So, about defenses aka. PHB2 defenses feats

[KarinsDad]

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.

The key word here is "potential".

To get the -12, all of these have to affect the same monster simultaneously. Most encounters have multiple foes, not a solo.

But, just because I am nice, we'll assume a same level 25 solo controller, lurker, or skirmisher. We'll assume starting stat of 18 advance stat every time 25 stat (+7), +3 weapon proficiency, 1/2 level (+12) and +6 items = +28 versus (level + 16 solo) AC 41 or +25 versus other defense (level + 14 solo) 39.


Paladin Enfeebling Strike: 40% chance of success. If the Paladin marks the target, the Fighter cannot also mark the target and since I am being nice, I'll give you the 100% chance of -2 Paladin mark plus 40% chance of the Paladin Enfeebling Strike.

Fighter Mark: 0% chance of success. He cannot mark the same creature as the Paladin.

Rogue Rattling Strike: I assume you are talking about Disheartening Strike. Let's assume a 100% chance of Combat Advantage here (generous to your POV). Let's assume a Dagger (+1). 55% of -2 (but dropped 8 to 10 points of damage from Sly Flourish).

Wizard Illusionary Terrain: I assume you are talking about Illusory Ambush here. Int vs. Will. 35% of -2.

Ranger Eladrin Blade Banshee (a very specific build): 40% * 40% = 16% of -2.

Bard Vicious Mockery: Cha vs. Will. 35% of a -2.


If instead of using Encounter and Daily powers, the entire party (except the Fighter and possibly the Ranger) use At Will powers, the debuff of the solo is:

Attacking the Paladin: .4 * -2 + .55 * -2 + .35 * -2 + .16 * -2 + .35 * -2 = -3.62

Attacking anyone else without attacking the Paladin: -2 + -3.62 = -5.62.


This is against a same level solo. That is considered a standard n encounter. Not hard at all.

The problem is that except for the Fighter or Paladin mark, these penalites are conditional (and even the marks are conditional on not including the defender in the attack). They do not occur every round. In fact, even if used every round (which would not be the case), they occur in a minority of rounds.

If we do not consider a solo or an elite, then the chances of any given -2 increases by 10% due (except for Blade Banshee which increases by 8%) to the fact that such foes are at level +14 / level +12 instead. On the other hand, not all 6 PCs will be attacking the same foe either.

If we consider a higher level encounter, these odds drop.


So, the solo monster is at +3 due to the math bug and the PCs using debuffs and not other options give it -3.62 against the Paladin.

Oh wait, you wanted the Battlerager Fighter in front instead. Ok, Enfeebling Strike is 0% (only works with a Paladin mark) because only the Fighter mark forces the solo to attack the Battlerager for a result of -2.82 against the Fighter.

Your mega -12 in reality is a -2.82 and takes specific builds, actions, and level of solo to accomplish (higher level solos will not be penalized as much due to higher defenses). And in a more typical situation, not every PC is trying for a debuff (at least not in real games).


Now, what happens if there are 6 same level standard foes against 6 PCs.

6 opponents at +3 (math bug) = +18 overall versus 6 PCs that give: -2 (Fighter) -2.5 (Paladin) -1.3 (Rogue) -.9 (Wizard) -.5 (Ranger) -.9 (Bard) = +8.1 overall.

The creatures get the +3 math bug on 100% of the attacks. The PCs get the -2 debuff for many of them, only if they hit the foe.

Not looking as good with a more typical same level encounter. There are more bonuses for the foes (due to the math bug) than penalties (due to the debuffs).


And the problem becomes even more pronounced for encounters higher level than the PCs.


The math does not support your POV using YOUR selected powers and class features, even for an same level encounter (1 solo or 5 normal creatures).

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!"

Your claim, not mine. So far, -2.82 to hit on average is FAR from "can't even HIT him in the first place".

So far, you are not blowing anyone away with your examples.

Would you like to try again?

 

[Regicide]

Paladin Enfeebling Strike: 35% chance of success.

Yeaaaaah... Well in the case of "worst paladin in the world" they'll obviously want to use a different tactic.

If the Paladin marks the target, the Fighter cannot also mark the target

Those are interesting house rules. Marks overwrite.

I'm not bothering to read the rest of your post. You're obviously not playing the same game I do. Judgeing by everyone but you saying epic is easy, I'm going to go out on a limb and say, no one is.

 

[Elric]

The key word here is "potential".

To get the -12, all of these have to affect the same monster simultaneously. Most encounters have multiple foes, not a solo.

But, just because I am nice, we'll assume a same level 25 solo controller, lurker, or skirmisher. We'll assume starting stat of 18 advance stat every time 25 stat (+7), +3 weapon proficiency, 1/2 level (+11) and +6 items = +27 versus (level + 16 solo) AC 41 or +24 versus other defense (level + 14 solo) 39.

