 

[keterys]

No matter what, even if the current powers and abilities make up for the math disparity... it would be a better game if the disparity wasn't there in the first place. Hitting on 2s is just not a design feature.

Worst case, you'd be better having much less accurate monsters with Miss: effects, so that at least the roll was meaningful.

 

[Elric]

I still think the math isn't as simple as you're making it out to be.

Yes, that monster can automaticly dominate you. Is this as pressing a problem when your leader can automaticly remove the condition from you as a minor action, or make it so that you suffer from it a turn at most as he buffs your saving throw to crazy levels?

I'm most familiar with Warlords among leaders, since I've played one. Shake it Off is a level 2 encounter utility, and for a 16-18 Cha Warlord has a 70-75% chance of success at that level; scaling doesn't impact the power's overall effectiveness much. The PH Warlord doesn't have that many good powers that grant additional saving throws (some of the utilities are standard actions, which is a huge limitation). I'm not aware of any Warlord abilities that buff saves to crazy levels, except as a one-time effect.

Non-clerics lack an at-will that grants saving throws, so as combats become longer your encounter/daily powers have to cover more rounds of combat. If the monster inflicts more conditions in a combat faster than your ability to get rid of them increases, its conditions can, roughly speaking, affect the combat more and not less.

This is the point I'm trying to make... you -claim- the math is off, but did you take Leaders into account with this math? At first level you might just have one power that raises defenses a little, but as you gain levels, you get more and more options to adjust those defenses in a more favorable duration.

I didn’t take into account potential buffs in the math, and never claimed to do so. You raised this issue on the first page of the thread, and I responded there.

While it's true that there are increasing extra bonuses to hit as you gain levels, these bonuses tend to be only on encounter and daily powers (Righteous Brand is an exception and is, not coincidentally, too powerful for at-will). If you design a character who dual wields Reckless/Bloodclaw weapons with Iron Armbands of Power and the game's best multiattack powers, a few to hit bonuses is all you need, but I see AV's strongest weapons as more poor design as well.

The same applies to defensive buffs. Furthermore, as encounters become longer, short-duration encounter power effects make up a smaller proportion of each fight.

Maybe the math isn't designed around a single calculation, but around the fact that 50% to dominate a player is not the same level of threat to a level 30 character as it is to a level 1. Things might -need- to hit more often to compensate for the ever increasing ability to shrug them off without a struggle.

Let’s look at my oft-repeated hypothesis here:

"Attacks against FRW defenses become 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).

Do you think that attacks against FRW become weaker over time relative to attacks against AC in a way that compensates for the better scaling of FRW attacks? I maintain the answer to this is “no.”

 

[Bayuer]

We haven't played in a while, and the party went through several incarnations, but they were always careful to stay balanced. IIRC, versions were:

- fighter (with near striker damage output), cleric, artificer, warlock, wizard

- fighter (same one), warlord, artificer, warlock, wizard

- swordmage, barbarian, warlord, artificer, wizard

With two leaders in team I no wonder you couldn't make to much threat to you players. They have strong backup. They could go easily on epic. So if you're saying that your experience on epic is based on this teams, you can have you rights here, but that doesn't mean that everybody plays wit 2 leaders in party...

I you have only one leader or no leader at, all things get more dangerous. Playing without leader on epic could be in fact very deadly.

Originally Posted by Elric View Post
It seems quite unlikely it was an accident, given that every other feat granting just static FRW bonuses has been a feat bonus (that I'm aware of).

It's a possibility, but unless the designer comes forward and explains his reasoning there's little point to speculation.

That's true in some manner, but when you compare Epic FRW to any other feat that gives NADs bonuses, you can easily see that this bonus is huge. Making it no named bonus makes this feat more powerful. Look at Expertise. You agree that hitting chances are too low on Epic, and Expertise fix this. Using analogy, you can be pretty sure that Epic FRW are the same fix. Until Expertise we didn't have such a strong to hit feats.

Quote:
I agree that if the monster's attack bonus=your FRW, and you get hit on a 2+, but now Epic FRW means you get hit on a 4, the feat doesn't look that attractive. I disagree that going from 95% hit to 75% hit is less improvement for a feat compared to, say, going from 70% hit to 50% hit on a strong FRW. I think once you get past the "feat lowers getting hit chance by <20 percentage points" stage, it's more valuable to boost weak FRWs than strong ones. The reason is that if a DM tends to target your weak FRW more often than your strong ones, shoring those up is more valuable by comparison.

Maybe it's just personal preference. I'd rather not spend an epic feat to go from "I'll get hit just about every time" to "I'll get hit almost every time." Especially when there are so many proactive choices available.

And that's why this feats are broken. They should be incorporated to rules and the players will not have such a feelings. Anyway you will probably not end in situation where your lowest NAD is so weak, the it will be hitted on 2,3 on die, even with Epic FRW feat. In the worst case it will be 4 on die, but anyway that just prooves that there is something wrong with this feats and the math itself, just becouse such a situatuin is allowed in game.

[qupte=KarinsDad]
If you want to add some math to your POV to counter the known math flaws, you have to do some work instead of just making the claim without anything to back it up.[/quote]
+1. It is easy to say, your calculations are wrong becouse you didn't include some factors. I asked James many times, what impact on game have tactic, positioning and still didn't see the answer.

The true is that even if Drako will give us a 6 utility powers of his leader, that can give saves, the monsters target NADs more offten on epic. You can have simple analogy. On heroic monster don't target NADs offten, you have not many powers granting saves. On epic you have more powers granting saves, becouse monsters target NADs more often.

One final point. The math is off. That's a fact. What is in dispute is whether the synergy bonuses, powers, and other game mechanics at Epic level make up for the math problems.

I think, and this is my statemant, that when PCs power grows, the same thing happen to monsters strength. And the strength of monsters is: more offten NADs targeting, more HP so they can stand longer in fight. PCs gain more power to. Feats, paragon paths, magic items, epic destinies and powers. But even then they can't have at-will stunn power. This is reserved to monsters, so they can be more challanging. And I think that this scales good. Monster have auras, give penalties, monster leaders buff monsters (I wonder why anyone mentioned about this) etc. So the monsters are stronger enought without +2 hit vs. NAD. PCs resources aren't endless and sooner or later even well prepared party will kneel in front of NADs hitting monsters. And if you say that hitting the monsters is too low (and Expertise is solution), you also must understand that having Robust Defenses and Epic FRW feats, isn't there for powergamers.