So, about defenses aka. PHB2 defenses feats

[James McMurray]

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.”

I'd definitely have to agree. The attacks vs. AC don't deal near enough damage to make up for the conditions imposed by most attacks against FRW. And since their secondary effects are usually a little forced movement and/or knocking prone, there's even less reason to worry about them. It takes at least 4 hits from a creature to deal as much damage as your leader will heal with a minor action, so unless you're surrounded or facing some sort of quesinart, attacks versus AC usually don't matter much.

 

[Jhaelen]

This warlord power we are talking about (that gives +4 to all defs is 29 daily so we don't have it now!).

Actually it isn't. The PHB wrongly attributes the power to the warlord. The power used in the example is 'Hallowed Ground', a cleric 16 utility power that also increases the party's attacks and saving throws by 2.

If it had been the power you mentioned, all defenses would have been 2 higher than I wrote in my previous post. But, anyway, I think you're missing the point:
This power is just an example for all the powers that will be available to a party of that level. Your math is not taking the existence of _any_ of these powers into account. In other words:

Your math only works for partys without a resource they're expected to have.

Secondly this is solo artilery so ithings get more complicated.

Actually, I think it's easier, there's fewer variables to take into account

Normal monsters team will have first line (soldiers, brutes) and second line (arilery), but that is not important. Let's crunch your example.

Well, you've been the one asking for a level 25 artillery monster. As I mentioned, there aren't any others in the MM

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.

Well, imho, real example >>> hypothetical example.

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.

I disagree. Experienced players who are tactically savy (and they will be, otherwise they wouldn't have reached level 25 in the first place!) will always use their abilities to best effect. If the fighter isn't close-up to the naga, he'll be fighting something that is an even greater threat (which in this particular example is unlikely, unless the encounter is of a significantly higher level: about level 28-29).

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.

See above.
If the party has a leader it's extremely likely they will have a power similar to the one mentioned above. If you haven't found any, you weren't looking (there are, btw. also powers that will cause additional attack penalties which serves the same effect as increasing the party's defenses AND will stack).

You're right though, that, generally, powers that have effects that last for the entire encounter will be daily powers. But:
You have a party of five characters. At level 25 each of them will have 4 daily powers and 6 utility powers which may or may not be daily powers.

Now, 4E doesn't mention how many encounters you'll typically have in a single day. In 3E it would have been 4 encounters, i.e. on average each character would have one daily and one or two utility powers left.

If they had already blown all of their daily powers it's unlikely they would have continued and thus wouldn't even have this encounter in the first place!

Finally, you're simply dismissing encounter powers. Each character will also have (at least) four encounter powers. Even if each power's effect only has a duration until end of next turn or (save ends), that's still four rounds for which your assumptions won't be correct.

Let's crunch this numbers.
[...]
Let's take form simplifiaction that other will have the same stats (they will vary in with DEF but that is not much important).

BEEP! I disagree. It's extremely important to remember that not everyone in the party will have the same weaknesses. If the party is balanced, on average, one or two characters will have REF or WILL as their highest defense.

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.

Says who?! You're forgetting the distinct advantage the party has in the number of actions over the naga. The naga's attacks have to more accurate than the party's to compensate for that! Otherwise it wouldn't do enough damage to be a threat.

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.

... which is why I didn't say, there would be 5 OAs... and, as I already mentioned: shifting to avoid AOs isn't free: it will cost the naga one of it's minor actions which it could have used for an attack. A monster that isn't attacking isn't a threat, regardless how high its to-hit chance is!

If she uses his close blast 5 attack, even fighter with his strong FOR will be hitted on 6 on die. His highest DEF!

Well, I think, hitting on 8 is probably closer to the truth, but anyway: remember, this requires a standard action and can only be used once every three rounds on average (it's recharge 5,6).

You make a very specific example here.
[...]
+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!).

And again, you're not taking into account any powers that might increase the fighter's attacks. As mentioned above, even the level 16 utility would add 2 to all attacks.

Anyway, actually, this is a closely related but different discussion. THIS thread is about the PHB defense feats, right?

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.

You cannot look at the attack bonus in isolation. Attack and damage are always related. It's why the avenger's damage output is similar to the other strikers without requiring situational bonus damage. If attack chance and damage weren't related the avenger wouldn't be a striker

The naga's damage is actually quite low compared to the damage from encounter powers available to a level 25 party. Especially the damage from its minor actions is closer to the party's at-will damage. So, since the naga has fewer actions, it _needs_ greater accuracy!