At level 25, 1/2 level is +12. However, assuming +6 items at level 25 is probably a little generous, so figure that's worth -0.5 or so Also, against most non-flying solos there should be a pretty good chance that each character has combat advantage, particularly at higher levels where mobility is greater than at lower levels and monsters are bigger, making multi-flanking easier.

Those are interesting house rules. Marks overwrite.

I'm not bothering to read the rest of your post. You're obviously not playing the same game I do. Judgeing by everyone but you saying epic is easy, I'm going to go out on a limb and say, no one is.

The fighter can mark the target and override the Paladin's mark, but Karinsdad has already given the Paladin's mark a 100% chance of success. So the fighter's chance to improve on the to-hit penalty from the Paladin's mark is indeed 0%, which is clearly what Karinsdad meant by this.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm not bothering to read the rest of your post. You're obviously not playing the same game I do.

Yes. In your game, these PCs get -12 to the solo because they all get -2, regardless of whether they hit or not.



I'd run away too if I tried to claim that the PCs could give -12 to the monster.


Note: The odds of that are: .4 * .55 * .35 * .16 *.35 * = 0.004312 or about 1 round in 232 (assuming that the Paladin marks and the creature attacks someone else).

Not good odds of it happening dude. For one thing, the PCs would not be lemmings and all be debuffing.

 

[KarinsDad]

At level 25, 1/2 level is +12. However, assuming +6 items at level 25 is probably a little generous, so figure that's worth -0.5 or so Also, against most non-flying solos there should be a pretty good chance that each character has combat advantage, particularly at higher levels where mobility is greater than at lower levels and monsters are bigger, making multi-flanking easier.

Fixed the first issue.

I used +6 items because they are possible at level 25 and I did not want to be accused of skewing the numbers in my favor. Course, such a (6 PC) group should only have 7 such +6 items when they acquired level 25 (a few more as they adventure at level 25), but 6 of those would not typically all be weapons/implements.

The second issue is debatable. Sure, it ups the odds a bit if it occurs. On the other hand, the Wizard attack is ranged, so he typically will not get CA. I gave CA to the Rogue and either the Fighter or Paladin's mark does not count. So sure, I could up the Bard, Paladin, and Ranger by 10% each (9% for the Ranger since both have to hit), but that only ups it by 29% (i.e. -.58 penalty on average).

shrug

He's still totally wrong. He barely can wipe out the math bug if 5 PCs are all trying to debuff. Let alone if any of the 5 are trying something else.

 

[Elric]

Fixed the first issue.

I used +6 items because they are possible at level 25 and I did not want to be accused of skewing the numbers in my favor. Course, such a (6 PC) group should only have 7 such +6 items when they acquired level 25 (a few more as they adventure at level 25), but 6 of those would not typically all be weapons/implements.

The second issue is debatable. Sure, it ups the odds a bit if it occurs. On the other hand, the Wizard attack is ranged, so he typically will not get CA. I gave CA to the Rogue and either the Fighter or Paladin's mark does not count. So sure, I could up the Bard, Paladin, and Ranger by 10% each (9% for the Ranger since both have to hit), but that only ups it by 29% (i.e. -.58 penalty on average).

shrug

He's still totally wrong. He barely can wipe out the math bug if 5 PCs are all trying to debuff. Let alone if any of the 5 are trying something else.

Another point I forgot to mention: the Wizard with Illusory Ambush will almost surely have Psychic Lock by epic levels, making it a -4 penalty. This is only going to add -0.7 more on average, though.

On a related note, if PCs are trying to avoid being hit vs. AC, even with a strategy of debuffs picking up +6 armor is much more effective than a +6 weapon, since with Masterwork bonuses it scales their AC ahead by 2 for light armor or 3 for heavy armor (compared to their +5 armor).

 

[KarinsDad]

Another point I forgot to mention: the Wizard with Illusory Ambush will almost surely have Psychic Lock by epic levels, making it a -4 penalty. This is only going to add -0.7 more on average, though.

True. On the other hand, a Wizard with Illusory Ambush is not even allowed in many campaigns. Several DMs I know do not allow Dragon material because it gets out of hand so easily, but I was giving him every break to prove his point.

But Vicious Mockery is also psychic, so the Bard would get it.

On a related note, if PCs are trying to avoid being hit vs. AC, even with a strategy of debuffs picking up +6 armor is much more effective than a +6 weapon, since with Masterwork bonuses it scales their AC ahead by 2 for light armor or 3 for heavy armor (compared to their +5 armor).

Yup.

Course, replacing +6 weapons/implements with +5 in order to get +6 armor instead of +5 helps AC a lot, but hurts the other three defenses when debuffing. All debuffs drop by ~0.5.

So, AC +2 or +3 becomes AC +1.5 and AC +2.5 whereas the other 3 defenses drop by 0.5 (assuming full debuff mode, -3.62 becomes -3.145). A slight gain for heavy armor, a total wash for light armor.


One of the interesting things I see about the indirect splat book fixes for the math bug are that some of them actually make the game slightly harder to play.

