So, about defenses aka. PHB2 defenses feats
- Thread starter Bayuer
- Start date
James McMurray
First Post
I like that idea, though we could quibble over exact numbers. To do that though, you'd have to drastically increase the damage being delivered.
WotC intent can easily be determined from the evidence.
WotC over and over again stated before the release of 4E that the sweet spot is the same no matter what level the PCs are at. They were not talking about challenge, they were talking about to hit and being hit. Go back and listen to the old podcasts.
WotC "fixed" heavy armor in AV and in PHB II for the Paragon level sag. There is a delta of 2 between pre-fix and post-fix in one case. Obviously, they want the math to be consistent.
After stating many times last year that they were not going to put many "bonuses to hit" in the game, WotC "fixed" to hit in PHB II not with one feat, but with 7 different ones (1 all of the time, 6 conditional). In PHB, there are 2 feats that are conditional IIRC.
Their to hit philosophy totally changed here.
Finally, they added a feat that adds +2 to 3 defenses (a total of +6) and three feats that add +4 to one defense and stack with anything. +4 in a D20 system is HUGE.
If this does not shout "fix" to some people, it's probably because they are not looking at the big overall picture and remembering the WotC claims and promises from nearly a year ago.
If the game system was perfect, there would be no need for errata. Obviously, no game system is perfect. Assuming that WotC "knew what they were doing" when the recent changes are in direct contradiction with their statements from last year indicates that they found a problem.
Agreed. What is more bothersome to me is that they apparently did not take out the 15 minutes to create a math spreadsheet. Otherwise, they would have found the Heavy Armor Paragon sag in 2 seconds and fixed it pre-PHB release.
Actually, it shouts "break" to me. Because they didn't put the proper caps in with stacking penalties you are now in the situation where 5 characters can each slap -2 to hit (or worse) penalties on a monster (illusionary terrain, marks from range etc). If your defenses are pushed up to needing a 10 to hit already because of these feats the monster is well and truly boned.
The synergy is epic is already utterly crazy. If the party concentrates on lowering the target's attack rolls and slaps a stoneskin on the battlerager, not only does he ignore so much damage the monster can't hurt him, but the monster can't even HIT him in the first place!
You won't see that sort of thing in LFR, but when you have a play group and they sit down and actually help each other plan their characters, you need to start tossing either a LOT of monsters at them or L+6 to even challenge them.
keterys
First Post
It would be an awful lot easier to balance things if penalties didn't stack, ever, and bonuses were a lot more strictly controlled, it's true.
Be a lot easier to have this discussion, too, since you'd be able to more easily predict the bonuses and penalties being thrown around.
Be a lot easier to have this discussion, too, since you'd be able to more easily predict the bonuses and penalties being thrown around.
You seem to be discussing this in the context of solos. I think it's pretty well known (see the thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/253587-d-d-solos-just-not-threatening.html) that solos are poorly designed in that many status effects are too effective against them, and at higher levels characters have access to many of these effects, making this a significant problem.
Additionally, AC already scales pretty well at epic levels and is by far the most attacked defense. As I have said many times, there are stronger tests of whether the game's math is off (in the PH) than whether the game becomes too easy at higher levels (edit: of course, I don't endorse the PH II feats as a good way to fix these problems).
In particular, 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 think this is mainly a problem with the Battlerager.
Last edited:
You keep making these outrageous claims.
And, you keep not supporting them.
Post the builds that can change a monster that could previously hit on a 4 can suddenly "can't even HIT him in the first place!".
Without evidence to back this hyperbole up, you are just blowing smoke here and very few people are going to take you seriously.
Post some builds. Indicate what powers that are so wonderful with respect to synergy to the point that mega-monsters suddenly cannot hit. I don't think you will (or can) do it at all, let alone be successful in doing it. But, the rest of us can wait.
Hmm, I just lost my post, so this one will be a little more brief and to the point (distant cheers of "yay!").
I think 10 for the easy defense is a little high. I am thinking of characters without any feats (Iron Will, Great Fortitude) to boost their defenses.
Of course, exact numbers would have to be determined through discussion/analysis.
Also, whatever values are chosen, I would like a little leeway for "buffs" and "debuffs" to affect defenses.