This isn't brokenness, it's balance!

Let's look at another artilery example. 24 lvl artillery - Greater Flameskull.
[...]
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.

Well, I'd rather not, at least not in this post. I'd also recommend to take advancing monsters out of the equation. I'd rather look into monsters as written, because they're closer to the designer's intent.

Yes, daze is a nasty effect. But it only affects a single character and the party will have similar effects available to them. So, unless the party's encountering more greater flameskulls than there are characters in the party, I wouldn't be overly worried.

Flameskulls also have a very distinctive weak point: they're undead. You'll probably dismiss this, because you haven't modeled this in your simplified math (and probably can't), but it's an important aspect of this particular monster. It's an easily recognizable weakness that _will_ be exploited by the party.

But this are easy monsters. Look at those who dominated/stunn/weaken and have powers like Bodak, Wraith, Orcus etc.

Yes, bodaks and wraiths are particularly nasty monsters (although they share the weakness mentioned above: they're undead).
Now the question is:
Are these monsters nasty because of broken math or because of the way these monsters have been designed?

The needlefang drake swarm is an often cited example for a (very) difficult monster. Does this have anything to do with the math? Nope.

In other words: Not all monsters are created equal. There'll always be some that are more difficult than others, so you'll have to be careful when designing encounters.

Defense feats are must-have or must-have for people who know what are consequences of not taking them.

It may be obvious by now, but for the record: I'm unconvinced

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.

Well, opinions vary on this. Many players think that the best defense is a good offense. Looking back at my experience with 3E, I'd have to agree. Is it also true for 4E, epic or no? Only time will tell.

 

[Jhaelen]

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.

Well, almost.
'The math' _seems_ to be off because it doesn't take synergy bonuses, powers, and other game mechanics at Epic level into account.

I'll say this:
If 'the math' was fine, how important would it be how good a party's tactics are? Why continue playing into epic levels if things don't get more challenging? Where's the satisfaction in a math that will make sure you're going to always win encounters without giving your very best?

My theory: The math is set up to be in favour of the pcs in the beginning of their career to make sure they'll survive into paragon levels even if they're still making bad decisions regularly. It's a safety net for inexperienced players.
It would be wrong to assume the math has to be identical in the epic tier. It's one of many reasons why new players should not start with epic characters. They need to grow into the increased challenge that is epic level play.

Now PHB2 offers a couple of feats intended for those players who prefer to have an easier time or want to start at levels that would otherwise be beyond their ability. So, in a way, it's good the feats are available, but they aren't for everyone and definitely aren't a must have.

Another point:
People have been mentioning how (in heroic level games) encounters don't really seem to be challenging (for experienced players), unless using encounter levels that are about 3-4 levels higher than the party.

Will the same be true in the epic tier? I don't think so.
And that's a good thing because there are fewer monsters available at high levels. If you wanted to create a challenging encounter for a level 30 party you'd have a problem if you had to pick level 34 monsters...

Now, obviously, I cannot prove that my assumptions are correct. Maybe you're right and the 'pre-PHB2' math in the epic tier isn't the math the designers wanted it to be. I'm fairly certain they didn't playtest the epic levels as thoroughly as heroic and paragon levels. But until we have more examples of organically grown parties and their experiences, it cannot be decided. Time will tell. Maybe the DMG2 (or DMG3) will give us more insights.

 

[Jhaelen]

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.

Well, I have yet to see a _realistic_ example of this. That this may theoretically be the case in selected, isolated situations doesn't mean it's a real problem in a real game session.
And even if it does happen: Will it really be that bad if a single monster can hit a single character's weakest defense every time? Looking back at earlier editions of the game, every character always had a weakness to certain categories of effects. It's a feature of the game that a character will always have a weakness - flawless characters are boring!
As long as not all characters have the same weakness, that's _fine_.
It will just mean, that a situation feared by one character will be no problem for another character and vice versa. It will give every character to shine in different circumstances.

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

Maybe. That would be a different way to balance things. I think it would work, too. I wouldn't mind if more monsters used this approach, as long as it's not all monsters.

 

[Bayuer]

@Jhaelen
At first the werall tactic thing is important in game, but it's not THAT important. Of course in this fight, players will have adventage, becouse it's fight 5 on 1. But when you take 5 on 5 fight things will change. I understand importance of tactic in play, but don't forget monster use tactic to. You take example from MM, fine.But this is just one example. Example that favors PCs, couse solos aren't that threat as they should be. But this is another topic.