3 of the powers he picked were from the newer books: Disheartening Strike, Blade Banshee, and Bard Vicious Mockery. All 3 of these powers (and Illusory Ambush) require the players or DM to do bookkeeping as to whether a given foe has the penaty to hit or not.

However, these are "until the end of my next turn" type powers. These are slightly more difficult powers to keep track of.

The bookkeeping for powers which have a save is slightly easier. One puts some token on the miniature and at the end of the target's turn, the save is either successful or not. If so, the token is removed.

Powers that affect until the end of the attacker's next turn have slightly heavier bookkeeping (something that I am positive that WotC never took into account, or they would have used a different model).

The target has to keep track of WHICH opponent hit the target with each bonus, penalty, or condition.

Let's take this example here of the solo vs. the 6 PCs. The order of initiative is:

1 2 3 4 5 6 S

If every odd numbered PC succeeds with a hit that causes -2 until the end of the attacker's next turn, the solo (S) is at -6. The solo takes its turn and we are back to 1 who moves and provokes OA. Solo is at -6. Then 2 moves and provokes OA. Solo is at -4 because 1's end of turn occurred. Ditto for the rest of the PCs.

One needs to keep track of the fact that conditions or penalties 1, 3, and 5 were on the solo and what condition or penalties were caused by which PC. If the group forgets who hit, they might accidently have the solo at -6 when PC 2 provoked OA.


I noticed this phenomon when multiple NPCs who could all Daze (causing Combat Advantage) multiple PCs with area effects. Each PC could have been affected by differing actual attacks and it was important to not just bookkeep the condition, but to also bookkeep who caused the condition so that the PCs would come out of Daze at the proper time and no longer be providing CA.

When the DM's creatures have these types of powers, it is easiest if the players keep track of which creature hit them bookkeeping. When the PCs have these types of powers, it is easiest if the DM keeps track of which PC hit which NPC bookkeeping.


WotC simplified the condition system with the normal save mechanism, but actually added bookkeeping for conditions, bonuses, or penalties that occur until the end of the attacker's next turn. Opps.

 

[Bayuer]

Originally Posted by Neubert View Post
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+).

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.

You understand that this is what you get when you use PHB2 defenses feats?

Wihtout feats:
Highest defense: 8-9
Medium defense: 5-6
Lowest defense: 2

With Robust Defense and three Epic feats:
Highest defense: 14-15
Medium defense: 11-12
Lowest defense: 6-8 (becouse monster adventage is +10/+8 at the end of epic level).

And I can agree. Maybe the monsters aren't such a threat to players at epic, but this is designers misscalculations and doesn't have anything to do with the "2 on die feature of epic monsters" as the problem to solve this.

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.

So why hitting AC is at 50% chance? Most monster still hit AC on epic. Why nobody complains about that. Why monster don't need roll 2 on die to hit PCs AC? Becouse this will be broken. Hitting NADs have worst effects than hitting AC. They deal damage and gives effects. And this is epic monster feature? No way.

I agree that on epic you need to throw bigger fights on PCs becouse they have great power ther. I think that better solution is to make n+6 fights with higher level monster that can hit you at about 50% of time, than fewer monsters than can hit you on 2 on die. With option is better for players and more fun?

 

[Elric]

True. On the other hand, a Wizard with Illusory Ambush is not even allowed in many campaigns. Several DMs I know do not allow Dragon material because it gets out of hand so easily, but I was giving him every break to prove his point.

But Vicious Mockery is also psychic, so the Bard would get it.

I agree with this sentiment, but Illusory Assault is in Arcane Power, according to people who already have the book. So it's going to be pretty standard on wizard builds in the future.

Course, replacing +6 weapons/implements with +5 in order to get +6 armor instead of +5 helps AC a lot, but hurts the other three defenses when debuffing. All debuffs drop by ~0.5.

So, AC +2 or +3 becomes AC +1.5 and AC +2.5 whereas the other 3 defenses drop by 0.5 (assuming full debuff mode, -3.62 becomes -3.145). A slight gain for heavy armor, a total wash for light armor.

It's not a total wash for light armor, since AC is attacked much more often than each FRW. If AC and each FRW were attacked equally, then it would be a wash. This example is also in the case of solo opponents- in a fight against 5 opponents, the debuffs are less effective, but the armor is not.

One of the interesting things I see about the indirect splat book fixes for the math bug are that some of them actually make the game slightly harder to play....

You have a point. The powers that only inflict penalties to hit would be easier to run as (until end of monster's next turn) and wouldn't significantly impact their power. However, for powers like Daze, you generally want the effect to run until the end of the player's next turn so, among other things, the whole party (including the character who caused the effect) can get combat advantage from it.

 

[Nail]

However, these are "until the end of my next turn" type powers. These are slightly more difficult powers to keep track of.

Good point. These are becoming more and more difficult to accurately track in the games I play in. So far we've got it handled, but....

I thought 4e was supposed to be the "dumbed down" version of 3e. It's more complicated, not less.