So, about defenses aka. PHB2 defenses feats

[KarinsDad]

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....

How do you do it? I posted a query here a month ago, but nobody responded.

So far, the best I have found is that the DM keeps track of which PC hit for the monsters and the players keep track of which monster hit for their PC.

I was hoping someone had a better, easier to use system.

 

[keterys]

I've been puzzling over durations a little bit lately myself, mostly because I hate the whole '(start/end) of (your/its) turn' notation cluttering up everywhere...

I've been thinking it might be easier/better if everything was
round = Until the end of your own next turn, usually only intended for buffs
turn = until the end of the target's next turn
save = as normal

But you'd want to change a bunch of powers I suspect... gain combat advantage for a round fine, daze a turn or saves depending on the power.

But it might be easier to just _assume_ round/turn above - at the end of your next turn you lose all buffs unless they said otherwise, and same for penalties. Then you don't need to state duration at all unless it's save, encounter, etc.

Which would be nice.

 

[Regicide]

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

Most of which is already happening because of the feats automatically. If even 2 -2's hit the monster and the players have those feats the monster's damage is cut by 2/3s. If more than 2 -2s hit the monster becomes so utterly incapable of dealing damage from attacks it poses no challenge at all.

In other words because of those feats the synergy given means that, as a DM, you need to throw about twice the number of solos at the players to deal the same amount of damage as you would before those feats.

You don't consider that broken, fine. We'll agree to disagree. I consider having to put 2x the number of opponents on the board or crank their level up significantly because players take those feats and take advantage of them to be a problem.

 

[Elric]

Most of which is already happening because of the feats automatically. If even 2 -2's hit the monster and the players have those feats the monster's damage is cut by 2/3s. If more than 2 -2s hit the monster becomes so utterly incapable of dealing damage from attacks it poses no challenge at all.

For 2 -2's hitting a monster to cause the monster to lose 2/3 of its damage, the monster would have to hit 30% before these -2 penalties were applied. That seems extremely unlikely to occur with a solo attacking FRW, even with the PH II feats allowed.

Indeed, you started with the assumption that these feats would be problematic if they pushed a monster's to-hit to hitting on a 10, which is 55% of the time, much higher than the 30% figure implied above.

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.

55% is a realistic number for average chance to get hit on FRWs by an even-level solo (with level+5 vs. FRW to hit) at level 25, if the character takes Robust Defenses and all three Epic FRW feats, and has one other relevant bonus (Heavy Shield, Human, prioritizes FRW items so he has a +6 item already).

This said, Karinsdad and I haven't been arguing in this thread that the PH II feats are a good idea; just that there is an underlying problem of FRW scaling badly against monster to-hit. I'm not defending Robust Defenses, Epic FRW, and (tangentially) Expertise as balanced feats.

You don't consider that broken, fine. We'll agree to disagree. I consider having to put 2x the number of opponents on the board or crank their level up significantly because players take those feats and take advantage of them to be a problem.

As I said when you first brought this up, AC already scales pretty well. If you have a solo that attacks AC (and AC is more attacked in the MM than FRW put together), then the PH II feats don't affect anything and the tactics you mention would be applicable to all solos that attack AC. To quote what I said then:

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.”

 

[Regicide]

For 2 -2's hitting a monster to cause the monster to lose 2/3 of its damage, the monster would have to hit 30% before these -2 penalties were applied. That seems extremely unlikely to occur with a solo attacking FRW, even with the PH II feats allowed.

After, not before. Hitting on a 5+ before feats is taken to 15+ if the players take the feats and then start using attacks that give -2 to hit for a further -4.

A monster that you'd expect would do 30 on a round that it hits goes from 24 average damage per round hitting on 5+ down to 9. The monster has become little more than a punching bag.

 

[KarinsDad]

Most of which is already happening because of the feats automatically. If even 2 -2's hit the monster and the players have those feats the monster's damage is cut by 2/3s. If more than 2 -2s hit the monster becomes so utterly incapable of dealing damage from attacks it poses no challenge at all.

Must be the advanced math here again.

-4 only cuts down damage by two thirds if the monster only hit on a 15 or higher to begin with. Since that almost never happens at high level, even with the feats, ...

Same level 25th level monsters tend to hit PC AC on an 11 (assuming best +6 PC heavy armor). There are no +4 feats for AC, hence, the best one could get this to 14 is Shield plus specialization. 15 is tough to get this to.

Same level 25th level monsters tend to hit PC NADs on a 2 through a 6. So, the two feats (+6) could get this up to an 8 to 12 range, but not 15 too often. It would never get it near 15 for higher level monsters.

In other words because of those feats the synergy given means that, as a DM, you need to throw about twice the number of solos at the players to deal the same amount of damage as you would before those feats.

You don't consider that broken, fine. We'll agree to disagree. I consider having to put 2x the number of opponents on the board or crank their level up significantly because players take those feats and take advantage of them to be a problem.

I consider two x as many monsters bad too (although it probably would not come to that, see math above). Hence, no feats. Just core fixes.

+4 on a feat is broken by definition. +6 on two feats is even worse. One PC is getting hit on a 2. Another PC is getting hit only on a 12 or even slightly higher. That's too large of a range with the feats.

 

[Elric]

After, not before. Hitting on a 5+ before feats is taken to 15+ if the players take the feats and then start using attacks that give -2 to hit for a further -4.

A monster that you'd expect would do 30 on a round that it hits goes from 24 average damage per round hitting on 5+ down to 9. The monster has become little more than a punching bag.

This is an extreme counterfactual, though. You're comparing a party that has used many more resources on abilities that are best in this exact circumstance to a party that has used none of those resources. The 5+ to 15+ math is also somewhat off in favor of the PCs, but I won't go into great detail here.

As I said when you first brought this up, AC already scales pretty well. If you have a solo that attacks AC (and the stat I've heard is that AC is more attacked in the MM than FRW put together), then the PH II feats don't affect anything. The tactics you mention are already applicable against all solos that attack AC.

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, particularly when considering solo encounters that have their own design flaws.

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.”

 

[Regicide]

As I said when you first brought this up, AC already scales pretty well. If you have a solo that attacks AC (and the stat I've heard is that AC is more attacked in the MM than FRW put together), then the PH II feats don't affect anything. The tactics you mention are already applicable against all solos that attack AC.

So basically what you're saying is that PCs being able to neuter FRW attacks don't matter because AC is attacked more.

While AC being a more common attack makes FRW defense less desirable for the cost of 2 feats you can get +2 to all and +6 to one is pretty cheap. The cost of marking an enemy or using at wills that give penalties to hit is negligible, so for opponents that rely on FRW attacks are pretty boned. I wouldn't be surprised if the +4 feats are errated to not stack with the +2 to all, because both types are too good and the combination much too good.

 

[Elric]

So basically what you're saying is that PCs being able to neuter FRW attacks don't matter because AC is attacked more.

I've said many times that I don't think these feats are balanced or an appropriate solution for FRW scaling issues. What I am saying is that 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, particularly when considering solo encounters that have their own design flaws.

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.”

 

[keterys]

Out of curiosity... do you actually play at epic, Regicide? It would be useful to know if your objections are based on your own experience or not.