Actually it isn't. The PHB wrongly attributes the power to the warlord. The power used in the example is 'Hallowed Ground', a cleric 16 utility power that also increases the party's attacks and saving throws by 2.

But this will we 29 lvl wher the gap is higher.
Ok. All players got +2 to all defs.

This power is just an example for all the powers that will be available to a party of that level. Your math is not taking the existence of _any_ of these powers into account. In other words:

Your math only works for partys without a resource they're expected to have.

That's is true. But even this +2 to all stats don't change much.

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).

FORT hitted on 8 (+2 monster adventage).
REF hitted on 5 (+5 monster adventage).
WILL hitted on 3 (+7 monster 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).

BEEP! I disagree. It's extremely important to remember that not everyone in the party will have the same weaknesses. If the party is balanced, on average, one or two characters will have REF or WILL as their highest defense.

And this is right. Some characters will have weak REF some FOR. Example of fighter was just for simplification.
Now player that is hitted on 3 on die in FOR (5 with mark) will take more damage. The same for REF player. And there is realy big chance to have 3 weak FOR etc. You can't tell exacly who will have what, there are too many variations in classes/races, but definitly there will be some characters that will be hitted on 3 (with Hollowe Ground) (5 with mark). And this what you and me was talking about. You didn't discover America, sorry.

Well, you've been the one asking for a level 25 artillery monster. As I mentioned, there aren't any others in the MM

So that means you are right, and I'm wrong.
What if I will say take me 24 or 26 artillery. I was talking about any late epic artillery. But if we are going to argue about such a small things, this discussion will not give us anything good.

Well, imho, real example >>> hypothetical example.

Numbers can vary but +1/-1 dosen't change anything. This is simple flawe issue or just fact of multiattack of Naga. We are talking about average so there is all ok if some numbers are +1/-1 diffrent.

I disagree. Experienced players who are tactically savy (and they will be, otherwise they wouldn't have reached level 25 in the first place!) will always use their abilities to best effect. If the fighter isn't close-up to the naga, he'll be fighting something that is an even greater threat (which in this particular example is unlikely, unless the encounter is of a significantly higher level: about level 28-29).

Fighter will probably defend weakest characters don't charge onto artillery, becouse monster first line will crush players second line. Experienced DM will use inteligent monsters as best as he can, so that dosen't change anything.

See above.
If the party has a leader it's extremely likely they will have a power similar to the one mentioned above. If you haven't found any, you weren't looking (there are, btw. also powers that will cause additional attack penalties which serves the same effect as increasing the party's defenses AND will stack).

You're right though, that, generally, powers that have effects that last for the entire encounter will be daily powers. But:
You have a party of five characters. At level 25 each of them will have 4 daily powers and 6 utility powers which may or may not be daily powers.

Ok, so give all PHB powers that bost NADs. Let's get some facts.
Hollowed Ground is 16 lvl utility daily power. Power on level where the NADs don't have big gap. So look at this level if we are saying anything about this (and other) power impact on game. Saying that this is still good power at 25 lvl is bad, becouse at this level we should have powers that gives us better bonus to defs, if your theory is right. Look at powers in PHB and show to us, that you have right. Giving one example at lower level dosen't prove anything. +2 on heroic and +2 on epic as you can see don't have the same value. And I and many people was thinking that it have, becouse the math is fair.

Only leaders will have powers that will give huge bonuses. Some classes like Swordmage, have powers that boost their NADs, but are there so many of them.

Two questions:
1. So you are saying that I need leader to play on epic? Only them have good powers that can boost PCs.
2. You are saying that if I want to be good at epic I need to take any NADs related power?

If both answers are yes, and your arguments goint into that way, I must say. This is even worst than feat tax.

Says who?! You're forgetting the distinct advantage the party has in the number of actions over the naga. The naga's attacks have to more accurate than the party's to compensate for that! Otherwise it wouldn't do enough damage to be a threat.

Call down. The solo, elitte and normal monster have the same to hit chance based on it's role and level. Don't get to flawed here. If I will place 5 monster hitting NADs, all of them will have to hit chances based on they rolle. And don't forget that even if players fighting solo, that dosen't mean that there will be no other monsters in fight. Even disgners says that solo doesen mean that this will be only monster against PCs. Anyway making such a fights isn't smart thing to do. Experiences DM knows that. Solos alone aren't so threatening.