In regards to damage, I can't really comment on that, as I am sorely lacking 4e experience. My primary focus is on balance, but I have read about how easy/grindy the higher levels seem, and I am all for making it a little more challenging for the players.
I was going to suggest that elites should hit players on a roll of 2 less than a standard monster, and solo 4 less. Meaning if a standard monster would have to hit the hard/medium/easy defense on a 14/10/6 (again, example values), an elite would have to roll 12/8/4 and a solo 10/6/2.
The reason for my suggestion was that I was under the assumption that elites and solo's had a higher to-hit than average monsters. I was surprised however, when I looked through the DMG's guidelines for turning monsters into elite and solo versions, and didn't find anything to that extend. A quick lookup of the 5 level 10 soldiers (2 elite, 3 standard) in MM revealed the same.
Perhaps they should have, perhaps not. However, I believe that discussion would be off-topic.
I think 10 for the easy defense is a little high. I am thinking of characters without any feats (Iron Will, Great Fortitude) to boost their defenses.
Of course, exact numbers would have to be determined through discussion/analysis.
Also, whatever values are chosen, I would like a little leeway for "buffs" and "debuffs" to affect defenses.
In regards to damage, I can't really comment on that, as I am sorely lacking 4e experience. My primary focus is on balance, but I have read about how easy/grindy the higher levels seem, and I am all for making it a little more challenging for the players.
I was going to suggest that elites should hit players on a roll of 2 less than a standard monster, and solo 4 less. Meaning if a standard monster would have to hit the hard/medium/easy defense on a 14/10/6 (again, example values), an elite would have to roll 12/8/4 and a solo 10/6/2.
The reason for my suggestion was that I was under the assumption that elites and solo's had a higher to-hit than average monsters. I was surprised however, when I looked through the DMG's guidelines for turning monsters into elite and solo versions, and didn't find anything to that extend. A quick lookup of the 5 level 10 soldiers (2 elite, 3 standard) in MM revealed the same.
Perhaps they should have, perhaps not. However, I believe that discussion would be off-topic.
I contend you are.
What you quoted was specific and supported.
I said 10.
The ones that have actually played in epic do.
Here, because I'm so nice...
Rogue Rattling Strike (or any rattling)
Paladin Enfeebling Strike
Fighter mark
Wizard Illisionary Terrain
Blade Banshee hitting with 2 or more attacks
Bard Vicious Mockery
There is a potential -12 to hit with just class abilities or at wills. That trick costs the party NOTHING. No resources spent, no magic item bought, no feats to acquire it, no action points used, nothing, and almost all of it is available at level 1. Action points, encounter powers and the like can push that number much higher, and several of them, the rogue in particular, can push that number another -4 or -6 for attacks targeting them. Other powers such as dazing can help too.
The cheapness of that trick lets the party buy other things like AC lowering powers (much more common than lowering to-hit powers, it's practically trivial to lower AC by 10) or tricks, like... slow + push powers that slow the target then push them out of combat so they can't even fight. Stun powers to keep an opponent perma stunned etc. But that is a different topic.
Last edited:
keterys
First Post
It's the upper bound for Easy, maintaining a 4 difference between high and low under normal circumstances and 7 difference in extreme cases. That's a pretty good range. Especially since people like to use monsters higher level than the party fairly often and if it's a +3 level, then it needs at most a ~7.
So, your 1st level greatweapon fighter's Reflex is his "Easy" target and will range from 10 to 13 most likely (and that 13 is a human with 14 Dex). Attacks against Reflex from 1st level monsters will range from +2 vs. Reflex to +6 vs. Reflex, giving an overall attack range of 1st vs 1st of needing a 4 (absolute worst match) to needing a 11 (absolute best match).
In truth, this would make sense to a certain extent... after all, a level 4 elite could instead have been a level 8 normal (both 350 XP), so there's a certain implied deficit there and the math gets interesting when comparing effective hp, attacks, defenses, etc.
I suspect they wanted to give stuns and dominates and such to elites and solos without having to worry that they were overly accurate. I think they could have gotten away with it by just giving a -2 penalty to some attacks in those circumstances, but ah well.