Well, I think, hitting on 8 is probably closer to the truth, but anyway: remember, this requires a standard action and can only be used once every three rounds on average (it's recharge 5,6)

Aren't you the one who says that average calculations aren't too good? This is luck factor. But this strong attack that all PCs.

You cannot look at the attack bonus in isolation. Attack and damage are always related. It's why the avenger's damage output is similar to the other strikers without requiring situational bonus damage. If attack chance and damage weren't related the avenger wouldn't be a striker

The naga's damage is actually quite low compared to the damage from encounter powers available to a level 25 party. Especially the damage from its minor actions is closer to the party's at-will damage. So, since the naga has fewer actions, it _needs_ greater accuracy!

This isn't brokenness, it's balance!

This is false statement. You can't compare PCs average damage to monster average damage! This are two diffrent things.

Avenger isn't good at damage dealing. Look on the forums, there are better strikers than him. And striker isn't always about dmg, it's about hitting too. Look on wizards forums. Anyway, this is off-topic.

And again. Solo, elitte and normal monster have the same chance to hit based on they level and role.

Balance is the last thing that I will search in this statement.

Well, I'd rather not, at least not in this post. I'd also recommend to take advancing monsters out of the equation. I'd rather look into monsters as written, because they're closer to the designer's intent.

Yes, daze is a nasty effect. But it only affects a single character and the party will have similar effects available to them. So, unless the party's encountering more greater flameskulls than there are characters in the party, I wouldn't be overly worried.

Flameskulls also have a very distinctive weak point: they're undead. You'll probably dismiss this, because you haven't modeled this in your simplified math (and probably can't), but it's an important aspect of this particular monster. It's an easily recognizable weakness that _will_ be exploited by the party.

LOL. You joking right? Ok just normal to flameskull to hit chance. The PCs NADs on 24 level are the same as on 25lvl. So:
+27 vs. 36 - hit on 9 on die (+1 monster adventage)
+27 vs. 33 - hit on 6 on die (+4 monster adventage)
+27 vs. 29 - hit on 2 on die (+8 monster adventage)

This is single monster. Add 4 more and we can have more fun. Add 4 more and we can have hard fight. Now this will be fair fight don't you think? Stunn/dominated/weaken/restrain/ongoing damage. All easily placed by monsters...

About undead type. Withou divine character (cleric, avenger) nothing will change... This is small factor to be considered seriously. Or you're saying the cleric is the only leader woth taking.

//Sorry for my english. I didn't have time to look at post again, and as I said before. It's not my primary language.

 

[DracoSuave]

Two questions:
1. So you are saying that I need leader to play on epic? Only them have good powers that can boost PCs.

Um, yes.

You should have a leader to play in every tier, heroic, paragon, or epic. The DMG even says so, and points out that of all the roles, the leader is the least dispensible. Of -course- the game is balanced around you having one.

2. You are saying that if I want to be good at epic I need to take any NADs related power?

No, there are other ways around the same problem. But the fact is, you should -as a leader- take the powers that befit your role. Some defensive powers do help a lot.

If both answers are yes, and your arguments goint into that way, I must say. This is even worst than feat tax.

Welcome to Fourth Edition party optimization.

Avenger isn't good at damage dealing. Look on the forums, there are better strikers than him. And striker isn't always about dmg, it's about hitting too. Look on wizards forums. Anyway, this is off-topic.

Avengers do the same average damage as other strikers, -because- as you say, it's about hitting. Oath ftw.



But anyways. There's two results for a successful hit that a monster can deal to you. It can deal damage, or it can assign an effect. (or both). Let's examine both.

While monsters are more accurate at higher levels, they deal less and less of a chunk of your hit points, while the party's ability to heal those hit points grows and grows. While hits at heroic level would have knocked you down to bloodied, at epic, they might not even take you below a healing surge. As a result, they have to hit more often in order to carry the same threat value. You might disagree that this is fun, but that is what game balance is about. In return for lesser effective threat-per-hit, the monsters instead hit more often.

And effects, as previously stated, are not as much of a threat at epic levels because your party should have ways to deal with them. It might be saving throw bonuses, either through powers or through feats or both, it might be in outright condition-removal, or it might be through hit-negation. But as much as you deny it, all classes get -some- of these things, and all leaders have them in spades.

Paladins, for example, ALL have a free saving throw 1/encounter. Warlocks can have an Encounter power that reduces their target's attacks by -4 or -more- for a turn. Warlords can -at heroic- have a feat that makes -all- their Inspiring Word uses into saving throws.

And, if you actually want to go -crazy- with this.

In a party with an Elf, a Dwarf, and a Halfling, a Bard can use his power to transfer a condition from one member to another, and then give them a bonus to save against that condition equal to their Cha mod. Fear immobilizing you? Transfer it to the halfing, whose +5 to save adds into your Cha mod, giving a total of +13 to save at 30th level. That, by the way, is automatic.


'Oh, but I don't -want- to have a leader!'

Then don't. But take some of the powers in the classes that enhance their defense (and not necessarily Defenses) against these shinanegans. Your Ranger takes powers that automaticly say 'No, that actually missed me'. Your Paladin goes Charisma instead of Strength so he can use his debuff powers rather than simply Massive Damage (TM). Your wizard takes hit-debuffs.

In otherwords, you use your brain, recognize your party's weakness, and take powers that protect you from it. Which exist. In spades.

 

[Bayuer]

While monsters are more accurate at higher levels, they deal less and less of a chunk of your hit points, while the party's ability to heal those hit points grows and grows. While hits at heroic level would have knocked you down to bloodied, at epic, they might not even take you below a healing surge. As a result, they have to hit more often in order to carry the same threat value. You might disagree that this is fun, but that is what game balance is about. In return for lesser effective threat-per-hit, the monsters instead hit more often.

Not less but your leaders ability to heal is better and PCs don't lose too many hit points. And what fights are we talking about? Standard? It is obvious they are easy fights even on heroic. The problem goes live when you make a n+3/n+4 fight with n+4/n+5 monsters that hit your all NADs when they roll 3 on die... If you're still saying that this a an epic feature I will say it is worst ever made heroic game in history! It's like fighting in flooded room every time. The water comes from everywhere, there's no escape and you must knock the doors in x rounds or dead will come for you.

Also give a quotes about some facts. Where on DMG there is written you must have leader in party. I don't have too much free time to look at book and search and about avenger I was reading on WotC forum that him and barabrian are weaker strikes, but this isn't thread about that.

And effects, as previously stated, are not as much of a threat at epic levels because your party should have ways to deal with them. It might be saving throw bonuses, either through powers or through feats or both, it might be in outright condition-removal, or it might be through hit-negation. But as much as you deny it, all classes get -some- of these things, and all leaders have them in spades.

Yes they have, becouse monster have more NADs targeting powers that gives more powerfull effects. They don't need to hit offten. There can be two reasons you games aren't challenging at epic:
1) Your GM (or you as GM) don't make hard fights to your optimized party. If you have 3-4 fights in a day, whom levels are n, n+1 and maybe n+2, they will never be a threat to your party. If you will make 4 fights in a row all beginning from n+2, now we can talk! Even n+4 fight that will be only fight in a day will not be threatening, becouse players have all resources. As I said before, with my players I got through n+6 fight (the only fight in day) on 16 level, where monsters hitted my NADs almost all the time. This was the most boring fight I ever saw. It lasted for 3,5h! (3 players in party) Add 1h if this will be 5 players party. It was so boring, becouse I have almost no chances to avoid monsters NADs attacks. I have problems hitting them in response. So yes, well organized party can do almost anything, but when monster always hits you it's so wrong and not fun. Standing just there and praying to leader to give me a free save before I lose my next turn. Yeah. This is heroic game I was dreamed about.
2)You give to weak monsters and don't use many combos and combinations. You don't think what players will do in given fight, don't use terrain etc. You can make two fights in a row without an short rest, backup comes into play, artilleries are on high clif while soldiers/brutes fight the team 6m below.

Anyway I will say. More level your party have, the more easy is the game. I din't ever said the game is too hard, becous monsters hit you too often. I said that this is bad becouse they hit you too often. KarinsDad mentioned about grind and he's completly right. If monster couldn't hit you so often and you will hit them easier in response, the grind will be less factor. In fact you could thorw n+6 fights with high level monsters on party and the game will be threatening again, and not boring and long. In current situation the game is not good on epic at all. It's grindy and don't have fun factor included anymore.

Ok whe can talk about powers. Powers tax or leader tax on epic. If you must optimise every character to have more save options, give attack penalties options it makes game on epic not very varied. This is wrong too. Anyway please if you are so completly sure that powers are included in our problem make a whole list of powers that can help players on higher levels. But use PHB only, becouse you are saying core game was fine as it was. PHB2 gives us overpowered feats and could give much stronger powers/leaders.

Then don't. But take some of the powers in the classes that enhance their defense (and not necessarily Defenses) against these shinanegans. Your Ranger takes powers that automaticly say 'No, that actually missed me'. Your Paladin goes Charisma instead of Strength so he can use his debuff powers rather than simply Massive Damage (TM). Your wizard takes hit-debuffs.

Even then your resources will end sooner or later! They aren't compared to monster attack chances. Ok maybe players will have 5 round with powers that boost them. What with another 15 rounds of fight at epic? Cross fingers and pray?

This thread was about PHB2 feats. Almost none of opposite fraction ever mention about them. They are in game, they give us powerfull boost that can't be compared to anything what was in game before. If you look at Iron Will etc. and PHB2 feats the only thing you can do i just simply smile. Well if this feats aren't math fix, they are strongly overpowered. But looking at the same thing about Expertise and the gap the fit into, I must say that this looks as math fix to me. Suddenly when you take Expertise -3 gap from epic to hit chance dissaper. When you take Robust Defenses you highest DED is hitted on 10-9 on attack, middle on 7-6 and the lowest possible on 2-3 (but as I posted before there is almost not chance to have so weak NAD, we must completly forgot about it and don't invest into atribute related to this NAD, so the most offten we will be hitted on 4-5 on die with this NAD). When we take Epic feats for middle and lowest NADs, hitting chances change to 10-11 fon die for middle and 6 (or 8-9 if you don't let lowest NAD to fall much behind). So as you can see the math is good now. Too many coincidence to me.

 

[Herschel]

Insulting again? Bravo.
.......Of course if you have leader in your teamt things will be simpler, so you can play on epic only with leader in party? .....

Not exaxtly because that's but one of the options in dealing with the situation, but having a leader is very beneficial. Either have one or suffer the ramifications of your choices. It's the same thing as the thread about playing without an INT-based PC.

Every player makes choices about their character and 4E is all about working together. If players as a group choose not to have something covered, that's a "them problem". As Draco Suave and others have poinhted out, there's a lot of ways that almost auto-hit is mitigated.

 

[Elric]

My theory: The math is set up to be in favour of the pcs in the beginning of their career to make sure they'll survive into paragon levels even if they're still making bad decisions regularly. It's a safety net for inexperienced players.
It would be wrong to assume the math has to be identical in the epic tier. It's one of many reasons why new players should not start with epic characters. They need to grow into the increased challenge that is epic level play.

Now PHB2 offers a couple of feats intended for those players who prefer to have an easier time or want to start at levels that would otherwise be beyond their ability. So, in a way, it's good the feats are available, but they aren't for everyone and definitely aren't a must have.

Another point:
People have been mentioning how (in heroic level games) encounters don't really seem to be challenging (for experienced players), unless using encounter levels that are about 3-4 levels higher than the party.

Will the same be true in the epic tier? I don't think so.
And that's a good thing because there are fewer monsters available at high levels. If you wanted to create a challenging encounter for a level 30 party you'd have a problem if you had to pick level 34 monsters...

Now, obviously, I cannot prove that my assumptions are correct. Maybe you're right and the 'pre-PHB2' math in the epic tier isn't the math the designers wanted it to be. I'm fairly certain they didn't playtest the epic levels as thoroughly as heroic and paragon levels. But until we have more examples of organically grown parties and their experiences, it cannot be decided. Time will tell. Maybe the DMG2 (or DMG3) will give us more insights.

(bolding mine)

WotC is going to have an article on the Expertise feats at some point relatively soon, I believe. I would be very surprised if they gave this rationale for the feats.

"The game could use an 'easy mode', so we introduced these overpowered feats, but don't take them if you're experienced players and don't want the game to become too easy."

That said, if that was truly their rationale when they designed the feats I think they'd be reasonably likely to lie and come up with something more appealing, like "we needed a math fix and didn't want to issue errata" Still, assuming we take that article at its word, this will be settled in due time.

 

[Neubert]

What I don't like about being hit on a 2, even though it is the weakest defense, is that it simply does not feel heroic.
Of course, I wouldn't mind if a solo was targetting my lowest defense and it could hit on a 2, and perhaps even elites. But in my mind, I would have an average, standard monster hit me with roughly the following rolls:
Highest defense: 12-14
Medium defense: 9-10
Lowest defense: 5-7

In my mind, it shouldn't pay off for the monster to target my best defense, it should be at a disadvantage, whereas targetting my worst would obviously give it a better chance at hitting (though never on a 2+).